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

Problem with Ave Caesar & CadenS on Jesse Dirkhising

I'm having a problem with two editors on Jesse Dirkhising, an article I've fully vetted, re-written and am trying to get to GA status. The article has been largely free of disputes and stable since the rewrite several months ago.

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

My introduction to CadenS (talk · contribs) was a bit more blunt as they were a newbie, as far as I can tell, and on the Jesse Dirkhising article they plain out just accused me of a few things and lobbed a few personal attacks my way then left the article about six months ago. We had been dialogging on their talkpage as I tried to help find them some grounding and on-wiki resources so thought that whatever hard feelings were there had dissipated. Then again within the last month or so on E.O. Green School shooting I could feel the level rise a bit and CadenS takes a bit of a dig at me and follows it a day later by accusing me and two others of "hateful attacks". No requests for explanation are answered but they seemed to be dialogging with others on their talk page so I left well enough alone. Now CadenS is back to Jesse Dirkhising and their first edits there were to change instances of gay to homosexual, which is generally considered pejorative outside a research context - for instance, it's not the "Homosexual Pride Parade" except to some conservative religious folks - it's Gay Pride. They also changed some content thus misrepresenting what the sources stated. I reverted back and point out the concerns and they respond by calling me a POV pusher. At this point Ave Caesar reverts "restoring encyclopedic language" which i revert and going back to the sources to see if there is a better way to reflect what they state I return to the article to insert a quote in hopes of resolving misrepresenting a source to find CadenS has again reverted.

I'm unsure if they are working together on purpose but they are effectively causing the article to fail the GA process for being unstable, amongst other concerns, and I see no future in trying to complete the clean-up with two users edit-warring and inserting problematic and POV language. I would appreciate others looking at this and I'm uncomfortable reverting either of them and don't see engaging them any further as a good path for me. Just writing all this up has taken away the rest of my time for editing today. I have to get some sleep but I think the above lays out what I see as the issue. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that these users should be discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. Have you contacted kotra (talk · contribs), who is CadenS's mentor? Although that is an option, I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts. CadenS is clearly passionate about gay-themed articles and has been asked to avoid them in the past, to my memory. Though his comments about E.O. Green school shooting correctly indicated the poor writing and layout of the article, the stressful way it was brought about was unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni, Benji never once initiated any type of discussion on this matter. He went and filed this report instead. Let me remind you that Mr. Benji was reverting left, right and center. How convenient to see how you leave that part out. Furthermore, Kotra did not talk me out of anything. You insinuating such a thing is insulting to both Kotra and I. And another thing, since when is rape, murder or shooting's suddenly classified as "homosexual-themed" type of articles? That's a narrow way of thinking on your part and I'm shocked that you would post such a thing here. Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I find Benj's choice of words ("they", "their", "them"), to describe me personally, as very offensive. I have a name. My name is Caden. That's C-A-D-E-N. I'm also a male. That's M-A-L-E. Therefore my gender is "he", and not "they" or "them" or "their". Got it? Now, in regards to the word "homosexual", this is the correct word to be used. It's used in the same way as the word "heterosexual" is often used. Homosexual is only considered pejorative by those who support the political correct movement. I did change some of Benji's POV content because he was misrepresenting what those sources stated. He deliberately did that to mislead the readers just like he's been doing with the E. O. article by adding the POV "see also" sections that serve his biased POV. The real issue here is the issue of POV language used by Benji and him misleading the readers by insinuating this in the main article. I also find it highly insulting that he is accusing me of working together with Ave Caesar on purpose. I've never spoken to User:Ave Caesar, and he or she has never had any contact with me. Furthermore, Benji claims I took a dig at him? Please. I was defending myself. I was replying to an attack made by him (on the E.O. page) towards me when he had the nerve to say: "Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else". I found his statement offensive, bizarre, and completely uncalled for. Caden S (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Caden: Chill, no one can tell your gender on teh Internet. A simple "Oh, btw I'm male" would have done. Your "get it?" etc is very hostile. I am sure no rudeness was intended. People on Wikipedia refer to other editors as "he" "she" and "they" almost at random it seems, and it is generally best to ignore or tactfully inform the editor using the incorrect term. As regarding "homosexual" vs. "gay" that is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article - but the parade is certainly the "gay pride" parade and not the "homosexual pride" parade, so at least one of your edits is simply wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it's me. I haven't been contacted, but as you say, all editors are responsible for their own actions (though I would appreciate it if these issues were discussed with me occasionally). I want to clear up a few things, though. Caden has already apologized for some of the issues raised above, and has voluntarily maintained long breaks from LGBT-related articles in the past. As for this recent incident (changing "gay" to "homosexual" on Jesse Dirkhising), that seems like a minor content dispute that you should discuss with each other first before bringing up here. So concerning Caden, I'm not sure what this incident report is for, since it's a minor dispute and has not yet received much discussion. Concerning Ave Caesar, I don't really have an opinion about their edits, except I very much doubt they are conspiring in any way with Caden. -kotra (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer, I'm sorry but you are so wrong. Benji knows full well that I'm a male and he knows my name very well. He and I have had conflicts in the past concerning the Dirkhising and E. O. pages. Furthermore, I know nothing about such parades and have no interest in them. And for the record, I made no edits on any parade so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, I agree with Kotra. He should of have been contacted regardless of my actions. He is my adopter. Caden S (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, did he? Still not seeing why you should bother to care. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? How would you like it if I called you "it", huh? Because that's basically how he's referring to me on this report. And that sir, is why I bother to care. Caden S (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a side-note concerning this: "I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts.". I actually disapproved of that comment, and I did not "talk him out of it". -kotra (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a content dispute and not really a matter for ANI. This should be on the discussion on the article talk page. The issue is over the inclusion of encyclopedic language. The user wishes to replace "homosexual" with the slang term "gay." --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry I see this as an editing dispute. Ave Caesar's only participation there has been disruptive, IMHO, coupled with their other, apparently anti-LGBT concerns are also alarming. With CadenS, his changing gay to homosexual, reinforced too by Ave Caesar, along with misrepresenting sources is basic vandalism that should be reverted under normal circumstances. Gay is not considered slang and that both these editors fail to see its pejorative connotations is also disquieting. That CadenS couples this with bad faith accusations and hostility aren't encouraging. Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for POV pushing. If any of the gay people involved self-identified as homosexual it's usually good to put that in the article as such. Instead mainstream society and media outlets use gay. I find having to explain this is this decade a bit odd - homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people - its use on Wikipedia is dubious - especially on biographies. I came here because I'm trying to get the article to GA, I see these two as disrupting that process. I want to nip editing warring in the bud here. Considering each of their recent actions and looking at editing histories of these two my concerns are justified. The article had been stable for six months - with gay intact - why now the interest? Why now the changes?

To CadenS specifically, you assert "Please. I was defending myself." here is the comment I made in full

“ CadenS, please stop, taking little digs at me, or anyone, isn't helping improve this article. You could have let it go with Exploding Boy's comment that indeed another person in the source stated it was likely untrue. And just as some gay kids lie about heterosexual boys, heterosexual boys lie about such things as well. Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else. People lie, let's stay on to improving the content. ”

If you felt I was attacking you I apologize, that was not my intent at all, I was trying to figure out what actionable items on that article needed to be addressed as there was a POV tag you had re-inserted and the consensus was that POV concerns had largely been addressed. -- Banjeboi 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it is an editing dispute. Therefore, it should first be discussed at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising. It is not proper to escalate it to WP:ANI until lower levels of dispute resolution have failed, as you must know. Regardless, I believe you are seeing an example of bias where there may not be one. "Homosexual" as a derisive term is very subtle and recent and depends largely on regional dialect and context. It is not unlikely that it has been used in Wikipedia bios without any actual bias intended, particularly since Wikipedia strives to be somewhat academic in tone. So I don't think there are any actionable items for an admin here. To get more eyes, WP:RFC would be the proper place. And I sympathize that this dispute has come at an inconvenient time for your GA review, but these things happen. -kotra (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, upon rereading, I now realize you mean "editing dispute" to mean "a dispute over how a user is editing", as opposed to "a dispute over particular edits". If that is what you meant, I disagree. I don't see any problem with how users are editing, except that there isn't enough discussion (which is the fault of all three parties). -kotra (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience with CadenS on this article in particular and then again on E.O. Green School shooting was generally being on the receiving end of bad faith accusations and hostility. Ave Caesar deleted talk page threads about the concern on their talkpage and never discussed any concerns except in edit summary comments. Either are welcome to engage in civil discussion on the talk page but edit-warring is unproductive and, really, do we need an RfC to confirm that homosexual is pejorative and gay should be the default? Or that we shouldn't misrepresent sources? Both have indicated they feel their edits are fine - they really aren't. I'm looking for the edit warring to stop and I've been on the talkpage consistently. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had thought the hostility at E.O. Green School shooting was over, so it surprised me that you would bring it up again here. But as for this recent dispute, I still haven't seen any discussion about it on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising, from them or you, so I guess I'm still at a loss as to why you brought this up here, without hardly discussing the issues first. And, you acknowledge that "homosexual" is not always pejorative, so perhaps it is not being used in that tone here? These things should be clarified first before one assumes bad faith; this is why I suggested RfC before ANI, if talk page discussion fails (which has still barely been explored). I think we're going in circles, though. (by the way, since blanking is usually ok on your own talk page, that particular part of Ave Caeser's behavior seems fine) -kotra (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experiences with Benji have been unpleasant. I feel he's anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian and anti-conservative due to his biased POV. I don't know what his problem is with conservatives, or Christians or even us heterosexuals. But his edits are more than clear he has some serious issues concerning the three. He often assumes bad faith and he's assuming bad faith once again by attacking my good faith edits as "vandalism". My edits are fine and have all been done in good faith. Benji's edits are questionable, in my opinion. "Gay" is a slang liberal word. "Straight" is a slang liberal word. Homosexual and heterosexual are the correct words to be used in a encyclopedia. I am not using the word "homosexual" in a pejorative way (like Benji accuses me of), and I highly doubt that Ave Caesar is using it in a negative way either. But as always, Benji assumes bad faith over any edits made by any editor who does not share his homosexual POV, regardless of the topics. I wonder why? Could it be because of his problems with heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives? He claims: "homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people". Please. That's PC nonsense and is not true. You cannot group all people together as one just so you can push your POV on here. Doesn't Benji understand that not all christians are conservative? I assure you that not all conservatives are religious. Furthermore, the slang word "gay" is a liberal mainstream word that liberal society and liberal media outlets use for political correctness. Regardless of all this, Benji's issues are focused on a individual editor's way of editing. That's bad faith on his part. It should be focused on the true issue, which is a content dispute. I don't see any problems with how I edit, nor do I see any issues with how Ave Caesar edits. I do have some serious concerns with an editor who vilifies other editors as, "they" or "their" or "them". That's extremely rude. On a final note, Benji failed to initiate discussion on the talk page. Had he done so, I would of gladly taken part. Instead he filed this report. This alone was bad faith on his part. Caden S (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you throw "liberal this" and "liberal that" and "political correctness" about, then you are showing your prejudices very clearly, thank you. Never mind what you think should be the correct wording and usage, what does the community think? This is after all a collaborative project. Black Kite 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement above shows me where your prejudices are. But yes, what does the community think should be the correct words to use? Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" is hardly a "slang liberal word". Conservatives use it as well. So does the mainstream media. I'm more interested in the terms used by reliable sources to describe the subject than in a community referendum, though. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have zero idea what my politics are. However, it is a standard Wikipedia (and general) fact that editors who rail against what they think is "political correctness" and use "liberal" in a pseudo-pejorative manner are rarely very good at editing articles in a neutral manner. Black Kite 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "gay" to refer to the LGBT community, or it's members, is entirely appropriate and is in accordance with the Wikipedia community guideline WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities that states: For people, the terms "gay" (often, but not always, used for males only) and "lesbian" (which is used for females only) are preferred over "homosexual," which has clinical associations and is often considered pejorative. However, homosexual may be used in describing people in certain instances, in particular in historical contexts. Homosexual is considered pejorative, and gay is very mainstream usage. It has nothing to do with liberal bias and it's not slang. — Becksguy (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, "gay" could still be considered slang, in the same sense that "Coke" could be considered slang for "Coca-Cola". Both terms "Coke" and "gay" are widespread, though, and much more commonly used than their alternatives. Even so, we use "Coca-Cola" instead of "Coke", though we use "gay" instead of "homosexual". I think the reason we don't use "homosexual" too is because of its pejorative meaning in many contexts. In any case, WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities is pretty clear which we should use. But back to the topic at hand, I don't think either user was trying to be disruptive or particularly POV-pushing by using the more clinical term. Many people are unaware that "homosexual" is considered pejorative. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if an editor informs you clearly that the word you're using is pejorative - perhaps your first action should not be to revert them. That just maybe if someone brings an issue to them your response should not be immediate spite, deletion or sarcasm. This is not a battleground and we can work with people even if we don't agree with them. That CadenS also chooses to add more POV and heap bad faith accusations towards me is also unhelpful. That they were misrepresenting sources also seems like a bad prospect for the article. I too had thought their hostility towards me had ended when they again lobbed a jab and personal attack me on E.O. Green School shooting - that's why I mentioned it. They also accused me and two other editors of attacking them. I didn't really see it myself but I apologized anyway as I certainly didn't mean any offense. Up above they attack me a few more times. What exactly do I do to prove I'm not anti-conservative, anti-Christians and anti-heterosexual? Ave Caesar chose to simply revert me as well, I rather doubt either of these editors really thought much but simply reverting someone they disagreed with. If they honestly think homosexual is the default word for gay and lesbian people I'm concerned what else they are changing and inserting. That neither has accepted that just maybe the choice to simply revert without discussing was a bad one also seems alarming - yes it happens but we have a pattern with each separately - unfortunately - of what certainly seems to be edit warring. That each save their most troubling conduct for LGBT-related subjects and hostility towards an editor and have no ownership of their actions bodes ill for the project. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS' behavior

• Comment. Another hostile attack this time on my talkpage. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Do I have to bring up my past ANI reports and links against CadenS or is he going to stop editing articles relating to sexuality like he promised last time to avoid a block? — Realist² 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to provide a diff or pointer to his promise to avoid these articles?

MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Here. Basically to diffuse the post I made at ANI, that would have likely resulted in Caden being blocked. He instead declared that he quit, thus making a block pointless, came back 5 hours later wanting adoption and promising to avoid sexuality articles. He was back to sexuality articles very quickly. That said, and I must stress this, Caden contributes in a very positive manner to articles unrelated to sexuality. --— Realist² 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it but my wiki stalker Realist2 is back at it sticking his nose where it don't belong. He was warned by several users in the past to stop harassing me. He agreed and promised me that he would stop. And now he's back at it with more threats. I'm fed up with you harassing me. I'm sick of you stalking me and watching my every move on Wikipedia. Get a life. Stop stalking me Realist. You have been stalking me since May 2008. Caden S (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS I'm not stalking you at all! There is a HUGE post about you at ANI. It's quite hard to avoid you know. You also broke your promise not to edit articles on sexuality. Then I see a post where you tell another editor that they disgust you. Christ CadenS, I'm not out to get you, I tried to help you the other week. I'm strongly advising you as a friend (I consider use on friendly terms) to stop editing these kinds of articles before your blocked. You are doing some wonderful work on other articles on wikipedia, but this other stuff is too much for you I think. I don't want to see you blocked, I really don't. Please calm down, before you get yourself into more trouble, please Caden. You love wikipedia (I hope), and we want you here. But you have your hot buttons for understandable reasons. Please make yourself some coffee or tea, take a chill and come back to what you do best. :-) — Realist² 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain this thread about the content dispute and the use of "gay" vs. "homosexual" did not have to come to ANI as members of WP:LGBT would argue about this, but Caden's posts must be addressed. Caden is an impulsive editor who allows his past experience to color his responses, which are disproportionately vehement in the scheme of natural discussion and disagreement editors have over article content. He has posted before that he has had a traumatic experience with gay men in the past, but his trauma should not define how editors communicate about problems within an article. In short, he's making his problems everyone else's problems. It sucks time away from what needs to be done to an article, and requires further intervention by his mentor kotra (talk · contribs). I can only imagine how draining this must be for kotra to have to calm Caden down this frequently. This diff provided by Benji regarding Caden's umbrage taken to non-gendered pronouns is a prime example. I can't think getting this stressed out is fun for Caden, and I suggest taking a break and doing something else that is much more enjoyable. The bottom line, however, is that other editors should not be forced to avoid his temper, especially when it's this unpredictable. He needs to take some responsibility for his behavior, tone it down, drop out of LGBT articles, and come back when he behave calmly and dispassionately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Moni's assessment here - it's disappointing to see the same user here again for the same thing, as I remember the original AN/I from a few months ago quite well, and the promise made which essentially got him out of that one (noting I don't edit in the area but do watch AN/I fairly consistently and have done so for almost two years). Orderinchaos 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing all of this, I'm afraid that I agree that Caden's temper flares when working on sexuality-related articles. That said, I just want to note that he has sometimes been a positive help on these sexuality-related articles, but unfortunately I'm not sure if it's worth all the anger and fighting behind the scenes. So I would be ok with a restriction on articles about sexuality. I agree with Realist, though, that he has usually been very helpful and an asset to the community on other articles, and his behavior had improved greatly until this recent flare-up. So I would support a topic restriction, but in the interests of the project, not a complete block. -kotra (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As his mentor, I'm glad you suggested a possible solution that was also at the back of my mind. I think a sexuality topic ban is not necessary at this stage. Caden has every right to feel the way he does, but if he can't keep his feelings from disrupting the project in future, I think implementing such a ban is the next step, if only on a temporary basis. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SheffieldSteel! Yes, I do have every right to feel the way I do, but many editors have attempted to strip me of my rights. At least that's how it appears to me. In regards to why my temper flared, it had nothing to do with the article content dispute. It was based on Benji's offensive description of me in all posts (as "they", "their" and "them"). I asked him many times as did my adopter, for him to refrain from describing me in gender-neutral languge. He has continued to disrespect my wishes nevertheless. A sexuality topic ban, or even a restriction on articles about sexuality is not necessary. My work on these articles speak for itself. If it weren't for me, both the E. O. Green School article and the Jesse Dirkhising article would not be NPOV. There are few POV issues still remaining on the Dirkhising page. Regardless of that, I fought hard against many POV pushers to save these articles and my good edits reflect that. Although those editors created an extremely stressful environment for me and painted me as the bad guy, I'm proud that I did what was right according to NPOV policy. I'm proud that I have the balls to speak up, the courage to be bold, and the strength to take action by doing what's right. Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a temporary topic restriction should go ahead, Kotra and even Caden himself seem to think it's probably for the best. We had a similar ANI post a few months ago, Caden said he would stay away from sexuality articles then, yet somehow we are back here. Caden has taken multiple cool of breaks (that last for weeks at a time) in the past yet things soon heat up again. Caden's talents as an editor should be kept to what he does best on other articles, without these other articles as a distraction. We really don't want another overblown ANI episode in the future, something I fear will put Caden off any interest in wikipedia. — Realist² 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist, please do not speak for me on my behalf. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been contacted by any admin, therefore I have no clue what options are available to me. Caden S (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider here, it seems obviously better all round if Caden avoids topics that wind him up, however justified the reasoning, and in the long run it's better that he does that of his own accord than have it forced upon him. There are topics I specifically avoid because I know I'd only get het up, and to reduce the risk of threads such as this, er, um, I don't go there. Caden, whatever your past, its a cliche to say that "Wikipedia is not therapy", and neither (to a lesser extent) is it a soapbox for anger. Two and a half million articles should give you plenty to do. Your edits are generally good, from what I've seen, and you just need to point those talents to where they'll make you feel appreciated in the right kind of way. You have good guys on your side here; time is one healer, but doing something else is another, particularly if you've got people batting on your side. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, I can see your point on this but I disagree with you. If I were to avoid these type of topics, they would end up being the horribly biased and POV articles they once were before I fought for them to be NPOV. However justified my feelings are concerning these subjects, the articles do not wind me up. It's some of the editors on those pages that get me going, like for example Benji. But I'm working on keeping my cool even when I'm personally attacked, which has been often. I do agree with you that it's better that I choose on my own accord, whether I shouldn't work on these articles or not, instead of it being forced upon me. I am open to feedback and suggestions though. As for working on other articles, I do work on many unrelated type of articles. I enjoy doing so. But as it stands today, I'm not sure what's going to happen with me or this ANI report. I'm not even sure why Moni went and shifted the spotlight from the original content dispute (of which this report is supposed to be about) to my behavior. I have a lot of questions but no answers. Am I going to be blocked or not? Am I going to be given a topic restriction or not? Why is the content dispute not being discussed anymore? What about the other editor Ave Caesar? This ANI was filed against this editor as well, not just me. Why am I being singled out? Why has the real issue here (the content dispute) been forgotten? Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, what worries me is that I doubt you are sufficiently disinterested to preserve NPOV, and that is why I think you should avoid those articles, for the very reason that this thread came to be. Up to you, of course. --Rodhullandemu 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There's several categories of articles I never go anywhere near for that exact reason - I know that no matter how good my intentions, my personal opinions on the area are so strong that I know I could not be neutral and hence it is best left to others who are. Orderinchaos 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

L::Well, User:Mastcell has suggested a restriction, at this point though what's most important is ensuring that we don't have another ANI thread like this. This is the second and I'm not sure the community will tolerate a third incident like this. We should be looking to help Caden make the most of his abilities without all this other stuff muddying it up. If a restriction is the best way to prevent that, who knows. — Realist² 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, you didn't answer any of my questions. Furthermore, this report is not about just me. It was filed against another editor as well. And Realist, this report is not about me. I already told you this before. Caden S (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. The other user - Ave Caesar - basically only reverted and I personally saw their contributions there as disruptive although generally adding tags is usually helpful. That they reverted without discussing and in doing so restored pejorative language and content not supported by sources was also not great. They seemed to be following your lead but in doing so affirmed they felt those edits were correct, they weren't. However, your actions coupled with your previous talkpage conduct and given the recent issues on E.O. Green School shooting put you on a more prominent level. That you interpret my nearly universal use of gender-neutral language as a personal attack against you was news to me. That you coupled that with another personal attack against me didn't help. The issue from the beginning was two editors' conduct on the article using content examples to illustrate the problem. I've held off reverting the problematic changes - switching gay to homosexual and adding an extra molestation in, etc - as well as fixing the refs until I know things are more resolved. Just to be absolutely clear, I don't believe I've ever attack you but if you felt attacked then I apologize as that was never my interest or intent. -- Banjeboi 12:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring this page is hardly a great demonstration at this point. [1] Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Options

As CadenS's Adopter, I have been asked to impose whatever restrictions I feel are appropriate. However, due to my status as Adopter, I feel I am too involved to make the decision on my own. Therefore, I would appreciate input and/or a decision from other editors, particularly uninvolved editors and administrators. The options I see are as follows (please suggest any others you feel are appropriate):

1. Do nothing (assumes CadenS is not at fault).
2. Continue to urge CadenS to assume good faith and remain civil in disputes with editors.
3. Recruit an additional mentor to help guide CadenS.
4. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on Jesse Dirkhising.
5. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on Jesse Dirkhising.
6. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles (including E.O. Green School shooting and Jesse Dirkhising).
7. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles.
8. Temporary/permanent block. (above discussion seems to indicate consensus is against this)

Whatever the restrictions meted out, both CadenS and I would prefer the decision be made sooner rather than later. So please comment! -kotra (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel I'm too close to this as well so would prefer others input here. CadenS has genuinely good feedback and concerns but they need to be dialed down - we can disagree without being disagreeable. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say a voluntary topic ban, but actually Kotra has come up with the idea of an extra mentor. I think two mentors is bound to be better than one and could help. I think an additional mentor is the best way to go 100%. I recently saw some of CadenS comments at an RfA and he's even passing on advise about civility in a brilliant manner to other people. This proves Caden has and will continue to learn from mistakes. With guidance he will be a strong asset. — Realist² 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ave Caesar's behavior

We seem to have been distracted from the other user in this report. Only a few of the issues with Ave Caesar have yet been addressed, so for the purpose of discussion, I'm copying Benji's original report on Ave Caesar below:

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

Is there anything that needs to be addressed here? -kotra (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• IMO - Caden needs to stop letting his POV influence his editing, and Ave Caesar needs to stop being a WP:DICK - that MfD of the memorial page was particularly dickish. If they can manage both of those things, we can close this, I think - there's no need for prescriptive blocks or topic bans yet. Black Kite 10:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual is a more formal word than gay, and I expect it would be used more in encyclopedias etc. I've not read all the ins and outs of the discussion, but I would like to disagree with the claim that 'homosexual' is always a slur word- it's more often just a formal word. And I'm a bisexual woman so I'm not being shockingly homophobic by saying that.:) It does sound like Benji was trying to get Corden into trouble by posting here, but no-one could really deny that AC's attempt to delete the memorial page was wrong. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's stay on topic here (just to be clear, I'm not singling out Sticky Parkin). This section is only about Ave Caesar, not CadenS. There is another section above to discuss CadenS. -kotra (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat - cross posted from WP:AIV

Suicide announcement?

I don't know if this is serious or just a hoax: [2]. But you never know. The IP is registered to St. John's Memorial University, St. John's, NFL, Canada. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have some framework in place to deal with these things but I can't remember what it is. Perhaps someone in the area should phone the uni, just in case. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases WP:RBI. D.M.N. (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the possibly less harmful and lifesaving Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that too, sent an email to the NFL Constabulary, maybe that helps. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That likely wraps it up. Nothing more we can do here except move on. Cheers, guys, and good work. lifebaka++ 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We probably want the edit deleted from non admin viewable history, but we'll probably need an oversighter to do it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sent an email to stewards AT wikimedia.org, so it'll either get taken care of or not. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely to NOT WP:RBI this. There has been a specific threat of violence made and pursuant to WP:TOV this should be taken seriously and reported to the authorities. I am currently on a bus from Boston to New York so cannot do this. Can someone please take point on this? Bstone (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a moment to set up a subpage, with two active threads this is getting to damned confusing.

FYI, action has already been taken - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide_threat_-_cross_posted_from_WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not suggest to use RBI, instead contacting local users so effective measures can be taken. Caulde 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be helfpul: Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals --Flewis^(talk) 03:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat - cross posted from WP:AIV

Resolved

 – authorities notified Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

134.153.184.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has threatened to commit suicide. The Whois look up indicates the address is registered to a university in Newfoundland. I've emailed the university and the Wikimedia foundation, however I'm not based in North America, and would be grateful if someone could phone the Canadian emergency services. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:TOV, if anyone finds these threats of suicide credible, please feel free to contact the relevant authorities. I have blocked the IP for the vandalism, but have not taken any additional action myself. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reported this one level above on this noticeboard. An email was sent to the Newfoundland Constabulary and to the Wikimedia foundation (who just replied that they're going to monitor this). De728631 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The AN thread resulted in the local government being emailed, so there's nothing else we can do here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I also followed up via email with the IT department at that university. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See dup thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_announcement.3F. Cirt (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unified

This is now a transcluded so both pages are up to date simulatiniously--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

I have been asked to oversight the revision concerned here. I have declined to do so, with the advice of some other Oversighters, on the grounds that it may be helpful for ISP/authorities to see the revision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we have it deleted/oversighted sometime in the future? --Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No point, I think. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see why this should ever be oversighted. If blatant vandalism is not oversighted or deleted than things which the authorities may need access to should certainly not be oversighted. Bstone (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the Threats of harm essay above suggests deleting, not oversighting the offending edit. Usually to avoid people doing something really stupid misguided with a potentially suicidal person.--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of confusing jargon

Why do we call it oversight? Oversight usually means some sort of independent review or process, often to try to keep people honest. Wikipedia usage of oversight really means "Removal", "Content deletion" or "Censor" (censorship doesn't need to be bad; some countries have a censorship board). Propose making Wikipedia more user friendly and less jargon by renaming the term "oversight" to "content removal" or "remove". So the first sentence of this section would read "I have been asked to do content removal of the revision concerned here" or "I have been asked to remove the revision concerned here". 903M (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to seem like I'm muting discussion here or anything, but you probably should head over to WP:VPP for things like this. You'll get a much wider group of editors there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget where I read this, but IIRC, the name came from the fact that all members can hide revisions and also see those hidden revisions, thereby providing oversight of each other to ensure that no one is hiding revisions that don't need to be hidden or hiding them for ulterior motives. Or it may have been that a narrow group had that oversight role and more could hide revisions, but now the groups are congruent and inseparable.--chaser - t 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I've always looked at it is since the GFDL requires attribution of all edits, exercising this tool is sort of "overlooking" that license, as we're deleting part of the history. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with it (admins can do that with deletion and selective diff restoraton).--chaser - t 06:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL also only requires us to have the major contributors. Almost universally when we oversight whatever is left has little to no contribution from the edits in question. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed on abuse reporting

Hi, chaps. I'd like some advice on what do with banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Jakey's a pro-Soviet POV-pusher who got banned way back in the day for monomaniacal nuttery and has since been socking merrily ever since (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). He just made a reappearance on Vladimir Lenin - up to his old tricks.

For a while now, Jakey seems to have become very reliant on the IPs of the California State University network: specifically, those belonging to Glendale Community College (California), where he is apparently an undergraduate (heaven help us). This has caused me to apply some very serious blocks, effectively shutting out the whole college. The IPs in question are 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), coming to the end of a year-long account-creation-blocked logged-in editing-prohibited block, 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) approaching the end of an identical block, and 204.102.210.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), currently out of play for a month. A shame, because even from the IPs we were getting some good non-Jacob contributions (along with the inevitable vandalism). Is it worth someone phoning up the college and seeing if they're willing to deal with this persistent abuse of their network? Or would they view it as none of their business? I don't have a real name to give them, but they could easily figure it out from the editing times, I'm sure. Moreschi (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to Cal State, and those librarians ain't exactly super-sleuths. Plus, you don't even need to use your student ID to use most of the computers, so I really doubt they would do anything about it. I can't really picture them poring over security tapes. I don't have much of an opinion about the blocks—if I had my way, no IPs would edit—but that's my two cents about the phone call, at least. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They might be able to do something, might not. No harm in calling. It really depends on the attitude at that college. Maybe they'll do something when enough students whine that the whole campus is blocked from Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"if I had my way, no IPs would edit" - Hear, hear! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot if IP edits on my watch list every day, and I'm always pleasantly surprised when one of them turns out not to be either blatant vandalism or English-as-a-third-language content. The attitude of the average IP address is "IP on U". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree strongly on IPs in general. (Though this one certainly deserves it.) Sure, some IPs vandalize, but often as not they're reverted by other IPs. I see far more problems from registered users - hoaxes, attack pages, blatant POV pushing, edit warring, etc. Just take a look at this incident page - almost every problem on it is a registered user, not an IP. Edward321 (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because IP's come and go, and it's easier to deal with (and block) registered users. The majority of IP address updates I see on my watch list every day are junk, one way or another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

BB: I don't know if I'd subscribe to "majority", but I notice that I cringe a bit when I see an IP edit on my watchlist and, like you, I am pleased at those that turn out to be constructive. Maybe I'll start putting a note on those IPs, thanking them for their contribution and suggesting that they register - it would be a welcome respite from posting warnings. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to admit though, 'majority' or not, it is always nice to see a random IP behaving itself. HalfShadow 22:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a substitutable template that urges good-edit IPs to register Template:Register Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember, one of those anon IPs is Ward Cunningham. Why does he edit Wikipedia without using an account? In his own words: "Because I can." -- llywrch (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse again

Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is no longer using his Lightbot to remove links to dates, but is now doing it using AWB. He still refuses to discuss this. Corvus cornix_talk 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop using AWB in this manner until he has discussed the issue with the community. Since his bot was halted for this kind of behavior, using AWB or other scripts to perform the same kinds of edits is unhelpful and inappropriate and might even be construed as disruptive. If he continues to edit in this fashion without addressing the concerns of the community, additional warnings regarding the behavior may be appropriate. Shereth 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit shows the reckless use of a bot without regard for the proper date format for the article being edited. This user must be blocked. Lightbot should be blocked indefinitely --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard, here. I dont' actually have a big problem with a semi-automated script as long as discretion is being applied. Most dates should probably be unlinked. It's only the automated unlinking of all dates (and reformatting of dates/units/etc. in quotes, etc.) that I think is the issue. Still, it would be nice if this editor would respond in some way to the concerns that have been expressed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down! Lightmouse hasn't used his bot since it was stopped, and he appears to have stopped using AWB as requested when I left the comment on his talk page. It's unfortunate that he appears uninterested in discussing the situation here (or anywhere) but so far he's complied with requests to stop making these edits and this talk about blocking is, at this point, quite unecessary. Shereth 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If not blocking then at least his permission to use AWB should be revoked. This is looks fully automated to me. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. Even if I agreed that there was something wrong with the edits, he hasn't used it since Shereth asked him to stop. There's no reason to block or revoke privileges or anything like that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, he stopped doing it as requested. We don't use blocks and the like to punish, we use them to prevent - and at the moment, it appears that Lightmouse is not out to cause trouble and thus there is no bad behavior to "prevent". It'd be one thing if he ignored us and just went along with these edits, but he stopped. What's the rush to punish? Shereth 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My thankfully limited experience with Lightmouse has been that, as with Betacommand, it's his way or the highway. Where do these characters come from? And what's more important, who turns them loose here to do whatever they feel like, including not bothering to answer questions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider this closed if Lightmouse has stopped editing dates, however I will point out that the link posted above shows that he was not just delinking dates; he was changing from one style to another, from "August 24, 1814" to "24 August 1814". This is the equivalent of switching era styles (CE to AD) or from British to American spelling (colour to color) or vice versa without a substantive reason. This is strongly discouraged by the relevant guidelines. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found a clear example of where the bot operated by Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is not behaving in accordance with the manual of style [3]. This diff [4] to British Rail shows a clear change of a date that was in the correct format. Lightmouse must explain why a date that is compliant with the manual of style was changed, else the bot must be permanently stopped and Lightmouse given a temporary block as punishment. Olana North (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how that is a "clear example", considering all that was done was removing the autoformatting. It was left in British style of date formatting, as per MoS. Am I missing something? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olana North's complaint has no merit whatsoever. Thie date in question was in UK (dmy) format, and linked for autoformatting. All Lightmouse did was to remove the autoformatting, entirely in conformance with the manual of style, which deprecates autoformatting. The date is still in UK format. There is no case to answer. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like a debate about the Manual of Style. I am not sure if ANI is a place where the MoS can be redebated but this is what it says:

• Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a particular reason to do so
• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.

Discussion of the meaning of those words is best undertaken at wt:mosnum. That way, you won't just get my opinion.

With respect to the example of 'Burning of Washington' given by Steven J. Anderson, I agree that it should have been in US format. There are several editors on Wikipedia that are working to clean up the mess left by date links (they conceal inconsistent and wrong-side formats from registered editors but leave them visible to ordinary readers). One part of that work is auditing date links in articles and making the dates consistent. This involves choosing one format or the other depending on the MoS guidelines for mdy or dmy format. In that case, it came up in a search for articles containing 'British' in the title (and hence likely to require auditing to dmy format) as a redirect. It was incorrectly set to dmy and you are quite right to say it should be mdy.

With respect to the example of 'British Rail' given by Olana, Lightbot delinked '2001'. Lightmouse delinked '1 January 1948'. If those are not in accordance with the Manual of Style, then perhaps Olana and I have different views on the Manual of Style. I am under the impression that debates about MoS wording are best dealt with at the MoS talk page rather than at ANI.

Having done 300,000 edits relating to the MOS, it is inevitable that some people want to debate the MoS with me. I have probably spoken about date links and MoS wording on more occasions and with more people than anyone here. I am reluctant to stop editing just because some people regard the MoS as unfinished business - the MoS is always unfinished business - so is Wikipedia. I really strongly encourage people to debate MoS implementation at the MoS talk page. Is this an ANI issue? Lightmouse (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, thank you for the response. I know several people, myself included, have been concerned by what seemed to be a lack of communication on your part. I agree that discussions of the manual of style are best handled there, but what is appropriate to discuss here are your actions related to the MOS and linked dates. What is troubling is that in neither case do the guidelines above completely support your actions.

For your first point, the key phrase is "unless there is a particular reason to do so". Without engaging the editors involved with articles with linked years, there is no way for you (or your script, or your bot, Lightbot) of knowing whether or not the linking has a particular reason.

For your second item: deprecation of auto-formatted dates does not equal their prohibition. There are compelling reasons to not auto-format dates, which is why they are now deprecated by the MOS. But I have not seen any consensus for immediate, mass-removal of auto-formatted dates. Further, to tie your two reasons together, there is no way for a bot or a script to tell if a date is "merely" auto-formatted or if there is "a particular reason" for its linking.

There's an somewhat disturbing old bumper sticker/t-shirt slogan (of which I am not very fond) that usually says something along the lines of "kill them all and let God sort them out". Regrettably, that seems to summarize your approach to your MOS date-related edits, an approach that some people find disruptive. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think this is more about being perceived as over-keen to enforce the MoS, than the MoS itself. I recently had to head off an impending edit-war caused by Lightbot delinking not only formatted dates (no problem there), but wikilinked 'year-on-TV' dates too. This was, in my view, an unnecessary aggravation. If some linked dates remain in an article for now, so what? It's really not a big deal; I seriously doubt if a single WP reader would care or even notice. However, causing needless conflict amongst those who write the encyclopedia is a big deal, when it can be avoided with a little tact and forethought ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is not programmed to delink autoformatted dates so I am bit puzzled by your suggestion that it did. Please can you give me a link and I will investigate. With regard to 'year-in-X' links, they are often concealed to look like solitary years, or concealed within full dates so that they break autoformatting. Some editors had, reasonably, considered that solitary years are not as useful as targetted years but in many cases had simply replaced solitary years with a concealed link. Many projects recommend that 'year-in-X' dates are not hidden so that the reader only sees yet another blue solitary year. One recommendation is to make it visible by showing at least one non-date term to the reader, and the MoS is considering the same. If a link looks like a solitary year, it readers will treat it just like one. Consequently Lightbot did delink concealed links on the basis that they were just as likely to be ignored as solitary years. However, that feature has been switched off. Some year-in-X links actually break autoformatting and that is an extremely common error and that error-correction feature remains switched on. I wish some of the energy that was directed into keeping date links was directed into fixing the errors and inconsistencies it causes. I know that people like to ask me lots of questions, particularly if they disagree with the MoS or its implementation. I have probably expended more effort communicating about this issue, and to more people, than anyone here. Whether this is about the history of MoS text, the text itself, or the legitimacy of acting on MoS text, I am not the spokesperson for the MoS and sometimes it feels like people treat me as if I am. I still feel like this is all MoS talk. Is this an ANI issue? Lightmouse (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: What I'm speaking of above is directed at Lightmouse, the person, who controls both the account User:Lightmouse and the bot User:Lightbot. I know that he/she is very precise about which one has performed specific actions, but I'm speaking of the combined effects of both accounts. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And as an FYI, he is again actively removing date links through User:Lightmouse account and AWB. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an ANI issue because the primary concern is the method of enforcement of the MOS. If nothing else, the MOS is a style guideline and its application is thus open to debate and consideration. Furthermore, MOSNUM itself explicitly creates room for exceptions to the rule - linked dates are not always subject to unlinking per the guideline. Currently you are using AWB to make semi-automated edits to this effect at the rate of about 4 per minute, or once every 15 seconds. Do you mean to tell me that in a 15 second timespan, you have adequate time to load the page, read it over to contextually determine whether unlinking is necessary, and perform the edit? I think not. Your strict and unconsidered enforcement of MOSNUM is what is causing issues with editors. Again I will ask you to refrain from this behavior - while there is an open debate regarding the method of enforcement, it is not appropriate to continue to do so. Shereth 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC is the best way to handle this? — ras52 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions have brought up the possibility of an RFC on the bot. I think it would be an excellent way to clear up the confusion on how Lightmouse is choosing to enforce MOSNUM and get a better idea of how the community feels regarding the issue. Shereth 16:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olana North provides this example of an edit that does nothing about except remove autoformatting. This could be brushed off as a MOSNUM issue, or issue about how quickly statements in the MOSNUM should be carried out, except that Lightmouse state above "Lightbot is not programmed to delink autoformatted dates". Now, the edit was made by Lightmouse (using AWB), not Lightbot, but this action suggest that Lightmouse is not fully in control of, or does not fully understand the operation of the bots he is using, which is an ANI issue. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the example of 'British Rail' given by Ashton, I delinked '1 January 1948' deliberately. What is wrong with that? Have a cup of tea guys. Lightmouse (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse managed to make 8 edits during the minute 22:25, 25 September 2008. He sure deliberates a lot faster than I do. Perhaps what he realy decided was that the AWB bot should process a list of articles he had compiled, on the basis that that the word "British" was in the title, remove all date links in those articles, and put all dates in those articles in the order day month year. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue with the MOS. This is an issue with Lightbot. There is no consensus at MOS or anywhere else that all dates, whatever the format, should be unlinked. There is a consensus that dates should not be linked unless there is a reason to do so. "reason to do so" is something that can only be determined by a human being, not a bot. Also, please clarify: does your bot make format edits to direct quotes, categories, and other non-prose sections? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Note related discussion at MoS talk started by the user in question here. Shereth 16:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note this appear to also have some relation to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1 dm (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to Lightmouse's diff request: I was incorrect about Lightbot removing fully-formatted date links; please accept my apologies. I appreciate your explanation of the other issue (this was the edit I had in mind), and that this function has now been deactivated. My concern about over-zealous enforcement of the MoS remains, though - not specifically directed at you, but at any editor (or bot) who takes it upon themselves to globally apply one interpretation of an often deliberately vague document. I've followed the various discussions at WT:MOSNUM, and agree with delinking dates that are only linked for formatting reasons, but so far it's only at FA that I've encountered this as a de facto requirement. It may become more widely adopted, or it may not... but where there's leeway in the guidelines and an article is not up for formal assessment (and therefore not subject to strict application of a set of criteria), I think we end up doing more harm than good by being too prescriptive. EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that what Lightmouse is doing is correct, appropriate, and desperately needed. The MOSNUM policy stating that dates should not be linked was thoroughly debated for a long time and is the result of a properly-arrived-at consensus. Links should be strictly limited to topics that are topical and germane to the article. Links to rambling lists of mindless trivia are virtually never topical and germane and just clutter up articles with excess blue that anesthetizes the mind. There are simply far too many of these links in far too many articles for any human to possibly hunt them all down and correct them; automated tools are the only way to go. And if the bot removes too many, it is far easier to restore the few false positives than to manually remove all those linked dates.

  Jimbo himself posted the most important rule of all on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” Well, in this case, Lightmouse has followed all the rules in his effort to improve Wikipedia. He just shouldn’t have to put up with any more flack from people who flat disagree with MOSNUM, just love their links to trivia, and want to drag this out with even more debate; such views have been discredited and Wikipedia is now well on the road to improvement. Greg L (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Very few of us are debating the merits of the MOS. What's in question here is how Lightmouse (here used to mean either User:Lightmouse or User:Lightbot) is going about imposing his/her interpretation of the MOS without discussion or a clear consensus. Take a look at what you wrote:

    Links should be strictly limited to topics that are topical and germane to the article.

    How does User:Lightbot determine which links are "topical and germane"? (Hint: it doesn't.) How does User:Lightmouse determine which links are "topical and germane", especially when he/she edits at an 8 article-per-second clip? I'd like to know the answer to that one. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand your issue. It is a legitimate one. But look at what else I wrote above:

There are simply far too many of these links in far too many articles for any human to possibly hunt them all down and correct them; automated tools are the only way to go. And if the bot removes too many, it is far easier to restore the few false positives than to manually remove all those linked dates.

There is no point having a MOSNUM guideline deprecating linked dates if the remedy (hand-removing them) would essentially take forever. Even at eight per second, it would take a bot 89 hours (24/7) to go through all 6,909,153 articles on en.Wikipedia. There is just no reason for the knee-jerk reaction to what his bots are doing; it is far, far easier to restore the false positives than to do what you propose. Greg L (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility, which I'm amazed the ancient history projects haven't already put forward, is a whitelist - articles which contain BCE dates or whatever else poses a problem can be added to it, and the bot then just goes "If on this pre-supplied list, ignore." That would allow the majority of articles to be fixed without issue. Also, people need to realise the bot is not the final arbiter, it's simply doing a system-wide task. Essentially if 98% of the switches should be flicked off and 2% left on, it's a tremendous waste to leave them all on or switch them off one by one ... makes more sense to switch them all off then switch back on the ones that are needed. Orderinchaos 11:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is a good idea and a great attitude, Orderinchaos. Why not propose it to Lightmouse? Clearly, de-linking dates is too monumental of a task without the assistance of a bot. So any suggestions that better marries the talents of humans and the productivity of bots is a good thing.

  I completely agree with your last sentence: “makes more sense to switch them all off then switch back on the ones that are needed.” That gives humans an opportunity to revise both the sentence and the link to avoid Easter egg links. We editors know what to expect of year links. But the supply of new and inexperienced readers is limitless. Easter egg links like this:

…but the 1821 death of Napolean was felt across the nation…

Now, you and I know what will happen if we click on that link. But I actually made the above link a reverse-Easter egg. Click on it. That’s how many new readers expect this form of link to work: as if it was “1821 death”.

Were it me, I wouldn’t even link “1821” in this context to a list of notable historical events. Furthermore, I suggest they be piped so new readers understand precisely what they are being taken to. This is in keeping with WP:Principle of least astonishment. I’d reserve links to years to especially notable years, such as a major point in the relationship of states. This properly anticipates what aficionados of history might like to further explore. They might naturally wonder “what else was going down at this time.” I’d do it as follows…

However, tensions were building between the two nations and, by 1811 (notable events of 1811), Alexander was under strong pressure from the Russian nobility to break off the alliance.

The above is just food for thought. The above suggestion has the virtues of…

1. The link is in an intrinsically historical article. As such, it is a link that is germane and topical to the subject; it properly anticipates what the reader would likely be interested in further exploring.
2. It is a year, not a date (2 May) that is linked. Dates should never be linked because they are nothing but rambling lists of purely random trivia that are always, entirely unrelated to the article in which they are imbedded.
3. It is an especially notable year within the article, where it is natural to wonder what else was happening throughout the world at that time.
4. The link is aliased (piped) so readers know precisely what they will be taken to, which is in keeping with the principle of least astonishment.

As you said, the first step is to let a bot do the mind-boggling enormous task of de-linking all those dates and years that never should have been linked in the first place. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The first step is to suggest that the bot (and the user) not automatically unlink years in articles under the perview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Time and subprojects; that the bot check for other links to year articles and note that manual supervision is required if, say 1st century, 2nd century, and 3rd are present, etc.

And that Lightmouse be blocked if he continues to vandalize Wikipedia by removing year links in timeline articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lightmouse always tries to do the right thing for Wikipedia and is a responsible, mature member of the community. Like everyone else here, he is a volunteer. He takes his contributions seriously and the bots he labors over do a lot of good for the community. He’s been the recipient of two barnstars for his efforts over the years. So characterizing his activities as “vandalism” is a gross mischaracterization of what he does for Wikipedia. He tries his best to take a reading of the general consensus and move accordingly only after a policy is posted to MOSNUM. In most cases, simple oversights and unintended consequences in how a bot goes about its business are easily handled just by dropping Lightmouse a note; he has always struck me as being a reasonable fellow who is often quite busy tweaking new bots as a result of editor feedback.

  But on much rarer occasions, editors who’ve never had an occasion to weigh in on WT:MOSNUM, and who have had their articles affected by his bots will come to MOSNUM with less-then-enthusiastic support for a new guideline and the resulting bots. It is often these editors who accuse Lightmouse of vandalism and accuse him of witchcraft and all manner of activities that are supposedly responsible for all the plague and pestilence that has befallen their village.

  If his bots aren’t properly bringing Wikipedia’s articles into compliance with MOSNUM guidelines, then they just need tweaking. Simply advising him of that is all it has ever taken in the past. If that doesn’t resolve the issue(s), then, IMO, the dispute goes deeper than just a bot, and the problem really lies with the fact that the MOSNUM guideline itself is the source of the friction. If that’s the case, I suggest you take up your issue on WT:MOSNUM, where you could advocate adding some nuances and subtleties to the new guidelines. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  P.S. I took the word of Bellhalla above literally that his bot goes through 8 articles per second. Uhm… no. It appears to be more like about 2.52 per minute. At that rate—which is far faster than any human could do it—it would take a bot 706 days (24/7) to go through all 6,909,153 articles on en.Wikipedia. I hope he has special searching algorithms that greatly reduces the number of articles that must be addressed. The shear magnitude of these numbers speaks to how this job could only be handled with a bot. Greg L (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Andrew Kelly

Resolved

 – Nothing here seems to require administrator action. Back to editing, everyone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew has recently been taking part in the RfA of another user and in doing so has expressed some extremely offensive opinions. Andrew, who is "too conservative for conservapedia" (his words not mine), has claimed amongst other things that; atheists support murder, those who do not believe in god will burn in hell, and atheists should not be given a role of authority (even on a website). Infact, I don't even need to provide links for this, feel free to review Andrews "contributions" in recent days, it's all there. Personally, I don't think I support murder and I don't want to burn in hell either. God only wonders what poor Andrew thinks of my gay friends. Would appreciate if this is dealt with, it would be a little hard to hand out 3 million incivility warring for all the "non-christian" editors insulted. — Realist² 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them. And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins. Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with / I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website. - This is just a taster of what you will witness upon reviewing Andrews edits. — Realist² 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fear not - hell doesn't exist, so you won't go there.

To be honest, he looks like a straw man to me. Don't feed the trolls. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To those reviewing my edits, please review all of them, not just the edits that my opponents bring to your attention. Please read them in context, please do not only read the misquotes. Thank you! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, we have given you ample space to express your opinion accurately, it's crystal clear that you have offended many, and don't seem to understand why. — Realist² 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand why people are offended. I am just asking that people read my comments in context. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Context of what? Your version of the good old book? You have expressed the opinion that non christians should not be given a position of authority. — Realist² 03:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure they read what I actually said, not what you say I said. There is no need to yell at me using all bold comments. You are just as biased as I am, just in the opposite direction. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment was not meant to appear in bold, check my edit summary, I quickly corrected it. — Realist² 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I won’t hold it against you then. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently I was just talking to myself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is therea violation of policy or I dunno, something for us to do here instead of complaining about the views of an editor, I'd like to hear it. There was no lasting harm done on the RfA so thats out. Has the user (diffs here needed) injected his biases into an article? If not, ignore what you find offensive until it becomes egregious to the point where it would be disruptive without you engaging. (Like Kafziel said, don't feed.)--Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough. The only place where Andrew Kelly's personal life philosphy is relevant is article space. If people do not want to be offended by his beliefs, they should stop talking to him about them. The abuse to which he has been subjected, for an oppose at RFA that any bureaucrat would likely have discounted, is probably the most graphic violation of WP:CIVIL that I have seen on Wikipedia in a long time. I have refactored the title of this section instead of blocking for making a personal attack. Everybody, cut it out. Risker (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you two have separate corners you can stand in or something? Jtrainor (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose trouts all around and some sort of article editing penance. John Reaves 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• This has been closed too early. A remark like the abortion loving atheists who support senseless murder requires a bit more than dismissing this as a case for simple troutslapping. Such religiously fueled hateful generalisations have no place in talk and Wikipedia space, either. Everyme 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed, but only if Jimmi Hugh (talk · contribs) gets the same treatment; Jimmiy's preceding comments caused Andrew's response, and included inflammatory gems such as "laughing at the fact they believe in an imaginary man in the sky" and "masses of drone religious idiots". fish&karate 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're right. Both indulged in uncalled-for antagonisation against large groups of people. But I still don't see how that makes any of it better, to the extent that it requires no more than a troutslap? Everyme 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've given strongly worded warnings to the pair of them, for making inflammatory and unhelpful comments. Further rubbish from either of them will result in a block. Wikipedia is not the place for inflamed religious soapboxing and poisonous generalisations. fish&karate 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so offended, Everyme? What have you to do with this? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyme is, I presume, rightly reluctant to see Wikipedia serve as a venue for this unhelpful, endless fighting. fish&karate 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And right he is. I am feeling very bad that it started with a userbox on my page and I agree that everyone descending into personal attacks because of that, even those defending me, are not doing the encyclopedia a favor. I hope we can just get back to editing now and admins who are not involved like fish&karate can sort out through it and give out warnings / deal with it where necessary.

@fish&karate: On a side note, if I may request it from you, would you mind checking my RfA and moving the discussions to its talk page where necessary (i.e. where they only clutter the RfA). I don't want to do it myself and I think it should be done by someone who has no involvement. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. fish&karate 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. fish&karate 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Feh. Andrew is free to state what his religious beliefs are, and others are free to ignore or discount them. What he may not do is assert opinion as fact, especially not in article space. I don't think that is happening here, and I think everyone would be a good deal happier if they disengaged at this point. We're not going to ban him for being a fundie, and we're not going to ban the thers for being Godless heathens. Try to respect sincerely helf religious beliefs even while disagreeing with them, and focus on content please. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are good and bad ways to express oneself. I think Andrew is smart enough to know when his comments crossed the (fuzzy) reasonable line from debate to polemic, but I think a warning will suffice at this point. You're right that everyone should disengage, and that content should be focussed on. fish&karate 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's leave it. Andrew Kelly and others have their beliefs, and others have theirs. Perhaps his statements are inflammatory, but it's not surprising to hear them, given that many people have literally asked for his opinion. Now, perhaps throwing the bible around isn't the best way to respond to challenges by non-Christians, but it's not helpful to throw fuel on the fire by harassing him about it. This drama may be avoided by not talking to Andrew Kelly about religious matters, aptly described above as "sitting in different corners". I don't see that this thread has a further purpose other than to inflame things. Werdna 12:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this can accurately be filed under "freedom to state what one's religious beliefs are". What's worse, Andrew replied to my suggestion of striking the remark in question (like Jimmi Hugh struck his initial oppose) like this. Everyme 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to comment on the issue itself but from what I can see Jimmi Hugh struck this comment because he decided to withdraw his support. I don't know if he wanted to withdraw the comment itself or not, but I find it best not to speculate about it. SoWhy 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop throwing that comment down my throat if you are not going to quote it in context. As I have already told you, I was responding to a ridiculously stupid comment about religious people who worship an imaginary man in the sky who supports the senseless killing of innocent people. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You responded in an exactly as unacceptable way. And your comment remains unstruck. Everyme 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go, please, Everyme. Andrew has been warned for his comment already - further prodding is unhelpful. fish&karate 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Everyme 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Give it a rest everyone. Andrew Kelly is entitled to his views just as SoWhy is entitled to his. I think it is a mistake to dump on SoWhy for the userbox (and a mistake in principle, though not necessarily in strategy, to change the userbox) and it is a mistake to provide AK a forum where he can vent his views. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the WMF have any non-discrimination policy?

If so, provide a link? If there is, how would that relate to RFA and volunteer community actions? I have a very queasy feeling about the allowance of supports or opposes in any kind of official community actions, or "standing" in response for any kind of religious belief, political belief, or private standing. Opposing someone for RFA for not being Christian? Whats next, opposing for being a Muslim? A Jew? Black? Gay? For not being a Jew? For not being from a given country? This is a slippery slope to allow any of that kind of thing in, and should be encoded out before we get nasty situations that could have repercussions beyond our silly little RFA practices. rootology (C)(T) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Users are already opposed regularly for being "too young". It wouldn't surprise me if people went further and started discriminating against certain religious beliefs. -- how do you turn this on 13:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Or lack of religious beliefs. Everyme 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see here To quote: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." Hope this helps, Gazimoff 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:DICK for something that applies on-wiki. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin. This is hardly new. I think prohibiting grounds for opposing is very dangerous. If someone is opposing for spurious reasons, ignore them. If they are being offensive, tell them so. (I don't see "Oppose. Is atheist." as offensive, just as ridiculous.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Closing bureaucrats are entirely capable of assessing the validity or invalidity of a oppose's (or a support's) reasoning. fish&karate 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sam, some people do find it offensive. We can't help that. What would you say if someone said "Oppose - is black"? -- how do you turn this on 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to say oppose because a candidate is black, or an atheist, or a christian, or has a lame user name, or whatever, I say let them do it. That sort of statement says more about them than it does about the rest of us and we should just move on. What is the point of trying to change the vote when the vote is a !vote and the entire discussion is visible to the closing bureaucrat anyway. And, if a crat starts seriously considering this sort of !vote, it'll get noticed soon enough. No. There is absolutely no sense in trying to shout down a !vote of that sort. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not going to drag this around to yet another discussion on "age discrimination" on RFAs. fish&karate 13:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was more hoping that Sam would answer my question. He says above the solution is to ignore. That doesn't solve anything. People are still going to be offended. Unnecessary hurting of other editors should be avoided at all costs. -- how do you turn this on 13:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

HDYTTO, I really do think you're taking this way too far. In the hopefully very unlikely event someone is enough of an idiot to oppose on such spurious and discriminatory grounds, they're probably going to get torn up by the community, smeared across five different noticeboards, blocked, unblocked, and reblocked until they get some sense knocked into them, just like all the rest of the drama we put up with here. Comments like that aren't tolerated and you know they aren't, so this is a non-issue. The reason people occasionally oppose for being too young is not because they believe teenagers or pre-teens shouldn't be admins, it's because the nominee hasn't demonstrated that they are trustworthy or responsible enough to use the tools. Maturity level has a lot to do with how much we trust someone not to abuse the buttons, and so is taken seriously provided the person commenting that is being sensible and not dickish. Spurious comments like the one you're hypothesizing above are completely irrelevant and will be treated with the appropriate weight (that is, none) by the 'crats. Anyone who says that is very likely to get a very stern warning and/or blocked. This is the end of the story called common sense. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) This is my read on the situation. Don't be a dick. If someone is being a dick, and it has to do with prejudices, you can try, calmly and patiently talking with them, explaining why its inappropriate to express their opinions in that way, or you can ignore them. If it rises to the point of a disruptive personal attack there is a case by case balancing test to be made, and contact a third party, a mediator, or an adminstrator at your discretion. Now, is there anything that an admin actually needs to do here?--Tznkai (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing bureaucrats are allowed to discount such spurious opposes. Practice has, however, shown that they never do. — Coren ^(talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-discrimination policy has little relevance. Admins are not hired by the foundation and the foundation is not saying "we don't want this person or that person as an admin" so this has little bearing on things. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see how the Wikimedia Foundation and its policies have any relevance to the factors the Wikipedia community chooses to apply when supporting or opposing candidates for its internal roles. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What someone has on their user page is a perfectly valid question to raise, and should not be censored. For example, if the guy who had the "I can make crystal meth" user box applied for adminship, it would be fair to question that. Raising a question doesn't mean the question has any merit. That's up to the deciders to decide. But censoring it is not good. Let the extremist editor expose himself (pardon the ironic metaphor) for what he is. Don't censor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

An aside

I found this discussion based on the issues raised on foundation-l. On that list, it was made to appear that the user is simply saying "Oppose, user is not christian", but based on the above discussion, if I understand it correctly, his real complaint is having to do with a perceived lack of admins willing to unblock christian users, and a lack of christian admins. While I think that's completely ridiculous, I can see how that's a logical line of reasoning for someone who feels that way. I can see that this guy is actually opposing in good faith here, unlike, say, Kurt. So, while it may be a good idea for 'crats to discount this (I don't have much faith they will, but anyway), it'd be a bad idea to sanction the editor in this case, and I say that as a person who mistakenly was going to come in and strongly consider blocking the editor for disruption. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an extra aside, can we get some admin eyes on Andrew's talk page? It's getting into a complete mess with raging religious debates, and Andrew saying he's going to preach, etc., and I advised him not to do such a thing. rootology (C)(T) 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bickering archived, page watched, invite other admins to do the same. Further incivility will bring the wrath of the almighty cabal on everyone's head.--Tznkai (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the wrath of El Kabong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*Usertalk watchlisted* L'Aquatique[talk] 03:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis (Users: Ariobarza, CreazySuit and Larno Man; Admins Kafziel and Khoikhoi )

Discussions prior to September 28
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I spotted an RFC filed against three parties. RFC's aren't for multiple parties, so I don't think that really works, and I suspect somebody will delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man. However, there is evidence that suggests disruptive editing. I am hopeful we can resolve this matter here and now, rather than going to Arbitration. Jehochman Talk 04:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) [ snipped copy-paste replication of entire page] It should be noted that this is not the first time user:Jehochman has come in to carry the ball for user:ChrisO, who wrote the original RfC. When a previous RfC by ChrisO failed, it was Jehochman who decided to take the same issues and attempt an administrator recall instead. I have been reading the "evidence" and links and it seems to me that virtually all of the good faith effort to reach consensus actually came from the side under attack in this RfC. The fingers should be pointing in the other direction. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC) If there is evidence of wrongdoing by "the other side", please post diffs. That is why we are here. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC) There is no such evidence, of course. This is a straightforward case of editors, principally CreazySuit, disregarding NPOV and OR to promote a personal point of view. DougWeller, dab and I have tried repeatedly to explain to CreazySuit and the other two what WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V require; unfortunately they've chosen to ignore the three of us. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think it is useful to just copy-paste the entire page here. But I agree that the RFC is likely a waste of effort, and that since these users are clearly unamenable to feedback or criticism, they will need to be given the warn-block treatment now. If we can get a few good admins to track this issue, there won't need to be an arbitration case. If this turns into another show of admins obstructing other admins, to the arbcom this will go. --dab (𒁳) 07:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) WHOOPS! The RfC just got deleted. Could you possibly dig up the section of my post that you removed and restore at least the diffs and evidence so that people have something to look at? Jehochman Talk 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I've temporarily undeleted the RfC so that I can recover the diffs myself (and you can have a look at it in the meantime). I'll copy the principal diffs with explanations here (in a new section below this one) before re-deleting the RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) It looks like a content dispute to me. I would think an article RfC or some form of mediation would help. I cannot see how WP:AN/I can help here. We are not solving content disputes on this page Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC) CreazySuit's restoration of Tundrabuggy's comment here (which was, as I understood it, a comment on the RfC and the RfC has been removed from here) just adds fuel to the fire and hardly shows GF. It isn't helpful. If he or Tundrabuggy want to raise their own RfCs, let them do it. Doug Weller (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC) It also appears that one of the main contentions is the citing of an article written by someone else, which article content in-turn cites references, and being used as a Wikipedia:CITE#Convenience_links here for our article. Perhaps if editors would take the time to find verifiable sources other than a convenience link, and use them as a basis for inclusion of material, part of the dispute may be alleviated. However, caution should be used to not violate copyright that may exist for the convenience article by solely citing it's references. This is just a suggestion and may or may not have been thought of before the escalation of the dispute currently taking place on our article.--«JavierMC»|Talk 07:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I'd say it's more about some editors saying that the newest translation must be the only correct one because it's the newest, it's by the teacher of the 'wrong' one, etc, linguistics is a science (although as one academic in the field tells me it can only be decided by the historians as there is more than one way to translate the contentious words) and others (including me, I confess) saying that as editors we have no business deciding which is correct. And, it appears, a belief that peer review (although the issue involves a brief note that wasn't peer reviewed) means something is 'right'. Doug Weller (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Th diffs are not what they appear to be in this case, this is a complicated content dispute involving a translation that has been academically challenged by the most recent academic research in the field. Another administrator (User:Khoikhoi) who is familiar with the details of this dispute, has commented on this issue in details here. I am following WP dispute resolution process, and have agreed to User:DragonflySixtyseven's suggestion of a compromise in order to resolve this dispute.[5] It should also be noted that User:Dbachmann and User:Dougweller are involved parties in this content dispute. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Of course I'm involved, I haven't suggested I'm not involved. I've been trying to get you and others to see that this isn't a mathematical exercise where we are going to have proof that one is right and the other is wrong. There is a version that makes the dispute clear here [6] but I suspect you will cavil at the use of 'widely accepted' (which I think is correct at the moment, and the only academic I've found who has comment on Lambert is the one who told me the historians will have to battle it out). This article has been protected now since the 19th and due to the illness of the protecting admin is protected until the 9th. Doug Weller (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Just to be clear, what is happening here is that conduct issues involving NPOV and original research are stopping the resolution of a content dispute. CreazySuit and the other two editors (and apparently Khoikhoi too) subscribe to a pseudohistorical belief, promoted by the late Shah of Iran for propaganda reasons, that Cyrus the Great was a uniquely enlightened and humane ruler. They oppose anything which contradicts that POV, which mainstream historians do not support. An ancient chronicle describing the Battle of Opis is generally translated as referring to Cyrus carrying out a massacre after the battle. CreazySuit believes this is false. Because of this belief, he has repeatedly wiped out a sourced article, replacing it with an illiterate unsourced stub (see [7], [8], [9]).) He is seeking to declare that one particular translation of the chronicle is "the truth", that all others are "false" and "discredited" (his words) and that any research based on those translations is "outdated" and cannot be included. That is pure original research and about as clear a violation of NPOV as you can get. If he continues, it's inevitably going to end up before the Arbitration Committee. Content disputes can be resolved if everyone takes a good-faith approach to basic policies such as NPOV and NOR, but not if those policies are systematically disregarded, as CreazySuit is doing with the assistance of Ariobarza and Larno Man. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC) It looks like a content dispute to me -- you bet it is a content dispute. What is being disputed is, should Wikipedia follow WP:ENC, or should it adhere to a basic "Iran is great" policy. Not for ANI? I don't know, maybe not these days. If it isn't, it certainly should be. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Behavioral problems almost always have an underlying content dispute. The policies in question are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CANVASS, tendentious editing, and disruptive editing. If those policies are not adhered to, there is no way to solve the content dispute via normal dispute resolution. Jehochman Talk 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Well said. I would also add that resolving content disputes requires some acceptance of the basic principle of NPOV - "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". The fundamental problem here is that CreazySuit has been insisting that one, and only one, viewpoint is "the truth" and that all other viewpoints are "outdated", "false" and "discredited" (his words), and on that basis deleting any material which refers to those viewpoints. If you take that sort of position, it doesn't give much room for solving a dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC) That's indeed the problem as I see it. If he (and Larno) would agree that (1) editors should not be making such judgements, (2) that latest, or made by someone's teacher, doesn't mean correct, and (3)acknowledge the possiblity that no one might be able to 'prove' this translation, we could get somewhere. But until then (well, (1) and (2) would be a start, (3) would be icing, we are not having a content dispute, we are having a dispute over whether policy should be followed (and common sense, I'd say also). I do not include Ariobarza in this at the moment. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC) And re (2) it's not even the latest translation - that title would belong to Amélie Kuhrt's (published August 2007), which corroborates Glassner's translation of 2004. CreazySuit appears to be wholly unaware of either translation; that's indicative of the lack of serious research going into this. All he's really doing is parroting the claims of page 12 of this tract by an Iranian-Canadian psychologist, which nationalists in the Iranian diaspora appear to have been circulating on the web (and which Ariobarza has been copying-and-pasting into talk pages). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Disruption of Battle of Opis As discussed above, CreazySuit (talk · contribs) has been engaging in POV-based disruptive editing. Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Larno Man (talk · contribs) have also engaged in problematic editing. The main primary source for information on the battle is an ancient Babylonian chronicle. A line in the chronicle has generally been translated as indicating that Cyrus the Great carried out a massacre after the battle. The best-known modern translation is by a historian named Grayson (1975); similar translations are by Glassner (2004) and Kuhrt (2007). However, another historian named Lambert has published a dissenting translation in an obscure French journal in 2007, which so far appears to be uncited by any other academic source. Nationalists in the Iranian diaspora have latched onto this (see page 12 of this tract). CreazySuit, Ariobarza and Larno Man are seeking to declare this one translation to be authoritative. They argue that all other translations and research based on those are "outdated" and unusable. CreazySuit and Larno Man have tag-teamed to delete any material referring to those translations and research - even external links. In Ariobarza's case, he has also sought to falsify direct quotations from sources and add his personal commentary to the article. However, I would say that CreazySuit has been responsible for the most serious and sustained disruption. This is a categorical violation of NPOV's basic principle: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It also violates WP:NOR. This conduct has seriously disrupted Battle of Opis and has resulted in it being protected for two weeks by DragonflySixtyseven. Diffs follow: 19:20, 14 August 2008 - Larno Man deletes an external link to a translation with edit summary: "livius translation is based on the flawed tranlation of Grayson" 08:36, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza deletes sourced content without comment 08:58, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza adds personal commentary to the article 09:13, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza falsifies a direct quotation 18:13, 18 September 2008 - Larno Man deletes all of the sourced content and replaces it with an incoherent unsourced stub 23:52, 18 September 2008 - CreazySuit deletes all of the sourced content and reverts to Larno Man's stub, with the edit summary "rv - ChirsO's version relies on an oudated theory and false translation, discredited by academia" 00:12, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit again reverts to the stub 01:38, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit again reverts to the stub and refers to the talk page, where he posts this. See also this comment to DragonflySixtyseven. 11:17, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit accuses me of anti-semitic motives. (How he jumps from the Battle of Opis to anti-semitism, I don't know - it's right out of left field but clearly a violation of civility.) The article was then locked by DragonflySixtyseven and remains as an unsourced, badly written stub (compare before and after). I should add that I've since produced a longer version of the article, with more sources and translations, at User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis, but haven't had a chance to do anything with it yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) On the last of those diffs, he's accusing you of pro-semitism, not anti. Cyrus is quite highly regarded in Jewish history, because of his benevolence to the Jewish people. It seems he assumes you're Jewish and is accusing you of pro-Cyrus POV for that reason. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Hmm, I never thought of it that way. If CreazySuit has anti-semitic views and assumes I'm Jewish (which I'm not), that puts a rather different light on why he's been so vehement on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Not sure I'd go so far as to say that edit shows anti-semitism. It's odd to have made the assumption, but not demonstrably anti semitic. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I was referring to ChrisO`s tendentious editing as a pro-Palestinian POV-pusher (for which he has been sanctioned by the ArbCom). I am myself supporter of the state of Israel, Cyrus`s decrees are of immense importance to the Jewish right of return to Israel. Given ChrisO`s history as a pro-Palestinian POV-pusher, several users [10] have argued that ChrisO`s tendentious editing on Cyrus-related pages is motivated by the I-P conflict, and his political views on Jewish right of return. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC) OK, that makes sense as an explanation: you're accusing ChrisO of POV based on anti-Zionism. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC) It still doesn't make much sense to me. How do we get from "translations say Cyrus committed a massacre" to "anti-Zionism"? It's one hell of a leap - that's why I called it an out of left field accusation. Does that mean that all the historians who I've quoted are "anti-Zionists" too? Frankly, I find this sort of guilt-by-association on both sides of the I-P conflict to be very tiresome and sleazy. It's just a way of tarring an opponent with a label that's thought to be damaging. I recall a fellow named McCarthy used similar tactics, once upon a time. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Oh gosh, I'm not suggesting it's an accurate accusation, and I apologise if that seemed to be the case. I have no knowledge of the dispute there. Just hamfistedly trying to help make sense of the accusation. I'll butt out now and stick to the Thermopylae issue at most, which I am informed about. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Don't worry, I didn't take your comments as endorsing CreazySuit's accusation. It's simply that I've clashed with I-P POV-pushers on a few occasions and CreazySuit has latched onto this to try to paint my contributions elsewhere in a bad light. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Other disruption I post below an edited version of a message I left at the deleted RfC. Do with it as you will. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Outside view by User:Dweller I have encountered User:Ariobarza in action at Battle of Thermopylae, its talk page and our talk pages. He's been pushing an OR take on the numbers of combatants, presumably because of POV. I gave up discussing with him because I couldn't cope with the walls of text he would post in response to simple questions, that totally ignored the points raised while frequently SHOUTING. The user seems to have WP:OWN issues to-boot and skates on thin ice of civility. I posted at a WikiProject asking for outside views from Classicists, but no-one else seemed bothered by the dispute: the issue so tenaciously defended by the user is a number in an infobox and I have no plans on appearing in WP:LAME, so left him to it, rather saddened by the experience. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I dare say I can have a look at it; I'm a classicist myself, so this is right within my area of academic expertise. I would guess your trouble at Battle of Thermopylae is part of the ongoing problems that article's been having with Iranian nationalism ever since 300 (film) came out, which really, really pissed off those people. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC) My turn Dweller I thought we settled this. First, I was never that passionate about Thermoplyae, but the reliability of Ctesias numbers. Second, I accused you (at first), of WP:OWN, because since I fairly know a good bit about the battle itself, and its topagraphy, I thought I could just add new information to it. I was suprised to see that after the Persians went on the offensive, the Greeks became nationalistic about Thermoplyae, and I dare say it is a VERY protected article. Furthermore I even came up with a solution, to include all the numbers, but I guess after all the supposed yelling, I did not recieve a yes or no from you, so its up to you to end this by giving me a message on my talk page. And do not forget, even Ctesias numbers are sourced, I know how it feels, I wished the Persian army was bigger too. Just go to the talk page of Thermoplyae for a better response, that for the most part agrees with, so I think that you might have seen it before, but if not, go there. Anyways, I just want to say for the record, ChrisO and others are currently at advantage, becuase they rampage everywhere on Wikipedia spreading this issue like a virus, until me and others are blocked. But I say... As a response to ChrisO, If I was such filled with Persian Pride, should'nt I be the one ranting all over Wikipedia to gain supporters for my agenda? ChrisO is on a one man crusade to expell Wikipedia of "barbarians" and their thinking, period. But, I'm still open to the thought that he might just be abusing his powers, and that he does want neutrality, but I am not sure, and I at least hope its the latter. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk See Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae#More_Info.21 for the significant bulk of it. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I can assure you, Ariobarza, I do want neutrality. I can't speak for the other editors involved in this dispute, but all I'm looking for from you is that (1) you respect the neutral point of view, by not constantly deleting every POV other than the one you favour; and (2) you respect the prohibition on original research by not constantly insisting on your personal interpretations, not making claims without citing any sources and not putting your personal commentary into articles. These aren't hard things to do. Thousands of contributors every day manage to do them without difficulty. Can't you? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Yes I could and will. That is great to hear ChrisO, I am glad that you want neutrality, the main reason I never get time to explain my actions is because I am a fast editer, short on time and I am always in good faith, I sometimes dont get time to source the articles I edit and make. I Ariobarza pubicly apologize to all the users which I have made their lives harder. On the record, I never yell but it always appears that way, and as a mystery solver, I like come up with solutions. Nevertheless, other than some supposed uncivil behavior, I do not have a bad record on Wikipedia. But recently, because of the Battle of Opis issue, I am, other than being called names, is accused of these things; 1. Ariobarza deletes sourced content without comment. RE: I was going to replace it, and was short on time. 2. Ariobarza adds personal commentary to the article. RE: I added commentary that was not originally from me, but other historians who interpretated the text differently, specially at the time when I was not in favor of either view and the personal things were not mine to begin with. 3. Ariobarza falsifies a direct quotation. RE: No, I added extra different views to the article, after the direct quote if I remember correctly. So as you can see, I need to make some improvements to my use of Wikipedia. And starting today I will begin. But if ChrisO is not willing to be civil and take me off his lists, I will still follow the rules, but not have respect for him. Anyways I am glad I am settling this here (I hope). And that ChrisO has FINALLY responded to me, and wants to neutral. The neutrality issue is something that I totally agree with ChrisO, and I have always been open to talks. But now I hope I can BEGIN direct talks with ChrisO on finally settling this issue. If you are ChrisO and reading this now, please respond below to mostly what this paragraph asks of you, and how you can be neutral on your own version of the Opis article (hint: add all the other translations with a neutral point of view). And seeing that you have done most of this, 'please' also go to the talk page of the Battle of Opis, there is something there that you might want to see, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk Thanks for your recent (constructive) comments to the article's talk page. You've raised some fair points - I'll address them shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC) ChrisO`s conduct I am writing a a detailed response which includes numerous diff links documenting ChrisO`s tendentious editing, suppression of opposing views, lack of civility, and total disregard for several policies ranging from WP:AGF to WP:Admin. It will be posted here within the next few hours. --CreazySuit (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC) so, what is this? Are we just conducting rfcs on this page instead of dedicated rfc pages? Or what? Dear admins, take a step back and consider DNFTT, all this section is good for is providing a platform for yet more filibustering and empty complaints in obvious attempts at dodging core policy, like the one immediately above. If you can be bothered, just go to the articles concerned, grok the issue, and clamp down on the pov-pushers. What we have here is the classic "experts are scum" phenomenon. ChrisO is a classicist, for crying out loud: exactly the kind of person we want to edit our articles on Classical Antiquity. He is being bugged by patriotic kids. You are here to help him, not to give him more grief. Also see Wikipedia:Expert retention. It's why we have admins: to use their brains. If it was just about clamping down on revert wars, we could replace our admins with very short shell scripts. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I tried to help, but then CreazySuit showed up at my talk page to browbeat me with repetitive arguments.[11][12][13][14] I can understand why people would avoid getting involved. Who needs the grief. Jehochman Talk 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC) That's the point - win the game by working the referee(s) and discouraging anyone else from getting involved. It's an old and ugly tactic. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) ChrisO`s conduct ChrisO's conduct and behavior on Cyrus-related pages has been criticized by half a dozen editors, including several administrators as tendentious and problematic. [15] The diffs that ChrisO has cited are not what they seem to be at first glance, and should not be weighted and judged out of the context of the larger dispute.[16] It should also be noted that all these diffs are from over a week ago when a suspicious IP address from the same geographical area as ChrisO (seemingly a shared IP, possibly used as sock puppet) appeared out of nowhere to engage in an edit-war on behalf of ChrisO, on the disputed page, without as much as leaving a single comment on the talk page.[17] Since the protection of the page in question, I have done my best to follow the dispute resolution process, proposing some ideas of my own, and later agreeing to a third-party administrator's suggestion of a compromise that would cover both points of view in a fair and balanced way. ChrisO, however, has been unwilling to even recognize that there is a dispute, and has adopted a "my-way or no-way" attitude[18], going as far as attacking and bullying other administrators who had commented on the dispute and his conduct.[19][20] He has been constantly wikilawyering, picking and choosing what polices to cite in the heat of the moment, to best serve his attempts to advance his agenda and point of view, and has even openly contradicted himself while doing so [21][22]. He also has a total disregard for WP:AGF, lumping together his opponents, established users who come from a variety of backgrounds, and labeling them "Iranian nationalists", "vandals" etc. [23] Further evidence of questionable conduct by ChrisO: ChrisO threatens me with a block, in the middle of content dispute [24] ChrisO attacks me personally, calling me crazy on at least two occasions [25][26] ChrisO starts canvassing for help on Wikipedia administrators' IRC channel Jayjg points out the irregularity of ChrisO's conduct [27] ChrisO lashes out at Jayjg, attacking him personally [28] ChrisO uses his administrative tools, in the middle of a dispute, to delete the disputed article's talk page and get rid of the evidence and diff links [29] As documented above, things are not as black and white as some would have you believe, and I have yet to look up the more complex content-related diffs that document violations of WP:NPOV, WP:Verify and similar policies. --CreazySuit (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC) The first diff I looked seems to be a misunderstanding. He does not seems to be threatening to block you himself. He is saying that if you continue to violate policy, you will be blocked. Presumably he would use a noticeboard to find an uninvolved administrator to review the matter and place a block. Jehochman Talk 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I think CreazySuit was saying that he had violated these policies, which would on the face of it appear to be the case, in which case he shows commendable honesty and late-blooming self-knowledge and should be congratulated, once he's shown how he intends to address this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC) As another administrator pointed out [30], it wasn't the first time ChrisO had used his admin access to threaten opponents. As a matter of fact, he did it again today. --CreazySuit (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) CreazySuit appears to have entered the "throw mud against the wall and see what sticks" phase. Dbachmann commented that "these users [meaning CreazySuit and pals] aren't receptive to feedback. They should just enter the warn-block cycle." [31] I said essentially, "yes, you're right." [32] I did not at any point say that I would be blocking anyone. This is, of course, obvious to anyone with a minimum of reading comprehension skills. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Ugh, this is ridiculous. I've unprotected Battle of Opis: can someone please rv to the referenced version? If any of these punks reverts back we should just block them. They've been shown to have no case, so if they still refuse to get it, there really are no excuses left (p.s: "keep doing this and you may/will be blocked" is not intimidation unless you're in the mood to turn your skin uber-sensitive). Moreschi (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Nobody should be blocking anyone. This is a content dispute and not a case of vandalism, and the talk page clearly shows that all involved parties are serious about achieving a neutral version of the article. Whether or whether not ChrisO's comment was made as intimidation, calling the opposing users "punks" is totally inappropriate. I also disagree with your unprotection of the article simply because you believe that the other side has "no case" (you yourself have already taken sides on the issue). Khoikhoi 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Really? This seems like text book disruption by tendentious POV pushers, something that should escalate admins into blocking mode much more often and quickly than it does. It drives good editors away from the encyclopedia, unnecessarily clogs up AN/I and fosters further drama between admins and editors who aren't exactly fast friends. I'm not saying that we should go around calling people "punks" but lets not let someone's loose use of the English language lead us astray of the problems presented by this type of POV pushing.PelleSmith (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I agree. I have not been involved in this dispute (and am blissfully ignorant of any matters Greek or Persian). However, I participated in a particularly muddled AfD debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Farrokh, where this bunch of people derailed the whole thing by continuously invoking inappropriate policies/guidelines and using bogus arguments like "the length of this debate demonstrates notability" and using amazon.com blurbs as "reliable sources". The article was kept as "no consensus", although the closing admin stated "I personally don't agree with the outcome". I find that strange, it doesn't square with the fact that an AfD is not a vote. Anyway, the behavior of the editors in question was hardly rational, without any inclination to enter into a real discussion and even listen to the other side's argument. --Crusio (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC) BTW, aren't you involved in an edit war with the users that you just threatened to block? This is absurd. Khoikhoi 21:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Okay, what just happened here? The page was protected for edit warring, and then unprotected and reprotected to include the sourced version of the page? If I have my facts straight, it seems that the whole dispute centers around the factual accuracy of the sourced version of the article. Anyone who continues to edit war and/or wheel war will be blocked without warning. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC) It gets worse. See below. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Looks like we might be headed for ArbCom sooner rather than later. User:Moreschi who is close associate of Dab and ChrisO, and an involved administrator himself [33] [34] unprotected the disputed article, so that it could be reverted to his preferred version and re-protected. He also goes on to threaten the opposing editors with a block, calling them "punks". I can't believe what I am seeing here. Abuse of administrative privileges can not get any more clear than this.--CreazySuit (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Edit warring on a protected article This is completely inexcusable. After Kafziel (talk · contribs) restored the sourced version of Battle of Opis and re-protected it, Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) abused his admin access to resume the edit war and revert the article to an unsourced stub while the article was fully protected. [35] Note also that Khoikhoi has used the same NPOV-violating rationale as CreazySuit - that the cited translation is "false" (and who is Khoikhoi to declare the academic community wrong and eliminate all other points of view?). Admins edit-warring on a protected article is disgraceful. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC) The unprotection itself was a violation of policy. Per WP:PREFER, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." No one should have unprotected the page to change the contents of the page to their preferred version, and no one should have edit warred back to a previous version of the page after protection had been applied. All around gross misuse of admin tools/editing privileges, and I hardly think WP:IAR is an applicable policy in this case. The dispute revolves around the reliability/accuracy of sources used in this article; protection was applied in the first place so people could take a time out and then discuss whether there's any truth to the claims made by Khoikhoi and CreazySuit. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) The dispute is only about the "reliability/accuracy of sources" in as much as CreazySuit et al believe that only one source is accurate and all the rest are wrong, can't be used and must be deleted from the article. Fundamentally this is about the acceptability of sources that contradict a particular POV held by these editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I really don't plan to get bogged down in this whole crazy thread, but I do want to say I don't think Moreschi's unprotection was inappropriate. It didn't further his own position because, at least as far as I could tell from the article's history, he doesn't have a position. The protection policy says administrators may also revert to an old version of the page prior to edit warring beginning if such a clear point exists. The version that is there is the version that came after ChrisO's first expansion and Larno Man's tagging as unbalanced, before the edit war started. So I don't think anyone (including Khoikhoi, at least not intentionally) has done anything wrong. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC) It is my feeling that Moreschi's unprotection was not appropriate. He reversed an action by another admin, but without engaging in discussion with that admin. And that Moreschi was doing this in an emotional way,[36] with an edit summary of "Unprotected Battle of Opis: no, no, and no again. Admin neutrality does not mean we stick our heads in the sand", and then called other editors "punks",[37] increases my concerns. See Don't wheel war. If there was a feeling that the protection needed to be reversed, the better way to handle this would have been to contact the protecting admin, and/or starting a thread here at ANI to get input from other uninvolved admins first. There was no urgent need to unprotect the page, that justified this kind of unilateral action. --Elonka 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Moreschi's unprotection was entirely inappropriate. Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, okay. I guess I could see it as inappropriate from a wheel war perspective. Still, the edit summary gave me the impression Dragonfly was just protecting it for real-life health reasons (not feeling well and taking a break from the article) so I didn't think twice about Moreschi's unprotection. Well, anyone is certainly welcome to do what they think is right in terms of the page protection and content; no skin off my back, one way or the other. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I don't see how fully protecting a page for two weeks simply because one is not feeling well is appropriate at all. I thought full page protection was supposed to be invoked in the most limited manner possible. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC) To be absolutely honest with you, I was thinking of asking Dragonfly to extend the protection so that the unresolved edit war wouldn't break out again immediately (as it plainly would have). I didn't do that, in the end, but simply reminded him by e-mail of the imminent expiry of protection; that probably prompted him to extend it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Hi. Yes it was indeed a mistake, I noticed that Moreschi had unprotected but I hadn't seen that Kafziel had suddenly reprotected it after the revert. However, as it has been pointed out, the unprotection and the subsequent reprotection was definitely inappropriate, as this was a valid content dispute regarding the use of an outdated translation and associated sources. The page should not have been unprotected by an involved admin in the first place. Khoikhoi 22:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Could you then explain your edit summary ("no consensus for a version based on a false translation") which very clearly shows you supporting CreazySuit's NPOV-violating line that only one translation is "true" and all others are "false" and may not be mentioned? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Chris, please recognize that others might differ with you over content without being vandals, POV-warriors, "ethnic nationalists", or any other pejoratives you might care to use. Please also realize that AN/I is not the place to air your content dispute. Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I'm quite happy to deal amicably with content disputes, but when you get people like CreazySuit demanding that their POV be the only one documented and that everything else should be deleted because they think it's "false", that's simply not acceptable conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I am not going to get into content-related discussions with you here. I have already said what needed to be said on the relevant talk page. As Kafziel pointed out, "Our edits were only a minute apart so he probably had an edit conflict and didn't notice the protection." This is exactly what occurred. Khoikhoi 22:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I'm a bit concerned by the fact that administrators appear to have been edit-warring on the protected article.[38] This seems to have mainly been a tug of war between a version "A" and a version "B". The sequence of events I'm seeing is: Administrator DragonflySixtyseven protected at Version "A"[39] Administrator Moreschi unprotected[40] Administrator Kafziel restored to a version "B"[41] Administrator Kafziel re-protected the page[42] Administrator ChrisO edited the page,[43] then reversed himself when he saw the page had been re-protected[44] Administrator Khoikhoi reverted to version "A"[45] Administrator Kafziel reverted to version "B".[46] My own recommendation as to how to proceed would be to restore the page to version "A", as it was when Dragonfly first protected it (plus it's the shorter of the two versions), and then continue discussions from there. --Elonka 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Version "A" is completely unsourced and poorly written. Which is more encyclopedic - an unsourced stub or a properly sourced article? CreazySuit had no business repeatedly wiping out a sourced article in the first place; he should have been blocked for that, quite honestly. Changing it again while protected is not going to achieve anything at this point. Just leave it as it is, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Removing properly sourced material often qualifies as vandalism. Please don't anybody do anything until the existing protection expires. The m:WrongVersion is the right one for now. Jehochman Talk 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC) A legitimate reason was provided for the removal of the sourced material, so as far as I know, it shouldn't be considered vandalism. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC) It wasn't remotely legitimate. CreazySuit, and now seemingly Khoikhoi, contend that one particular POV is "the truth" and all others are "false" and "outdated" (their words) and must be removed. That is as categorical a violation of NPOV and NOR as you can get. Remember, we're supposed to present all significant POVs, not just the one CS and KK favour (which isn't even the standard text used by historians anyway). What's more, neither of them have any business trying to determine which POV is "the truth" - they're not experts on ancient Babylonian texts. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Arbitration please Take this dispute to arbitration, please, before anybody gets into deep(er) trouble. Community processes are obviously failing to resolve this, and there are evidently multi-party behavioral issues that need investigation. Jehochman Talk 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) It is my opinion that "community processes" like AN/I rarely work when most of the admins commenting are involved to some degree or another, if even just in terms of past bad blood. I've noticed that truly uninvolved admins tend to stay clear of these situations. Do inter-admin spats have to go to Arbcom every time? Would this simply have been dealt with by the community if there weren't involved admin opposition? A good question to consider if you are interested in improving this process.PelleSmith (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) What we have here is classic disruptive editing. Many admins don't want to intervene against nationalistic teams. They can be quite difficult to deal with. This matter does require arbitration, I think, because it has already resulted in admins undoing and redoing each other's actions, which is always a bad sign. Jehochman Talk 00:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I've been looking at this, but have only gotten as far as reading through the talk page of Battle of Opis--I haven't gone through the article history yet. From what I've seen so far, though, I would have to say that Ariobarza, CreazySuit, and LarnoMan are editing tendentiously. I don't know that arbitration is the answer, but I have little faith in AN/I to solve problems. I would not characterize this as a content dispute; the editors who think that Lambert's translation has superseded all previous scholarship are misunderstanding how scholarship in the humanities works, and, more importantly, several central Wikipedia policies, i.e., NPOV and V. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) As I stated already I'm in full agreement that this looks like text book disruptive POV pushing. I think the community can and should deal with that, which is the initial problem here. Unfortunately it was not dealt with by going into block mode, as Dab suggested, in order to control the tendentious editing. Instead admins siding with the POV pushers and/or simply without love for those fighting the POV pushers started chastising the very editors we should be praising for slogging through the thankless task of keeping nationalist POV nonsense out of this encyclopedia. With this kind of admin on admin action, it has been my observation, that truly non-involved admins tend to stay away. That was really my main point. I don't think Arbcom is necessary, just a few uninvolved admins who aren't scared off by inter-admin spats, and I see FT2 is making an attempt below.PelleSmith (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC) The main problem as I see it is CreazySuit. It's certainly true that Ariobarza made some tendentious edits at the start (he started the article, so may have some sense of WP:OWNership) but seems to have desisted after I explained the problems with his edits on his talk page. CreazySuit, however, has simply doubled down: he is insisting that only his favoured interpretation is "the truth" and is allowing only that perspective to appear in the article. That is, as you say, text-book disruptive POV-pushing. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Admin actions The actual admin issues here seem to be as follows: Kafziel (talk · contribs) (not a party) reverted the text to a version he chose, stating "replacing sourced version", then protected it. The general rule is a protecting admin should be neutral as to versions. If one version is grossly out of line (vandalism etc), then perhaps there might be a case to revert then protect, but if so this needs justifying. Kafziel needs to explain why he chose a version before applying protection, because most times that is quite an improper sequence. Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) (not a party) edits through protection to reinstate the version they feel is appropriate. The edit summary reads "no consensus for a version based on a false translation". As above, unless this version is based on gross misinformation or the like, that blatantly obviously cannot be allowed to stand, this is quite improper. Even if unfounded the talk page is a good place to get consensus that it's unfounded. Khoikhoi needs to explain why he felt that this case justified editing through protection. Most times there is no justification - admins have that access in order to make non-contentious and admin-type edits, not to be able to choose a preferred version. Unless a good reason is given, both of these actions are improper and wrongly done. These norms are very strongly held for good reason, to draw a bright line preventing admins from edit warring with the tools. Only in very rare, or well recognized, or non-controversial cases, is there likely to be genuine cause to breach them. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases. But I could be wrong. Rather than a "pile-on" discussion, may I suggest simply, a statement by each as to the above, and no "pile-on" when they are posted. The sole question is whether sufficient good cause for these actions, is given. That doesn't need arbitration to decide, if people keep calm. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Kafziel has given his reason above: "The protection policy says administrators may also revert to an old version of the page prior to edit warring beginning if such a clear point exists. The version that is there is the version that came after ChrisO's first expansion and Larno Man's tagging as unbalanced, before the edit war started." [47] Khoikhoi has declined to say why he used that edit summary (edit of 23:55, 26 September 2008): "I am not going to get into content-related discussions with you here." [48] I look forward to seeing an explanation. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I explained myself right here. I was not aware of the reprotection. How does my edit summary have anything to do with this? Khoikhoi 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Then the question is simply, whether uninvolved users feel both explanations are reasonable. Neither admin was previously involved in the edit war, and both have given an explanation. Are the two admin action sequences reasonable in light of the explanations given and policy (WP:PROTECT, WP:ADMIN)? If not, is protection policy at fault, or the admin actions, or neither. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) No, it is not reasonable. Especially the sentence, "Khoikhoi needs to explain why he felt that this case justified editing through protection." Khoikhoi 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC) The edit summary shows, very obviously, that you believe CreazySuit's view that the translation is "false", and that you offered that reason as justification for reverting the article. If you'd said simply "no consensus for this version" that would have been one thing, but you went further and asserted positively that the version you reverted was "false". That's your own POV speaking. As I've said repeatedly to CreazySuit on the article talk page and elsewhere, neither you nor he have any business trying to determine which academic's translation is "true" or "false". All we're supposed to do here is "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", per WP:NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Ok, but what does this have to do with the page protection? This is totally irrelevant to what FT2 is talking about. Khoikhoi 23:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I may need to re-state that (sorry). Both admins were uninvolved. Both have given an explanation. The sole admin issue here is three questions: For Kafziel: - Does the community feel that an uninvolved admin reverting to the version before edit warring, immediately prior to protection, is okay? (If not, is WP:PROTECT misleading?) Was the version reverted a reasonable pre-edit war revision? For Khoikhoi: - Does the community agree that editing through protection was reasonable in this circumstance? (Or that it was a genuine mistake) For protection generally: - when an admin has protected an article, should another uninvolved admin be able to unprotect it without discussion? (And if then left unprotected should another admin then reprotect it if it looks like the edit war is continuing?) There is no RFAR needed, just thoughtful consensus seeking on those three points. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Updated with general 3rd point. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Regarding "no RFAr needed", are you referring just to this specific business with the two admins, or are you describing the whole situation - including CreazySuit's conduct that I documented earlier? Resolving the issue with Karziel and Khoikhoi will not address the outstanding problems with CreazySuit. Secondly, Khoikhoi is not "uninvolved". He has previously posted on the article's talk page, arguing that he believes the translation promoted by CreazySuit to be "more credible" than the others (and how does he know this, exactly? - it's original research again). See Talk:Battle of Opis#Comment. He has clearly expressed a preference as to which version he prefers. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Specifically and only the admin actions. I reckon the community can handle the edit war and any POV or OR editing. It's the possibility of wheel warring that's the problem issue. If that gets addressed here, then we're all on the same page about the admin issues, then the possible "OMG wheel war" won't carry over into other areas covering the edit war. Admins can then handle that with whatever means are appropriate. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I think it's kind of weird that my name is in the title of this thing now, when I'm probably the least-involved admin in the whole discussion, but okay. I can take five minutes for this, and that's about all I can do. I still haven't even read enough of the article to see exactly what it's about, but it's like 2500 years old so I really don't care enough to spend too much more time on it. If someone is wondering about my revert of Khoikhoi when the article was protected, see his talk page (and mine). It wasn't a wheel war or anything like that; I was trying to help him out because he (as he has said) mistakenly edited the protected version and I knew ChrisO was upset about that. And, yes, Moreschi probably should have asked Dragonfly to remove the protection, but I haven't seen Dragonfly complaining. For those concerned with the extremely long duration of the page protection, I completely agree. I used Dragonfly's original end date & time, and I will have no problem if someone wants to shorten it or remove it completely. It seems quite excessive to me. I'm pretty comfortable with my tiny part in this, particularly the fact that the article has been sitting peacefully for a couple of hours now, so I guess that's about all I have to say about the whole thing. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Admin inactions I am getting increasingly fed up here. It's a depressing day when the admin corps seems to have collectively turned its brain off. Protection of this version - until 9th October! - is utterly inappropriate when the alternative is this version. I don't buy this false translation business either: translation of these languages is never a clear-cut business, there will always be interpretation involved, and the fact that Lambert disagrees with Grayson (whom most people seem to agree with) is faithfully reported in a footnote, as respectable minority academic positions should be dealt with. I know full well I cannot block anyone here, and I never threatened to block anyone myself: I am relying on the rest of you to deal with these problem users for me. In unprotecting the article I did not then revert to my preferred version because this would constitute abuse of admin tools. Seeing that Dragonfly was ill, I assumed he wouldn't be up to replying to messages, and, guess what , one unprotection of a bad protection does NOT constitute wheel-warring (technically, Kafziel's reprotection does, but since I have no issue with that, it doesn't. And I'm sure Khoikoi didn't realise he was editing through protection - it is easy to do). The issue here is not wheel-warring or edit-warring on any sort of warring. The issue here is dealing with the POV-pushing from this Iranian trio (for more info on Creazysuit, see here). Our job as administrators is not just clamping down on warring. If that were all, we might as well all be replaced by a particularly well-coded bot (hell, the technology for this is probably there already, given the sort of wonders Werdna et al regularly produce). Our job is to maintain, protect develop the encyclopedicity of this website. This requires judgment, something automatic-protection-bots-after-6-reverts-in-one-day will always lack. That means, in situations like this, making a genuine attempt to come to terms with the real issues at hand. That is, we have one version which is clearly massively superior to the other: you don't even need to have a classics background (which I do) to see this. Therefore, you do not go and slap a sysop-only protection until first late September and then early October onto a completely unreferenced and inferior version. This is just common sense. Of course, often there will be cases (in fact, the majority) where both versions being put forward are inadequate, and encyclopedicity lies in a compromise. In such instances protection is appropriate. But this is not such an instance. And you don't need to be classicist to see this. C'mon, guys, use your brains. Moreschi (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I understand your frustrations. Frankly, I think many people see a dispute such as this, think "too difficult" or "too ugly" and pass by on the other side of the road. I agree that it's dismaying that allegedly experienced editors can look at an unreferenced stub and think it's just as encyclopedic as a detailed, referenced article. The bottom line in this particular dispute is that an external political dispute is being imported into Wikipedia. A few people hold a certain POV, campaign off-wiki in favour of that POV, and reject mainstream academic views on the issue at hand because it conflicts with their POV. We have well-established policies to deal with that. We have admins empowered to deal with disruptive editors who systematically violate NPOV. All that is required is people who are actually willing to act on such disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Action I see a rough consensus that ArbCom is not needed, and that the community should deal with this. I started this thread because I wanted uninvolved editors to provide input before I took action. My finding is that CreazySuit (talk · contribs) has been editing disruptively and tendentiously, and shows no sign whatsoever of backing down. Therefore, I am going to block them until such time as they undertake, convincingly, to follow policy. I have not edited the article ever, and have never encountered this editor before. It is longstanding policy that a disruptive editor does not get to choose the administrator who responds to their disruption. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you, PelleSmith, FT2, and Akhilleus and others for your input. The issue of page protection needs to be resolved. I would favor unprotecting to see if the remaining editors can work out a satisfactory version of the page, now that the disruptive editor has been removed from the locus of dispute. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I would suggest unprotecting but watchlisting the article closely for further trouble. I've been working on an expanded version of the article, amended to give more prominence to the minority POV that CreazySuit favours - see User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis. I'd be the last one to claim it was perfect but I think it's a reasonable starting point. Of course, that assumes that the other editors are willing to accept that POVs they don't agree with should be mentioned in the article, which wasn't the case with CreazySuit and Larno Man. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC) That looks reasonable. This isn't a case of WP:FRINGE, actually, it's just Creazysuit and the others trying to give undue weight to a respectable but minority opinion within academia. Minority non-fringe opinions should be given proper representation, but the fact that the majority opinion is, well, majority needs to mentioned. More generally, the generic trend here of treating ancient documents such as the Cyrus cylinder with perfect credulity needs to be resisted. Guys, it's always propaganda. This is like treating the Behistun Inscription as historical fact (can I check your ears?)! That Herodotus, whom we also need to treat with extreme caution, swallows this nonsense doesn't mean that we have to too. Moreschi (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC) That point about credulity is very, very important. That was actually one of the first things that got drummed into me when I took my first history degree years ago. Rulers aggrandize themselves; they always do. You simply can't take something like the Res Gestae Divi Augusti or, for that matter, a speech by a modern politician and regard every word in it as the absolute, unbiased truth. Of course, what's going on here is that history is (as usual) being used as the handmaiden of modern politics. The cylinder is being treated with such credulity because it suits the interests of political activists and religious fundamentalists. A case in point - I'm now getting stick from Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), who's started edit-warring on Cyrus cylinder, insisting that my use of mainstream historical sources is "part of a larger attempt to discredit Cyrus and this cylinder" on behalf of those who "would prefer that Jews did not have an historical claim to Jerusalem". Which is nuts, of course. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you Chris. Once again badmouthing me all over wiki, characterising my edits as "warring" when your edits require a trip to London to substantiate. Once again, I have made my arguments at the appropriate talk page. Please do not find any excuse to drag my name around. I have a talk page if you have a problem with me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Content matters. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I've unprotected the article. Have at it, fellas, and good luck. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC) "Of course, what's going on here is that history is (as usual) being used as the handmaiden of modern politics." Very good point. If we cracked down on this kind of thing we'd solve half the problems with our history articles.--Folantin (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I agree and disagree on the perception of the consensus of this thread. My own thoughts on the apparent consensus are: CreazySuit was editing tendentiously on the Battle of Opis article, engaging in an edit war by reverting an article which relied on several sources, to an unsourced stub.[49][50][51] Multiple admins were engaging in inappropriate use of their admin tools on this article: Moreschi, reversing a protection without engaging in a discussion with the previous admin Kafziel, making a content decision between versions (to the longer sourced version), and then protecting the page after his decision Khoikhoi, also making a content decision between versions (to the shorter unsourced version), and editing the page while it was protected. There also appears to be a rough consensus that the language of administrators ChrisO and Moreschi was inappropriate, as they should not have been referring to other editors with name-calling, such as "vandals" and "punks". I see that Jehochman has placed an indefinite block on CreazySuit; however, I do not feel that there was a consensus that this is the appropriate action. In fact, the term "indefinite block" did not appear once in this entire thread. I therefore recommend unblocking CreazySuit, until/unless there is a clear consensus, from uninvolved voices, that an indefinite block is the proper way to proceed. --Elonka 18:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I think I've said all I need to say about this. Dragonfly isn't complaining about Moreschi's actions. Khoikhoi's edits were clearly a mistake, and he would have reverted them himself if he had realized it in time. As for myself, the protection policy allows for an uninvolved admin—that's me to a T—to choose an appropriate pre-edit war version before protecting a page. If you don't like that, change the policy. If you want to make something more of this, go for it. Just send me a link to the RFAR or whatever. Next issue. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC) If an editor blanks a sourced article, we consider it vandalism and give him a warning or block him. If an editor replaces a substantial sourced article with a five-line stub for POV reasons, I have no qualms about calling that an act of vandalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC) An indefinite block was over the top in my opinion, given this user's previously clean block log. CreazySuit has engaged in edit warring on a number of other articles in the past, but none of the tendentious or disruptive edit warring has occurred in the last few days. At this point, such a block appears entirely unnecessary. I would recommend that this user either be placed in a mentoring program, because I believe this user does have good intentions, but too frequently gets himself entangled with policy. Note that I have no affiliation with this user; in fact, I warned this user a few weeks ago to stop edit warring or else be blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC) If you familiarize yourself with the details of the situation by reading my non-templated block notice, you will see that this block can be lifted very soon. It is not meant to be an infinite block; indefinite means undetermined length of time. It is my hope that the block will be lifted very soon. All the user needs to do is, "convince the Wikipedia community that you will follow its policies and guidelines". If the user posts an unblock notice that sincerely shows a willingness to stop editing tendentiously (as Elonka has correctly identified their behavior above), I am ready to unblock them immediately, and any other administrator may do so as well if I am unavailable to act. Of course, once the user undertakes to follow policy, any further tendentious or disruptive editing may be met with warnings or re-blocking. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Jehochman, I fully understand the intent of the block. All I'm saying is that I disagree with this approach (block indefinitely, unblock if they promise not to misbehave), namely because the tendentious editing in question occurred more than a week ago. I have acknowledged that this user has engaged in tendentious editing and this user can be reformed if he is mentored by an administrator, and as stated above, I am willing to take on this responsibility. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC) The tendentious editing stopped because the article was protected, not because the user turned over a new leaf. Nonetheless, thank you for your very generous offer to mentor them. I have unblocked them so you can do that. I had not expected an offer of mentorship, but I am confident that you will help them say on the right side of policy. Jehochman Talk 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for taking this on, Nishkid. I wish you success. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I think a block of some sort was certainly in order for the disruptive editing, but whether it needs to be indefinite is another question. I stand by what I said on his user talk page about not wishing to see CreazySuit banned. If he agrees to edit in a non-disruptive fashion - and mentoring certainly sounds like a good idea - then I would not oppose a block reduction. However, I note that up to the point that he was blocked, CreazySuit showed no sign whatsoever of "getting it". Sometimes it's necessary to use the big stick to convince people that the rules have to be taken seriously. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC) If this were a case of a user who had received multiple warnings and blocks, then it might be appropriate to use an indefinite block until they promise to behave. But in this case, CreazySuit had a completely clean block log: CreazySuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) His primary offense seems to have been that he engaged in some unwise edit-warring at a couple articles. I do not feel that this is enough to justify an indefinite block. I also have concerns with the way that Jehochman seems to be coming in as ChrisO's wingman on multiple disputes. If this has become a situation where one admin participates in content wars, and they have a buddy admin who follows along and blocks any opponents, this is a major concern. Jehochman said that there was a consensus for this indefinite block, and even in the block log, put an explanation of Per discussion at AN/I However, this ANI discussion did not give authority for such a block, which meant that the block reason was in error. Therefore the block should be lifted. --Elonka 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, I recommend that they can be unblocked liberally, as soon as the post any sort of polite request that shows a willingness to follow policy. If they post a combative request, or want to stand firm that they were doing nothing wrong, that sort of request should be denied. Jehochman Talk 19:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC) For the record, I posted what I called a "modest proposal" on CS's talk page asking him to modify his behaviour in four ways (see [52]). I would hope that nobody here disagrees with the suggestions I've made. This rant was his response. I was particularly unimpressed with the way he invented things, such as the claim that I called him a "Shah lover". Perhaps he was confusing me with someone else he was having a POV dispute with. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Not a good call. CreazySuit was actively asking Jehochman to recuse himself mere hours before this indef.[53] This block creates an appearance of impropriety: we know individuals watch this board who are all too eager to accuse the admin corps of corruption. The problem would have been easy to avoid: An immediate indef wasn't necessary even if it were justified (and there are doubts that it was justified). I know all too well the dangers of using the admin tools in ways that create an unintended impression of silencing dissent. Learn from my example, Jehochman. DurovaCharge! 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Disruptive editors do not get to choose who responds to their request. Durova, please familiarize yourself with the underlying circumstances carefully. What you are saying is that any disruptive editor can knock out an administrator by posting a few words on their talk page. I had thought about blocking them, but decided to bring the matter here for discussion, first. As I have posted above, the user has been very persistently violating policy, causing great amounts of disruption. What length of block do you think is appropriate? Will the user change after 24 or 48 hours when they have apparently been editing tendentiously for a much longer time? Jehochman Talk 20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Note also that the sole reason CreazySuit was "actively asking Jehochman to recuse himself" was because of a claim by Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), who has conflicted with me previously over POV editing and is currently disputing my edits to Cyrus cylinder, a related article. This is just a case of one disgruntled editor latching onto a tendentious claim by another disgruntled editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Jehochman, if an established editor's statement confuses you it is better to ask for clarification than to try to put words the person's mouth. That is not what I am saying. It is no accident that my post is silent about the merits of the editor's request. If the request were meritless and the community agreed to indef that would have been apparent soon enough. It would certainly have been appropriate to use the tools if he or she made threats, or when community consensus is clear. Editors who are truly disruptive seek to muddy the waters, and by choosing to use the tools at that juncture you provided an opportunity to do so that need not have existed. The loaded question you pose is telling. Step back a moment, please, and ask whether this approach draws more attention to the editor's choices or to your own. DurovaCharge! 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Jehochman has lifted the block and dropped CreazySuit into Nishkid's capable hands as a mentee. In the interests of drama reduction, perhaps we could consider this issue closed? I can't see further discussion of the rights and wrongs of blocking getting us anywhere useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Gladly, thanks. :) DurovaCharge! 20:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC) I don't have a problem with the block. Tendentious editing is a major problem--it causes burnout among editors who try to fight against it and leads to lower-quality articles. We should take strong steps to stop tendentious editors. Of course, if CreazySuit wants to edit non-disruptively, we should unblock him. Mentoring sounds like a good plan, and I would recommend that CreazySuit avoid articles dealing with ancient history for awhile. I can't say I'm familiar with CreazySuit's editing history, but I'm gathering that Battle of Opis is not the only article on which he's edited disruptively. Furthermore, if I'm understanding Moreschi's comment correctly, he may have edited before under a different username, which suggests there may be a longer history here that we need to be aware of. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC) The block is the only productive thing that all of these KB of conversation have produced so far, and tendentious POV pushing is a much bigger problem than the minor slip ups of admins and editors who work to stop it. Sometimes admins abuse their powers in ways that hurt this project, but what I see here is nothing of the sort, just unnecessary drama.PelleSmith (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC) There is a bigger backstory. I can't go into much detail about it, because of privacy concerns, but there are suspicions that CreazySuit is a reincarnation of an editor previously sanctioned (under a different username) by the ArbCom for edit-warring on Iran-related articles. I would ask people not to speculate at this stage - no doubt the facts will become clearer eventually. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC) If that proves to be true, appropriate actions will be taken. Meanwhile, I trust Nishkid64 to keep an eye on the situation. Jehochman Talk 20:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another potential abuse of admin tools

In looking through the history at Talk:Cyrus cylinder, I am concerned by one other action. Administrator ChrisO, who was very much involved in the conflict there, deleted the talkpage in order to remove a comment by (involved) administrator Jayjg (talk · contribs). I have looked at the comment, and am a bit confused as to whether or not it should have been deleted in such an extreme fashion. And even if it should have been deleted, was it so egregious that it should have been deleted immediately by involved admin ChrisO? My feeling is "no" on both counts, but I would be interested in what other administrators think. The deleted edit can be seen here (admins only): [54] --Elonka 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Being new to this dispute, there's a lot for me to catch up on. I don't think I'm revealing too much by saying that referring to actions on IRC does not violate anybody's privacy IMO. If ChrisO thought this should've been deleted, he should have had someone else do it for him. I am in favor of restoring this edit as a matter of principle. Oren0 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The background to this is that Jayjg posted a description of a private discussion on the IRC admins' channel, apparently for the sole purpose of stirring things up on the talk page. This was a gross violation of the channel's rule of privacy. Jayjg admitted shortly afterwards that he was obtaining real-time information from the channel even though he is not on the access list - again in violation of the channel's rules. It is at the very least bad form for an admin to violate inter-admin confidentiality, and even worse form to do so for no reason than apparent spite. WP:DELETE permits the use of the tool to remove invasions of privacy, which I judged this to be. Logs are available (in confidence) to admins who wish to review the IRC discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As per Oren0, if ChrisO wanted this to be deleted, he should have asked for an outside opinion from an uninvolved administrator. Despite your explanation, I still think Jayjg's remark was a bit too ambiguous to be a violation of privacy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that a mere mention of a conversation that happened on the admin IRC channel violates privacy? I understand that this may violate the IRC rules, but those rules have no affect here on the site; as I'm sure you know the IRC channels are not an official part of Wikipedia. Maybe Jayjg violated your privacy by "listening in" to the IRC channel. Maybe there's action to be taken as a result of that. But the question to be asked is whether posting a vague reference to those conversations (looking through his deleted contribs, I don't see any evidence he posted logs, quotes, or anything of the sort to Wikipedia) violates Wikipedia's privacy, or more generally whether it violates anyone's common-sense definition of privacy. To me, the answer is no. Therefore, I don't see why the comments should have been removed. Oren0 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you said, "Jayjg admitted shortly afterwards that he was obtaining real-time information from the channel." Could you please provide a diff of this? Where are you getting this information from? Thanks, --Elonka 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be a suitable topic for discussion, on a different thread or page. This matter is quit tangential to the original topic. Could we please allow this thread to be archived, as it will help reduce the size of this already very lengthy page. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, let's see how it all plays out. I'm quite interested in Chris's response to Elonka's question of 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think ChrisO should have done this deletion, but the "abuse" here seems so trivial that it's not worth adding anything on this matter to an already overly-lengthy thread. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The result

So, finally, the article is at a sane version. Written by ChrisO. Wonderful! Does anyone else feel like congratulating him for actually doing his job here? No? Too busy bickering, I guess.

On the other hand, significant issues remain. That a relatively uncomplicated case of how to deal with Iranian nationalist POV-pushing should cause such immense drama is ridiculous. Luckily we have still got the right result, despite a number of unhelpful interventions. That the vendettas caused by the bitter al-Durrah affair have spilled over here is upsetting. WTF is Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) doing trolling Cyrus cylinder? I shouldn't think he knows anything about it for a minute. Another pattern is also developing: every time a controversy involving ChrisO or myself arrives on ANI, the Elonka/Jehochman catfight also gets imported in under the guise of helpful but opposing interventions.

You two. I don't care about your mutual spat. Sort that out between yourselves. But importing it into my affairs is just plain annoying. Here it led to Elonka ludicrously saying that I wheel-warred purely because she's formed this ludicrous view that I'm some crazy abusive admin based on my criticism, expressed at RFC, of her handling of various disputes, and Jehochman, equally ludicrously, blocking CreazySuit indef, just to piss off Elonka. No, he does not have a clean block log, and yes, the encyclopedia might well be better off as a result, but you knew that was never going to stick. So why do it? It will just make it 10 times harder to deal with Creazy/ManiF/Mardovich in the future.

I have other things to do. Articles to write. Topics to maintain. POV-pushers to block. I do not have the time to deal with your petty wiki-politics. I don't play this sort of game. It's boring. And it's not your job as admins. Where you can't write the content yourself, your task is act as a facilitator: to aid the people who can. In this case, ChrisO (the fact that Chris is also an admin is incidental here and irrelevant). Elonka and Jehochman - that is your goal, and as for your feud, which is truly reaching epic proportions - save that for Wrestlemania, where they appreciate this sort of thing. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it looks like Elonka and I were partly in agreement. I definitely wasn't trying to piss her off, and I don't think she was trying to bother me. We both thought the editor was tendentious, but had different ideas about how to respond. We operate in the same areas of the encyclopedia and will have to learn how to get along, sooner or later. Elonka is welcome to question or oppose my opinions or actions any time. So, Moreschi, sorry for spoiling your day. I will go back to editing shipwreck articles... Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I'll assume good faith then: for all I know your participation here was entirely innocent. And in fairness, you were involved in this thread before Elonka, upon review. But...upon review of the thread I see Elonka, with her usual unerring knack, completely missing the point (and she acknowledges the tendentious editing where? found it now). Instead of pinpointing the real issue, she's just waffled about how horribly we all use our admin tools. In fact, at one point she even advocates restoring the quasi-vandalized version (and yes, this language is appropriate). What is going on here? This is such a clear-cut case - the Iranian nationalists count for nothing besides getting ChrisO's decent version(s) up there. Thanks to Kafziel, this has been done. But look: we cannot establish hard-and-fast rules for every instance of this sort - the only rule that counts is that fixing the article is always the end goal. In the midst of vendetta some people here seem to have completely lost sight of this. I see you and Elonka are also sparring over pseudoscience articles - disengage, the pair of you. Moreschi (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, I'm not going to bother to respond to the multiple bizarre statements there, except to say that such language is not becoming of an administrator. And I will continue to stand by this statement: When one admin takes an action, another admin should not undo that action, unless there is a clear consensus to do. This is not a guideline, this is policy: Don't wheel war. There have now been multiple occasions where you (Moreschi) seem to feel that because you know what's best for the wiki, that you can go and arbitrarily reverse other administrators' actions. Please stop this practice. --Elonka 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Have you actually even read WP:WHEEL? I know it's recently been rewritten - and for the worse - but still "An administrator undoes another administrator's actions without consultation" is only listed as a possible indicator of wheel-warring. I take the view that WP:BRD applies to admin actions as well (it certainly applies to mine: although I prefer people to discuss before undoing something, I realise they are not bound to to so). And in this instance, seeing as Dragonfly had publicly announced sickness, it was reasonable to assume he wasn't up for extensive chats about his protection log! And what "multiple occasions"? Ok, occasionally I'll undo blocks made for bad reasons of established users (Paul Barlow and Matthew jump to mind) without going through the ANI drama-llama process, but this is hardly massively controversial and it's never led to a wheel-war proper. "Wheel-warrior" is sexy mud to throw, but the claim does require some basis in reality. Moreschi (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK currently says not to unblock without discussion, but there is no such statement I am aware of in WP:WHEEL. Elonka deserves credit for not unblocking the user, even though she obviously disagreed with the block. That was well handled. Within about an hour we came to a resolution via discussion. Recently I noted in WP:BLOCK that independent reviews of unblock requests can take action without discussion, because that has always been our custom. A user can't run to their favorite admin to undo a block, but if they post an unblock request whichever uninvolved admin responds has the ability to review the block and make a decision on the spot. Perhaps this discussion could be continued on the relevant policy page with necessary clarifications to policy being made so that we all have a common understanding of how things should work. Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

It appears to me that we may have a consensus by uninvolved administrators (which excludes me) that Jehochman's block of CreazySuit was out of line. He is not viewed as an uninvolved admin in this case, and most importantly there was no consensus for a block in the first place. Therefore, the initial block and subsequent unblock with the "terms and conditions" were entirely inappropriate. I urge Jehochman and other admins involved with ChrisO (such as Moreschi) to refrain from using administrative tools in the disputed page or related topics in the future. Khoikhoi 03:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to second that. There was no consensus for the block; nor, for that matter, was there any consensus for unprotecting the page so that it could be "restored" to the "correct" version either. Please let uninvolved admins take actions here in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You (Khoikoi) have stated a POV position in the content dispute that precipitated this mess when you mistakenly edited during page protection. This to me, an uninvolved observer makes you involved here as well and unfit to make these types of judgments. Of course much of the discussion above is between variously "involved" admins. Can we get some truly uninvolved admins to pass some judgments here? Seriously.PelleSmith (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And I wouldn't count Jay on the list of the "uninvolved". Seriously I know there are a ton of admins on Wikipedia that have no history with any of this or any of the editors/admins at the heart of this. Really its true I swear.PelleSmith (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you "uninvolved", PelleSmith? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I? The difference is that I, the lowly non-admin editor, am just putting in my two cents but when an admin puts in their two cents on this board its starts adding into some unofficial "consensus" count or another. I just think admins with a bad history ought not to comment here as admins on each other. Nothing personal.PelleSmith (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I "uninvolved"? Because I already said that I thought the block was fine, and I agree with the unprotection as well. I never really know exactly how people decide whether an admin is "involved", though--as far as I can tell, Jehochman had never edited Battle of Opis and has only edited its talk page once, but somehow there are claims that he's "involved". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• As an observer I don't quite understand those claims personally. My comment is directed towards those involved on the page itself and also those admins who swarm like flies to sh*t when they see a foe's name on this message board. If there is history I really think its best to stay clear of adding one's authority as an admin towards one judgment or another on this board - because as admins it weighs on the discussion more heavily than comments by non-admin onlookers, for instance. That's really all I'm saying.PelleSmith (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never edited the Battle of Opis article either. From what I could see though, the block was not appropriate. Jehochman placed an indefinite block on an editor (the editor's first ever block), and Jehochman cited "per ANI" as the block reason. But there was definitely no consensus for the block at ANI, especially as the term "indefinite block" had not come up even once. --Elonka 05:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See response to Jayjg.PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As the block has been lifted now, I think a discussion of whether the block was appropriate or not is a waste of time and energy. The correct end result has I believe been reached. I'm entirely uninvolved and have sought to remain so, Western Australian political topics produce so much less drama. :) Orderinchaos 07:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To say that "the damage has been undone and therefore we should just forget about a potential misuse of admin tools" seems silly. If I vandalized the main page and it was quickly fixed, would I be justified in saying "talking about my vandalism is a waste of time because the main page was fixed"? Of course not. While I haven't looked into this in enough detail to determine whether Jehochman is involved or not, I do believe that an indefinite first block was egregious in this case and I also believe that "per AN/I" implies a consensus to block which didn't seem to exist. To be clear, I'm not suggesting any actions be taken against anyone here, I just think it's important as a community that we are constantly reviewing each other's potentially controversial actions and maintaining an understanding of what is and isn't OK. If I screw up using admin tools, I want to know about it. Oren0 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Misuse is a fairly strong word - it has implications which I don't think can be read from the circumstances. To say it was likely mistaken or questionable would probably be closer to the facts. I don't doubt Jehochman enacted it in good faith, or with any intent to not comply with our blocking policy. However, it's not unreasonable to suggest a block was one of the remedies available - although indefinite was likely too harsh. I think sometimes we get carried away with reviewing things and flogging dead horses to the point where noone wants to do anything in case someone objects loudly and creates drama that the enactor has neither the time nor will to deal with. It also makes it more difficult to draw attention to real abuses of power (which do happen) in a classic "boy who cried wolf" kind of situation. Personally I feel sorry for anyone with any mind to review this situation neutrally who has to read 19 screens (at 1280x960 resolution - more on lower ones) and probably still won't have any clearer idea of what has happened. Orderinchaos 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem concerned the upholding of WP norms for writing mainstream history articles on the classical period, problems correctly identified by Chris0. A POV-pusher consistently attempting to give a minority nationalist reinterpretation of history, unsupported by the academic literature, was blocked. His/her previous apparently unblemished history was irrelevant. User:Ariobarza/69.236.90.200 continues to question recognized sources in a way familiar from users like User:M.V.E.i.. It is hard to see how any expert could continue to edit this article when the published work of established classical historians is dismissed by wikipedians, with only their personal views as justification. Ariobarza refers to "suggesting games of academics". It is not up to wikipedia editors to assess academics in this way: that is pure WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Khoikhoi is disingenuous. As you see below, they appear to have been using their sysop tools in furtherance of the pro-Iranian nationalist point of view in multiple edit wars.

• Unruled Paper (film) - [55] CreazySuit
• Hemshin peoples - [56] Namsos (pro-Armenian) vs. Omer182 (pro-Turkish)
• Racism in the Middle East - [57] Larno Man and CreazySuit (pro-Iranian) vs. MiS-Saath (Iran-critical)
• Khūzestān Province - [58] Larno Man and BehnamFaris vs. MiS Saath
• Arabistan - [59] ditto
• Erzurum - [60] (pro-Armenian edits by Darwinek, vs. pro-Turkish anon)
• Mazandarani language - [61] 68.5.250.146, internal issue between Iranians
• Van Resistance - [62] pro-Armenian version
• Massoud Rajavi - [63] CreazySuit
• Amir Taheri - [64] CreazySuit
• Kish Island - [65] version previously preferred by User:Axamir
• Persian Gulf - [66] Sia34, pro-Iranian version
• Timurid dynasty - [67] 07fan (possibly another CreazySuit id)
• Hotaki dynasty - [68] 07fan (same context as above)
• Barlas - [69] 07fan (same context as above)
• Bactria - [70] Beh-nam (Tajik/Iranian vs. Pashtoon POV issue)
• Demography of Afghanistan - [71] Anoshirawan (same context as above)

I recommend further investigation of Khoikhoi's use of sysop tools. I request that all parties stop battling, and look at their own behavior first, before criticizing others. My block message stated quite clearly that "indefinite" in this case was not meant to be "infinite". Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise being mindful of re-opening old wounds and taking fresh digs at old enemies: doing so is the number one path to drama. Anthøny ✉ 14:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed any part of my comment that could be viewed as provocation. I hope that other editors will check their own posts to make sure they are not sharpening garden tools. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But is it better for "old enemies" to pretend like they are capable of neutrally criticizing each other?PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One other point bears mentioning, especially since some here are not administrators. When blocking a user, there is a drop down menu that presents options. "Indefinite" appears at the short end of the spectrum, and "Infinite" appears at the long end. These two should not be confused. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, it might be better to address Khoikhoi's use of protection through a request for comment. This thread is already very long and getting pulled in different directions by irrelevant personal issues. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree not to lengthen this thread. There is a conversation at User talk:Jehochman#Dear Jehochman where I have raised this issue. At this stage, an RfC might be premature. Khoikhoi has been a valued contributor and administrator, and may simply be unaware of the perception that their interventions have been biased. I am hopeful that informal discussion will resolve the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Without regard to the rest of this wandering thread, that last list of diffs should be examined and disregarded. Jehochman, what were you trying to show? The first diff, khoikhoi protected the article against someone who was threatening to sue WMF, and was blanking the content. The second diff he protects an article that is the subject of raging nationalist edit-warring, (including proxy-warriors, drawn to the article just to mess with the Armenian or Azeri PoVers), and which he has not edited since 2006, and then non-controversially. The third diff he protects an article during a brief revert war. The fourth diff he protected during an edit war; the page was unprotected 11 days later, and none of the three warriors has returned (I think 2 are blocked and the third is observing a self-imposed restriction). The fifth ended an edit war on (trying to change a dab into a stub??). The sixth he semi-protects an article (which I once edited) to end an edit war with an IP; that was in June, and he lifts the semi-p a few days ago. I'm not going on. Certainly he's made mistakes along the way, but this is an admin who generally stays uninvolved and handles ugly nationalist warring from (I think) the Balkans through Anatolia and into Central Asia. With no dog in the race, with no deep agenda, he goes where uninvolved admins usually do not, and he does good. He seems to be far more likely to give editors room to cool down than to set tripwires, and likely to protect a page rather than to block an editor when that's feasible. What's to discuss? Jd2718 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As you observe, the protections may be justifiable when considered individually. My concern is the apparent selective enforcement of policy. The version being protected always seems to favor one side. The large number of incidents defies the laws of probability. Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What's to discuss is his writing at Talk:Battle of Opis "The bullying and intimidating of the opposing editors here by framing this content dispute as a policy issue has to stop." -- the key issue was whether editors can decide that a particular translation is correct on the grounds that it (1) the latest, (2) written by the teacher of the disputed translation, etc. That is not a content dispute, and by starting off his entry into the discussion with both an attack on other editors and a misrepresentation of what has been going on I see no desire on his part to give editors room to cool down. (He also earlier removed all sourced text writing that it was " a version based on a false translation" - not our role. So far, he has been acting very much like CreazySuit on this article. Likewise on Kaveh Farrokh where he reinstated Amazon 'blurbs', editorial reviews, despite the fact that over on the RSN, [72], this has been discussed with a consensus that Amazon could be a useful guide to verifiable reviews, but that we'd need to find the original source. I wasn't going to raise that here (I have on Jehochman's talk page), but I want to make it clear that he is now deeply involved and attacking other editors. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One other issue of concern that needs to be raised about Khoikhoi, which I discovered a short time ago. After he disputed some of my additions to Cyrus cylinder, a related article, he posted a message to a number of user talk pages concerning an alternate version that he was working on and invited them to contribute to it (see [73] for an example). He posted this to the user pages of Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) [74], CreazySuit (talk · contribs) [75], Raayen (talk · contribs) [76]], Kansas Bear (talk · contribs) [77] and Larno Man (talk · contribs) [78] - all editors who had expressed disagreement with my additions. He did not inform or invite me, you, Dbachmann, 3rdAlcove or any of the other editors who were on "the other side". I presume the intention was to create an agreed version among editors with a common POV and then dump it into the existing article. This seems like a textbook case of improper canvassing and coordinated POV-pushing. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Or it could just be that these editors were creating an alternate version which they could use to refute the version advocated for by you, Dbachmann and 3rdAlcove. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to take a stab at summarizing the situation and consensus here:

There was an ugly situation at the related articles Battle of Opis and Cyrus cylinder, which involved multiple admins using tools in policy-violating ways. We can debate the details, but the consensus of uninvolved voices here seems to be that:

• Moreschi (talk · contribs) reversed a page protection, without contacting the protecting admin
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) edited through a page protection in a non-neutral way
• Kafziel (talk · contribs) edited in a non-neutral way, and then protected Kafziel's preferred version
• ChrisO (talk · contribs) used admin tools to delete an opponent's comment (ChrisO may have also been dragging off-wiki disputes, onto the wiki)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs) imposed an indefinite block on an editor, citing ANI consensus, but there was no such consensus

At this time, all seriously problematic actions appear to have been reversed, and no further "fixing" actions are required.

If others agree with my assessment of the consensus, my recommendation (this is my personal opinion at this point) is that in order to proceed, we ensure that a note is placed on the talkpages of all of the admins involved, linking to this ANI thread, and making it clear that the community said, "You shouldn't have done that, don't do it again." If any of these admins do proceed with misuse of admin tools, then we can decide if further action is required, but for now, we can say, "Admins admonished, issue closed, let's move on."

How does that sound? --Elonka 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree You have an apparent axe to grind with ChrisO, Moreschi, and me. Please back away and let some uninvolved parties decide what, if anything more, needs to be done. We have more than 1000 administrators. There is no need for you to referee this particular thread, though of course, I welcome your feedback, which you have already provided several times. Jehochman ^Talk 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with JD2718. I think Khoikhoi has used page protection in an effective manner to get editors to engage in discussion, rather than continue edit warring. There may be some hiccups along the way, but his overall track record has been superb, given his history of editing high-conflict articles. Jehochman, I'm curious as to when you suddenly picked up all this knowledge of Iranian nationalist editing? I don't recall ever seeing you editing pages in that area. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ahem. Couldn't this be considered a sign that he's not involved and has no conflict of interest? Elonka, you drew conclusions about five administrators. Each case is separate; I'm concerned with your conclusion about Jehochman, who made a single action, which you did not report accurately. He did not claim a consensus at AN/I, he merely referred to it. It was easily undone, indeed, he reverted it himself, and if it was incorrect, it was certainly made in the full light of ongoing discussion, and such actions are relatively harmless even if incorrect in some way. It's administrative intervention that takes place unnoticed that is particularly problematic. In any case, Jehochman's block and unblock, in themselves, seem to have possibly contributed to resolution of the situation. Time will tell. --Abd (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the summary which over-dramatizes the event. Two skilled administrators disagreed about a content issue, were editing alongside other aggressive editors, and became aggressive themselves. At one point khoikhoi was sloppy with the tools, and though he hasn't said anything here yet, given his history I assume he mistakenly edited through protection. I don't know why Kafziel's or Moreschi's actions merit attention. Normal DR takes care of this. Jd2718 (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Because per Wikipedia policy, specifically Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of tools: "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." --Elonka 19:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead quadruped

Everyone participating in this thread has received valuable feedback, and they should take it into account going forward. Further, circular discussions will not be helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Subpage please

This is closing in on 120KB. Time to subpage please. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne

Resolved

 – RBI - KnightLago (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a deeper issue here. Thatcher 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see "The Wikipedia Community would like to wish Avril Lavigne a happy birthday!" at the top of the article on South Africa and related articles. It appears above the article title! I have no idea how this is done, because I can't find the text in the article. Over to someone more aufait than me ... AWhiteC (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed here, vandal blocked, but I'm a little unclear if we protect templates that have previously been targeted or not. --barneca (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lonely lost soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Birthdaygirl84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wubwubus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vancouver cornetto1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These vandal accounts and the template vandalism they caused were enabled because Blueboy96 unblocked 82.198.250.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and replaced it with a soft block. As I explained at Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix, even though these are shared IPs, almost all the edits are vandalism from the Avril vandal. These accounts were created recently on Tor, then used to vandalize from school. Therefore a softblock is worthless. The template further gives several helpful instructions to good editors who might be affected. I was hoping that a hard block would annoy enough of Synetrix' clients that they would take some sort of action.

I am disappointed that Blueboy96 lifted this block without informing or consulting me. Expect the Avril template vandal to come back on a daily basis. Thatcher 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put this block back in place; checkuser blocks are obviously not to be undone. east718 // talk // email // 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had thought there was a provision in the blocking policy reflecting that "checkuser blocks," designated as such, should not be undone by another (non-checkuser) administrator without checking with the checkuser. However, I'm not finding that provision in a skim of WP:BLOCK, so perhaps I am misremembering (although it seems a sensible enough suggestion in any event). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just one of those things that's accepted practice but the recording of which as such has been neglected. I suppose this is as close as you'll get to instructions of this sort. east718 // talk // email // 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the type of block, it would have been courteous for Blueboy to ask Thatcher first, or at least inform him of unblocking, whether it was a checkuser block, or a plain admin one. -- how do you turn this on 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit, I thought it was bad form to hardblock such a large range from editing due to the large potential for collateral damage, unless there was a lot of spam involved. If I had known that the range was being used exclusively by one editor, I'd have left the block in place. I'll do better on this in the future ... Blueboy96 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be no future. You shouldn't be unblocking anyone unless you know exactly what is going on. It is extremely bad form to reverse another administrator's block, especially a checkuser, without consulting them first. Have you unblocked anything else we should know about? KnightLago (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is inappropriate KnightLago. He realised his mistake & apologized for it. If you want to check his blocking/unblocking history the logs are there to browse at your leisure. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You infer too much. KnightLago (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with KnightLago here. Blueboy may have realised his? immediate mistake, but it's not clear if he realised the wider mistake which is that admins should not go around undoing the actions of other admins, without being sure that they are doing the right thing. Particular with a checkuser, admins need to be damned sure the blocked was inappropriate and there wasn;t a wider issue. As it was, a quick look through Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal or otherwise digging deeper into the history of the Avril vandal probably would have told Blueboy there is a wider issue. Yes the earlier discussion didn't really mention any of this, but Blueboy should have, given the circumstances, either done a bit of searching or asked what was going on. Note that this doesn't mean checkusers have free reign to do whatever they want simply that admins (or anyone else for that matter) should request an explanation if they have doubts but may not be aware of all the circumstances. Nor does it mean that Blueboy, or anyone, should be hang, drawn and quartered; simply that it is important that the proper lessons are learnt here. Also, people have a right to feel aggrieved if someone else makes a mistake that costs other people time and effort, the fact that a person may have apologised and accepted their mistake may mean there is no call for further action, but it doesn't remove the right for others to be aggrieved by the mistakes. Intrisincly, part of accepting you made a mistake is accepting that others may be annoyed at you for a while for that mistake (and I see no evidence BlueBoy doesn't accept this, it's simply J.smith who appears to think apologising means everyone should be happy and we should at once forget about the issue) Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar issue on Template:Infobox Television? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wubwubus

Wubwubus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding "AL birthday" message to widely-used templates; previously done under Khrono1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, now blocked. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked, see thread immediately above. --barneca (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Converted into a subsection of above thread.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Also blocked one open proxy - Alison ^❤ 19:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More

More vandaliasm from:

• Laven84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jennifercole21-01-94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samanthamckay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block and semiprotect? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Although if they are sleeper accounts, and he has more of them, then semi prot won't work. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's all cleared up. Checkusers will find more in my blocking log. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Proxies and sleepers blocked. Thatcher 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A different strategy

After looking carefully at the checkuser logs, it appears that the Avril vandal only has access to about 34 addresses within the range, not the whole range. So I have individually blocked the affected addresses and will unblock the range. Note these 34 addresses are still massively shared by a number of London-area schools. There is an awful lot of vandalism, and not just the Avril vandal. It should be ok to create accounts and grant block exemptions for users who have legit school or residential ISP email addresses. When in doubt, ask. Thatcher 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They're just school-IPs. School ips are always way more trouble than they're worth. You lose nothing by blocking them. HalfShadow 16:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Technological problems

Resolved

 – Stuck SHIFT key. Next... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My keyboard is acting weird> I have to turn on the CAPS key just in order to type with lower case letters> I cant make punctuations because my keyboard is working backwards as you can see when I try to put a period I get this > or a comma I get this < please help me this is so weird> Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what administrative help is required here, unless you want me to recommend a vendor for a new keyboard (hint: eBay). howcheng {chat} 22:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Try typing with the keyboard rotated 180 degrees. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

lol - I'll leave a tech note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have spilled something on the keyboard, cleaning and drying out the keyboard might help. Running a virus scan on your PC would be advisable in case it's not the keyboard that's at fault. Hope this helps. Nick (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything's all good now, I don't know what caused the problem, but I think switching user accounts (Windows XP) solved it. I am running a virus scan now, so thanks to everyone for their suggestions. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do spill Coke on the keyboard, disconnect it immediately and run it through the dishwasher. (Wash cycle only - not dry cycle.) That actually works. However, let it air-dry for about a week before trying it again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This just means the software missed a key-up or key-down event, and the keyboard and operating system got out of sync. Pressing and releasing each shift, control, and alt key, and the caps lock and num lock keys will usually get things back in sync. --John Nagle (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

XP doing that? Forsooth! VISTA, I could see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to use the wash-cycle... just rince it off with distilled water and put it in the oven at 150 degrees for some time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Before doing that, rinse it with lime-away to remove corrosion, then put it in a crust and after you've baked it you'll have a key lime-away pie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or you could aim in another direction when looking up porn. And don't tell me you aren't. HalfShadow 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a little too much information, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Naughty IP returns

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

Apparently recently returned from a 1 week block, this IP is now edit warring and telling us to fellate him. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has been semi'd, so that should handle it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on him, he's just here looking for a date. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ain't we all, honey....ain't we all. Gladys J Cortez 13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yah, shoor, yoo betcha. And how's it working out so far? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(...says the guy who dresses up as women. Tricking Elmer. Yeah. Sure.) HalfShadow 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Elmer is so easy to fool, I've written a book about him: "Gullible's Travails". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 again

Resolved

 – (for now at least)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits for previous discussion about this user.

In the previous discussion surrounding this user 3 different editors had to go and tell him about the discussion and finally warnings had to be given that if he didn't show up to discuss his edits they'd be viewed as disruptive and he would be blocked. Since that time he's accumulated 9 more warnings on his talk page about his editing behaviour (a wide variety of things, misuse of vandal templates, misuse of automatic tools like twinkle, and failure to respond again at times) and was recently blocked for his behaviour. All in just 10 days. He seems completely unwilling to take any advice, and in the most recent exchange said he wouldn't give up twinkle because if he does patrol, that means other people fix things faster. To me this indicates some kind of motivation for his behaviour outside of what is best for the encyclopedia. Several users have reached out to him and have made little if any difference. As well now because he's on rapid fire patrol it has become increasingly difficult to check his edits for problems as the volume has increased. At the least this user needs to have his access to this tools and any other tools stripped for the time being and if his disruptive edits continue in the face of all effort to help him, he needs to be blocked for a little longer than 12 hours.--Crossmr (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about bringing him up here again. His userpage is a string of 'final warnings', he's back at it after his block and unrepentant. I suggest removing all semi-automated tools such as twinkle from him, you never know he might be ok underneath what he's doing with them. Then if he still acts bizarrely disruptively, we'll have to think again. But he's not the most collaborative of users. Sticky Parkin 03:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Even without the tools he has a serious issue with communication which is a big part of the problem and frustration for other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours and will keep an eye out. I still think he's well-intentioned but we can't tolerate the constant disruption. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely something not clicking with this editor. Today, while I was on RC patrol, I noted an IP that he had given SEVEN final warnings to in quick succession. I'd definitely support complete removal of all semi-automated tools. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor seems to be trying to do approximately the right thing. It's the "approximately" that's the problem. Maybe with some coaching... --John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only are this editor's bad edits requiring so much effort to check and clean up that they swamp any benefit from his good edits, he is also - I would surmise - chasing off potentially good editors. Final warnings given as first warnings for simple newbie errors are just not acceptable (and the irony is not lost on me). I accept this editor means well but Wikipedia is not for everyone, and I think it is time to recognise that the project would be better off without him. Ros0709 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He was given plenty of chances before I issued him a final warning. Several editors reached out to him and he ignored them until he was given a final warning and told he'd be blocked if he didn't discuss. I agree that an editor that continues on this path and basically has to be forced in to discussion does not benefit this project.--Crossmr (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help people relate to him if he had a readable username too. I keep thinking it's text speak and trying to decipher it, but I think it's just a random jumble of numbers and letters, which if it were longer would definitely breach the username policy. Sticky Parkin 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr - I was referring to the final warnings Tohd8BohaithuGh1 was issuing: minor transgressions by newbie editors were getting a really unwarranted response. Ros0709 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you mentioned irony, I thought you were referring to the fact that the first warning I'd issued him was a final warning.--Crossmr (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I thought it ironic that he is so intolerant of newbie errors when he is making so many errors himself. Ros0709 (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that he as asked Sticky Parkin to adopt him. This is a more postive sign. Ros0709 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He also made two good wikignome edits 'by hand' as far as I can tell rather than using any tools, and I agreed to adopt him.:) Sticky Parkin 17:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport Returns

Resolved

• Wikiport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not 1 week after my last ANI thread about this guy, he's back again, making unexplained removals of material that has been the subject of numerous RFC's going back three years, and which has its own FAQ explaining why it's there. Additionally, at least four editors have addressed this directly to Wikiport on the talk page (see Talk:Fox News Channel#Deletion of FNC Article). Beyond all of that, he tried twice to speedily delete the entire article because he doesn't agree with the sentence in question and refuses to read or respect consensus. Can someone please end this disruptive behavior? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to give Wikiport the benefit of the doubt with regards to the speedy deletions, however removing the text from the introduce is plain disruptive, and this talk comment is full of mild accusations at Blaxthos, in spite of having been painfully explained that the introduction reflects the consensus of the wider community, due to much debate at RFC and talk pages. I gave the user a final warning last time, so I have blocked for 24 hours. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, John. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He just removed the block notice so I restored it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically' he's allowed to do that. HalfShadow 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Hopping Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – IP range blocked, and pages semi-protected --Flewis^(talk) 13:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This user continues to 'ip-hop' in order to continue editing the articles: Lech Kaczyński and Law and Justice. Despite cautions, warnings and polite notes and reminders [79], this user obstinately continues to vandalize these articles by inserting non-NPOV and biased info.

Here is the WP:AIV report I compiled: (this would make things a lot easier)

• 149.254.192.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 3 – Flewis^(talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Note: This user is "ip hopping" in order to edit the article "Lech Kaczyński". S/he was previously here: 149.254.192.208 (talk · contribs) --Flewis^(talk) 13:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now here: 149.254.192.224 (talk · contribs) - Could someone please report this to AN/I? Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 13:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here as well: 149.254.192.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 – Flewis^(talk) 13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just rangeblock the range that all of them are coming from. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 13:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ec I've blocked 149.254.192.208 and semi-protected Lech Kaczyński and Law and Justice for two weeks.--Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As Erik the Red 2 pointed out, why not simply Range-block the entire isp for a short period of time? (Persistent vandalism calls for drastic action)--Flewis^(talk) 13:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Might be worth waiting a short while to un-semi the articles in case they find another IP range to edit from.Black Kite 14:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

After the recent debates in which Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was told, in no uncertain terms, to leave Docu, and particularly his signature, alone, Pigsonthewing made two blatantly trollish edits to posts signed by Docu: [80] and [81]. The second, in particular, is simply harassment. Docu had signed, but not timestamped, as is his wont - [82] - and there was absolutely no need whatsoever for Pigsonthewing to amend Docu's signature. It is impossible not to see this as deliberate trolling, and Pigsonthewing has been asked numerous times to desist, but is still doing it. Enough, I think. I have blocked Pigsonthewing for 24 hours. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose block. Having followed the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mcumpston thread above, which resulted in Mcumpston withdrawing, in particular this diff, I don't think User:JzG should be blocking Andy a few days later. It looks like revenge rather than the impartial wielding of the sword of justice (and Docu should pay some attention to the dozens of people who find his sig irritating). I would ask User:JzG to unblock asap and let someone else consider the matter. Occuli (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• [fault, edit conflict, fault, fault, edit conflict - bah!] I warned Pigsonthewing for this exact behaviour towards this exact editor [83], prior to which I do not recall having any previous involvement with Pigsonthewing; if you're going to discount every admin who's commented on Andy's behaviour as being somehow involved then you are going to run out of admins very fast - his history is long and controversial and includes ArbCom sanctions for edit-warring over trivia, which is basically what he's doing here. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• All this is true but Docu is also to blame for today's exchanges. Has Docu been asked to 'keep away from Andy'? (Difficult as they both work, in disharmony, on Coordinates.) Occuli (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not really relevant; Pigsonthewing knows full well that Docu does not want to change his sig, and has been warned for doing so once before, this is an act of deliberate provocation of an editor with whom he is in dispute. Andy has a very long history of provocation, on and off Wikipedia; he seems to be playing Wikipedia-the-MMORPG. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this. There are two issues, Pigsonthewing doing what he was explicitly told not to and Guy's involvement. Pigsonthewing definitely is doing what he was told not to, so I totally support the block. In fact, I'd have made it 31 hours vice 24. Guy maybe should have asked someone else to look at this but the bottom line is the block is solid, Pigsonthewing simply needs to cease and desist doing this and leave Docu alone. No editor should me messing another's sigs and comments like this, especially not after they were emphatically told to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pigsonthewing has posted an unblock request, which I've declined on essentially the grounds you've just stated. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Moreschi (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another unblock request on the basis of WP:BUTIAMRIGHT. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Declined on the basis of WP:NOYOURENOT. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And a third, on the basis that [84] apparently didn't specifically tell him to stop. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be getting any more - his user talk page is now protected. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good decisions. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins gone Wild, Wikipedia Edition. You're a janitor with a mop, you're not the police. You don't make up the rules as you go. How was this block supported by community (or foundation) adopted policy? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pitch in again after this was marked resolved, but I am a bit concerned here. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2 Andy was banned for a year, and the ban expired on August 19. That's just over a month ago, and since then he's been blocked twice for disruption. Given that the last one-year ban was also for disruption, how much longer do we go before our patience wears out? Guy (Help!) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There could, maybe, possibly, be a trend here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This particular transgression is trivial. No-one would be paying any attention if it were not Andy (for whom I am beginning to have some sympathy). His behaviour in 2006 and 2007 was much worse than this. I would also like to see Guy withdraw from this for the time being as he does not seem sufficiently detached – there are plenty of eyes on AM. Occuli (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When an admin tells you not to do something that's a rule violation, and you do it anyway, it's not trivial. Especially for a user who has been blocked many times, sometimes at great length, and is still defiant. It's kind of like a paroled felon who steals a pack of chewing gum. Stealing the chewing gum, by itself, might be considered trivial. But it's still a violation of the law, and given the parolee's background, it's not at all trivial, and he goes back to the slammer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, calling Guy "involved" is misleading. If Guy were involved in a content dispute with the editor in question, that would be one thing. But that does not appear to be the case here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins enforce community (or foundation) adopted policy, they do not make up the "rules". So unless you have a policy (or even a guideline) which says modifying another editors sig in a harmless way is a blockable offense, I can understand why Andy wouldn't heed such "warnings". —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your buddy has been here long enough to know that you're not supposed to mess with other people's talk page comments, even with good intentions. And when it's to prove a point of some kind, that's a rules violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Now here's a funny thing. In the second arbitration case, one of the disruptive edits cited in evidence was this one: [85]. Compare that with this edit: [86]. Banned for a year, comes back and immediately makes one of the edits that got him banned? In what way is that not a violation of WP:POINT? Guy (Help!) 17:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In no way at all. But for today this looks resolved to me. Jd2718 (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The second of those diffs is broken, I guess you meant [87] --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a little late there JzG: that matter was dealt with over a week ago IIRC. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the problem (for me) is that while I was happy to AGF and let Andy have another go, aleit sceptical given his off-wiki reputation, here we seem to have two incidents, close together, of the same type of problem - in one case the same problem - as got him banned. Can we come up with a way of forestalling what looks painfully like the inevitable here? Perhaps invent a "disengagement parole" or something? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, perhaps since this incident is silly and trivial, Andy should be asked not to do what he did again and unblocked so he can continue contributing in a productive manner? Unless there's something more serious here, I don't see how a block helps things... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

At what point will he promise not to do something and really mean it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it a better way - before unblocking him, try to get a commitment from him. Unblocking in the hope that he'll commit is not likely to work, given his past (and recent) performance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't much matter now, since his block will expire in an hour - then we'll see how well he lives up to the promises Locke Cole is making for him - that is, whether he behaves himself, or whether he makes Locke Cole look like a fool for standing up for him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• In view of Guy's diffs I suggest we archive this discussion now, and get prepared for the seemingly inevitable "ban or block for another year?" discussion in a few days time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• I seem to recall Tony Sidaway used to modify signatures all the time, removing special formatting and so forth. I don't recall him ever being blocked, much less banned, for that behavior. What makes this so different? *** Crotalus *** 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • He got blocked for other things, none of them lasting anywhere close to a year. [88] Maybe nobody thought to complain about the signature deal. (Assuming it's true. Do you have any diffs?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• He was warned for amending Docu's signature, and he then did it again. It's quite unambiguous. And edit-warring over trivia is precisely the problem identified in past arbitration cases. He seems to be obsessive about some things, well beyond their actual significance. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another way of looking at this - if user:Docu, an admin, were to amend his signature, as requested repeatedly by a multplicity of editors, some of them admins, then the present incident would not have arisen. Some of the evidence for this is in user:Docu's talk page history (as Docu seems to like making things difficult, by declining to archive his talk). For instance 2 editors, 2 more editors, 2 threads, 3 more editors, one being AM, 2 more, another, another, all in 2008. And there is ANI, Sept 08, with several more expressions of disquiet. Occuli (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Begorrah, another "look what you made me do" game. It's Docu's fault that Pigs-whatever got himself blocked? Wrong. If there's a rule that Docu has to sign his posts properly, and if there's a penalty for not doing so, then take him to the authorities for it. If not, then leave him alone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter anyway, since his block will end in half an hour or so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• And there is a peaceful alternative. There's a bot program which goes around and tags untagged IP address comments in talk pages. That's one bot program on here that actually does something useful. Maybe it could be programmed to look for all incomplete signatures, and complete them. Shazam! What an idea. Ya know, sometimes I'm so smart, it actually frightens me. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• An even more peaceful alternative is to ask him nicely to fix it himself. I suspect he will not do that before Andy is banned, as Andy apparently cannot resist changing it. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that user's departure would make things more peaceful, yes... but what I'm saying is that there are plenty of instances where users don't sign their posts "properly". Sometimes I forget to sign, and the bot program fixes it. So if the bot can do that, why can't it fix incomplete signatures? Not just Docu's, but anyone's? Is there a technical reason that can't be done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Mabbett

I have never amended Docu's sig - not one character of it. I have sometimes placed a note after it, in the manner of {[unsigned}}, with links, for the benefit of other editors, worded to make clear that the addition is not Docu's. I have done this a good few times, and neither he (and he has replied below such edits several times) nor any other editor has previously complained, nor even asked me not to do so.

A while ago, on 20 September, I did so at the same time as I refactored one of Docu's comments. JzG (who signs himself "Guy") threatened me over that edit calling it "trolling". His supposed warning made no reference to placing links after Docu's sig. The compete wording was:

This [89] is blatant trolling. Drop it, please, or you are very very likely to end up blocked. If you are not capable of discerning that you are skating on thin ice right now then you are far less astute than I give you credit for. The time to pull back from the edge is about now.

I pointed out that not only was it not trolling, but that I had been thanked by Docu for that very edit. JzG did not reply.

JzG was later advised by more than one editor that his behaviour towards me on WP:ANI was inappropriate, after labelling me a "dick" for making a valid copyvio report in precisely the manner prescribed.

On 22 September, refactored one of Docu's TfD comments, to remove risk of double-counting. He reverted and asked me not to refactor his comments again and I have never done so since. However, another editor refactored that same comment, albeit differently, and Docu did not revert, nor complain about that. Once again, Docu made no objection to me placing a note after his sig.

Only after I raised the matter of what appears to be WP:POINT editing by Docu did Docu complain about the later refactoring; not on my talk page, not on the pages concerned, not on WP:ANI or WP:WQA, but to an admin who had already made inappropriate, derogatory comments about me, and who has previously made a grossly misleading statement about my user name.

JzG blocked me, and claimed on WP:ANI that "After ... recent debates [I] was told, in no uncertain terms, to leave Docu, and particularly his signature, alone". I dispute this: evidence, please.

On the bass of such false claims by JzG, other editors refused to unblock me.

If the purpose of blocks is "preventative not punitive", why was I blocked for edits which were five or more days old? Why did nobody discuss those edits with me first? What has been achieved, other than to stop me from carrying out useful work to develop Wikipedia? Why was my talk page blocked, with no warning?

Baseball Bugs refers to Locke Cole as "my buddy". What is that supposed to mean? Is he accusing Locke Cole of behaving improperly?

JzG also makes unsubstantiated references to my supposed activities off-Wikipedia and makes vague comments about my "off-wiki reputation". How is that relevant to the issue at hand? Why is that ad hominem personal attack allowed?

He also says that I am 'edit-warring over trivia" - where is this edit-warring? Diffs, please.

The block was listed as being for "disruptive editing" - what was "disrupted"?

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Egyptair 990 article linked to by fraudsters

African - at least, 'African' - fraudsters have been linking to Wikipedia's article on Egyptair Flight 990. The article's talk page displays where I have discussed this with some members of an anti-fraud forum. Technically, I don't think policy allows any obvious solutions to the problem but then this is an unusual situation. I have therefore said I will raise the issue here to discuss what we can do, especially in line with WP:EL/WP:RS and wether the information is suitable for inclusion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's better to keep the actual discussion over at Talk:EgyptAir Flight 990 instead of here, so I'll be replying there. lifebaka++ 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree there. I just wanted more eyes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the results of said linkage, it may be best to take this issue to the Fringe theories, Neutral point of view, Original research, or Reliable sources noticeboard(s). Last I checked, linking to other places on the web wasn't a crime (despite the best efforts of a couple "mainstream" companies a few years ago - the names may escape me, but the hilarity never shall). Are these "409" ("DEAREST FRIEND, I WRITE TO INFORM YOU blah blah blah") fraudsters? Badger Drink (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

People still fall for the Nigerian scam? HalfShadow 05:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

you can't fool all of the people, all of the time, but you can always fool some of the people, some of the time. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They don't need to fool all the people to get rich, or even very many of them. It only takes a few - the "carpet-bombing" approach that is what spam is. However, I fixed 'em - I made a donation in their name to a well-known charity that sends out endless mailings and sells their mailing list to other spammers. What goes around, comes around. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

Edit skirmish over the last few days here: [90]. I attempted to offer some thoughts on the article talk page, but I think the two sides will just have at it until an administrator has a look. Thanks, JNW (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week, since the two edit warriors are just IPs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I would greatly appreciate having someone else read the content of both contested versions and offer their thoughts re: objectivity. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think semiprotect is a good idea in this case. The article is in dire need of cleanup, it started as a near copy/paste of the link at the bottom of the page, and reads like a vanity page. One editor (User:69.177.150.62) seems to have been trying to fix the article [91] indicating so in the edit summary ("Tried to fix POV/Make it no longer a complete vanity page as it was"), and everything was reverted over and over without explanation from two IPs :

• User:204.136.112.10, which is registered to the Pepsi-Cola company. The same IP has been used in the past to make very questionable edits to the Pepsi article. [92][93] (incidently, those edits made it to the New York Times no less [94]). Guess who is the Director of Strategy @ Pepsi ? The answer is in the article here: Dan Debicella.
• User:76.23.169.18. Been blocked after warnings for removing comments from the talk page [95] (6x). Needless to say, a traceroute on the IP shows the end node is in Shelton. Guess who's from Shelton ? The answer is in the article here : Dan Debicella

User:69.177.150.62 is a bit annoyed (and a little confused) [96], and quite frankly, I would be too, he is editing in good faith, warring with someone who should not be editing this article and probably not edit *any* article as he is obviously not interested in improving Wikipedia.

Anyway, I'll revert to a non vanity version. Equendil Talk 07:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wikified and added refs as well. Equendil Talk 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and while I am at it, I went further down the rabbit hole and here are my findings :

• Article was created by User:Shelton2. Needless to say, that account only "contributed" to a very narrow set of articles.
• Various editors tried at one point or another to alter the article. This was invariably reverted by IPs, even the slightest edits:
• User:64.252.73.154, User:64.252.65.220, User:64.252.6.115, User:64.252.99.185,User:64.252.107.152
• User:64.148.1.113. There was a bit of a mess on 10 December 2007, resulting in that last IP being blocked as well as User:Ratsofftoya for 3RR violation, a case reminiscent of this one. A trigger happy vandal fighter also accidently reverted to what was pretty much the original version of the article (see also comment by Ratsofftoya on the revert and answer [97][98].
• User:64.252.5.117 after a few months where the article was not modified. Reverted cleanup tags.
• User:64.252.5.2, User:64.252.133.54, User:64.252.113.233.
• The obviously similar IPs listed above all trace to New Haven County, Connecticut (if you wonder that's not far from Shelton).
• Note that some of the IPs/accounts who edited the article to attempt a more neutral / shorter rewrite or altering a sentence were spa/spi's, though Dan Debicella being a public figure, and given the advert like quality of the article, that's not really indicative of anything.
• So basically, there isn't so much of a revert war here as "someone" who has prevented virtually every change to the article since its creation, 15 months ago, see the diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Debicella&diff=241169162&oldid=139568743. Equendil Talk 09:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Puttyschool is accusing me of "Vandalism"

Puttyschool (talk · contribs) I have discussed it a million times, I've recently tried to be fair with Putty and knew that he/she was a newbie from a couple of months ago, and I cited Wikipedia's policies in good faith. The thing that ticks me off the most is that I'm wasting my time, pretty much. I get this in return. Does Putty expect me to think that's fair? ~ Troy (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that user is just shy of a three-revert rule violation on Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is semi-protected. ~ Troy (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You asked me to look at this, and it looks to me like an edit-war, or skirmish at least. There seems to be a lack of consensus as to an appropriate source for whether the number of Christians in Egypt is 10 precent, 10 to 20 percent. I'm not an admin, but if I were, I would probably protect the page until you all can reach some kind of consensus as to a valid source and hence a presumably valid figure. If the user violates 3RR, though, take him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to my fourth revert on that article, I admit to breaking the three-revert rule while I should not have done so. I promise not to do so again and also reverted that last rv as a sign that I'm willing to use a better method. If someone can help me out, please do so. ~ Troy (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And you've committed one. Oh joy. Stop the edit warring, or you're both in for short blocks. Figure it out on the talk page. If you can't, try some dispute resolution. lifebaka++ 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do, and I think I've already tried that. ~ Troy (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The very reason why I reverted too many times was because Putty and myself were both engaged in the edit warring as much as we were in the discussion. I was caught in the act the moment I had one more revert than Putty did, and that was enough to start a new mess. I don't know exactly how to resolve this. Is there anything else I could do, or am I infinitely stuck with the discussion page? This isn't the first time that happened. ~ Troy (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the other person is edit warring or not, you shouldn't yourself edit war. There are some very limited situations in which multiple reversions are acceptable. This wasn't one of them. Build a consensus on the talk page for your preferred version, and then depend on the other participants to work with you to keep that version that way. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I would commend WP:1RR to you as a general practice instead. Another thing to try is to see if you can incorporate the concern(s) of the other party(s)... "teach the controversy" as it were. ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. ~ Troy (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all Troy is accusing me of using IPs, so I want to check both of us for using IPs and socks.
Toy is ignoring all discussion on talk pages, and insisting to force his point of view, about a subject I never heard about it before, which is using wrong estimated population records from a biased unreliable source as I already explained to him different time in talk:Egypt and Talk:Religion_in_Egypt at the same time we have accurate records from many reliable sources, also I think other editors already explain this in the past, but he is always dropping the discussions in talk page.
So please check both articles Egypt and Religion_in_Egypt history and dissuasions in talk pages, as I don’t have enough energy to write to much as Troy, and I don’t even think Troy POV is a neutral POV related to this subject.« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to those IPs, don't bother. I don't care about the IPs anymore, I care about the dispute. I'm not insisting on forcing my POV, as said on the bottom of the talk page. This is exactly what I'm talking about, I wouldn't be into edit warring at all if Putty would note that I included his/her figures/sources. ~ Troy (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the edit warring, it is quite meaningless until a consensus is reached. I think what matters is the end result, meaning that whatever Putty and I can agree on should probably serve as the final revision. I would like someone to help by clarifying this. ~ Troy (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wandering over to WP:DR is probably in order. The folks over there should be able to help the two of you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It would be a hugely helpful if there is anyone who could help out to avoid further issues. The best part of DR is when it's over and done with so that I can bring myself to sigh a relief. ~ Troy (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is distubing

Resolved

 – indeffed as vandalism-only account --Rodhullandemu 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Dyrdek&diff=241383858&oldid=241383308 this edit I just reverted is disturbing. I think that this needs attention before this keeps happening. SteelersFan94 20:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore. Seen it a thousand times. – iridescent 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that is 'disturbing', you're not going to last long here. HalfShadow 20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, come on, when you saw such stuff for the first time on WP, didn't it shock you just a little bit? It did me, anyway. But some 20,000 odd diffs of this type since and I don't think I'd notice now if someone spraypainted such things on my door. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. First thing I thought when I saw '...the encyclopedia anyone can edit' was 'I bet the place is just crawling with stupid...' HalfShadow 20:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I saw the encyclopedia that anyone can edit rather than the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and thought, "ooh, an encyclopedia, that'll be full of like-minded people who want to increase the sum of knowledge in the world then. This should be good". I learnt quickly. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 20:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If Britannica's editor is to be believed, it's more like "the toilet wall that anyone can scrawl on." Sometimes I think he has a point... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

An infinite number of monkeys will indeed produce the complete works of Shakespeare, but while you're waiting they'll also produce a very large pile of monkey shit. – iridescent 20:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the complete works of Jacquelyn Suzanne. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say such hateful things about the monkeys, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The monkeys always act in good faith. Their output, whatever it turns out to be, comes naturally. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Jimbo's happening, and it freaks me out... (oops, wrong...) — CharlotteWebb 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Crossthets

Can someone please try to impart some clue here? I blocked this person a couple of days ago for inappropriate nationalist soapboxing on his user page (and edit-warring over it); now he's filling up his talk page with the same kind of soapboxing again, but this time mixed in with long-winded complaints about me personally. He's beginning to get on my nerves. This editor's activities on this project have consisted almost entirely of nationalist trolling and spurious complaints against perceived opponents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I trust this suffices. If someone wants to point them in the direction of opening a RfC or ArbCom request (on either or both matters) then fine, but I don't think they need fill up their talkpages with their views. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Giano

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

---

Resolved

 – Seriously WP:LAME.

Giano II (talk · contribs) - On Buckingham Palace;. Established user vandalising a page in order to make a WP:POINT. An admin suggested I bring it to WP:AIV, they said to bring it here. Yes, he is now making some improvements to the page, but... Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is actually vandalism, but he's clearly approaching or has already violated WP:3RR. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Summary; page needs improvements, Giano makes a couple of sarcastic comments in image captions to see if anyone is actually watching the page - someone is - Giano fixes not only those edits but also many other problems with the page. Yeah, a bit pointy, but did that really need to go to WP:AIV (and which admin suggested taking it there by the way?) Black Kite 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"A sunny day at the palace" indeed! Its a pity you so called Admins don't watch a page properly, especially a FA! A bloody sunny day indeed - how long had that been there? Giano (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That particular image/caption was in the article since 13 September, so two weeks. Gimmetrow 21:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was indeed a crap image caption. The little revert war over image size fixing would probably have been better on the talkpage, though. Black Kite 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We are all volunteers, Giano - there is no specific requirement for admins to watch a page (FA, GA or BA - Bloody Awful) when there are editors who are just as capable of doing so. Right, if this is now being discussed rather than edit warred over, should I or another sysop remove the protection? This is the role of admins, to make things better for the content contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 3 hours to get this resolved before we have the monthly bloodletting which is "What are we going to do about Giano?" at WP:AN(I). I am also the individual who removed the AIV report, suggesting that the matter be brought up here. Is there an admin without any percieved or acknowledged bias (either way) re Giano that can look over the editing of the Buck Place article and make a report here? It would be interesting to see what a neutral third party can make of it. I would also be suggest being gentle regarding PrinceOfCanada in warning Giano with a welcome/test template, as I would Giano's fairly restrained reaction.

I would also question the admin who suggested taking the matter to AIV - I hope they meant ANI and just got their acronyms mixed up... It might not be the wisest course of action suggested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

They were arguing about pixel sizes on images. Given Giano's experience writing featured articles, I strongly recommend User:PrinceOfCanada pay attention to Giano's advice on such matters. There is no further need for protection. Jehochman ^Talk 21:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't, actually. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Darn, LHvU, you went and protected the wrong version; now instead of fixing the WP:ACCESS, WP:MOS#Images issues in "The Garden, the Royal Mews and the Mall" (main template goes before images for screen readers and images need to be reversed so the West facade image isn't facing off the text), I have to come over here and read the monthly WP:Lame AN/I threads about Giano (goodness, who recommended AIV?). Note from someone actually involved at FAC; see exceptions on pixel sizes at MoS, which is a widely ignored MoS guideline anyway. Giano's responses to the matter were restrained; maybe enduring Wiki torture builds a more interesting character. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version? It is in the sysop contract - I Was Just Following Orders. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And why would you go and do a silly thing like that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Before reporting somebody, check who they are. Giano II is probably our very best editor of architecture articles. You should be thankful that he is paying attention to any architecture page you care about. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't give him the right to vandalise WP to make a point. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Giano played a big role in this particular article becoming FA. Gimmetrow 21:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:DTTR anyone? Hopefully Prince of Canada has learnt a valuable lesson here today. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, so I made a minor error. That doesn't excuse why he did what he did (which my error was in response to). Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this report over reverting images? I thought it was about the 'image caption'. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just captions, for me anyway. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we mark this resolved now? Risker (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, no? I don't see a resolution here. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PrinceOfCanada, nobody in their right mind is going to block Giano for this. You've already warned him via template. He's now improving the article. What else is there to resolve? Risker (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a committment from him that he won't do this again? I dunno, if I did what he did I'd be blocked without question. As GoodDay pointed out, all editors are expendable. One rule for some people and one rule for everyone else is bad for the community, I think. Clearly I'm in the minority, so oh well. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that all editors are expendable, as that kind of attitude leads to people treating each other like yesterday's fish wrap; however, it does explain a great deal. PoC, I would not have blocked you for doing that, I would have come to your talk page and asked what you were thinking - and without a template at that. Treating people in the way we would want to be treated ourselves is what I would hope everyone takes home from this thread. Risker (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PoC, right now, I see Giano, one of our most prolific contributors of excellent content, being treated in a condescending and frankly rather rude manner by someone who was blocked for disruption quite recently. I suggest you work out a way to work with Giano rather than against him. And please remember that I pass within 100 feet of Buck House pretty much every working day. Don't tempt me to resolve it the way I am very tempted to resolve it right now. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rude? I'm not being rude, and I'm sorry if it's coming across that way. My understanding is that you're not allowed to use WP to make a point. He was. This is my first interaction with Giano, and I'm not 'working against him'; I'm saying that the policies apply to all of us, don't they? Also, don't threaten me. I'm acting in good faith here. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Every editor is expendable. But, I hope things can get resolved here. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"And please remember that I pass within 100 feet of Buck House pretty much every working day. Don't tempt me to resolve it the way I am very tempted to resolve it right now." ← I think he means that "Chapman" is a pseudonym and his surname is actually "Fawkes". — CharlotteWebb 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes? that fellow had an explosive personality (well, almost). GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My patience with PoC is almost exhausted [99] can someone please explain to him that images do not ignore their own page! - and ask him to stop reverting me Giano (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PoC, listen to what everyone is telling you here. I'm not one of Giano's cheerleaders, but only one person's being disruptive here and it's not him. If you'd read that bit of the MOS you keep parrotting, it clearly makes an exception for images where detail would be lost at low image size, and that applies to most architectural images. – iridescent 22:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PoC, now might be a good time to back away from the article for a few days; we'll get any remaining MoS image issues settled more quickly without the edit warring. There are several image guidelines that are contradictory at times, and there are few black-and-white answers when it comes to image layout. You feel that your concerns aren't being treated fairly here: I'll try to explain with some background. Giano is an editor who actually contributes valued content, unlike many of the ArbCom members who sanctioned him after some nasty IRC issues that now have the potential to impact upon content. Several of them either were never in the article writing trenches or may have lost touch with content contributors and the actual work in the trenches of building excellent articles. Yes, some of us have some respect for editors who actually do what we should be here to do (build the best possible content); the ArbCom sanctions made Giano susceptible to baiting, and responses here have accounted for that. This will work itself out; perhaps this explanation will help you back off for a few days, and find another article to edit for a while. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PoC, only since you brought it up, some editors are more expendable than others. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am almost ready to invoke wp:delicious. Jehochman ^Talk 23:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Messing around with FA's to prove a point to the admins is not cool. Period. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Racism and abusive commentary

I believe that recently user Eleland (talk · contribs) violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA by making incivil speculations and personal attacks. Best I'm aware, he claims to have been provoked into doing such a thing, but being noted by three separate editors that this activity was offensive ([100], [101], [102]), he appears to have continued in personally attacking other editors and suggesting he has no intention on curtailing his offensive style.

I was only lightly involved in the discussion on Eleland's talk page, but feeling that the issue affected me directly (as an editor who often reviews discussions on said article), I chimed in with what I believe to have been a constructive comment about Eleland's behavior. Instead of getting a constructive reply, or even being ignored, I was blasted back with a revert and an incivil edit summary. I was deeply insulted by his commentary, and am concerned about the fact that no action was taken so far, as this does not appear to be Eleland's first or even second time making personal attacks on Wikipedia.

Nishidani (talk · contribs)'s complete support of Eleland, especially regarding racist and antisemitic comments, and his extremely long commentary which buries all other discussion, does not help the matter any.

Another relevant diff and quote showing that Eleland intends to continue with this behavior:

• [103] - Eleland - "I still think Saxophonem is a cunt. I mean it. He's a huuuuge douchebag. He can go fuck himself."

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless he suffers from Tourette's, he's got some 'splainin' to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[104]. Toddst1 blocked and then unblocked this user. He seems to be tweeking the block currently. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done here folks. Nothing to see. Please move along. Toddst1 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a much deeper issue here than one editors lashing out and using profane language at wits end. Eleland clearly needs to calm down and reminded that this type of language is not appropriated but its pretty clear that what provoked him isn't anywhere near appropriate either. I hope that whoever looks into this does it thoroughly.PelleSmith (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's not going to happen ... PelleSmith (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His informal request for unblock is missing the obvious question: "Was it something I said?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Miller (actor) did a standup act on HBO back in the 1980s in which he described a pub crawl. At one of the taverns, he said, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

indef blocked for deliberate abuse and declarations not to abide by wikipedia policy Toddst1 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While the word "cunt" is offense, and does warrant a block, the provocation by Saxophonemn (talk · contribs) was far, far worse! I have changed this from resolved to unresolved as an indef block is not appropriate given that the user is aware that they stepped over the line, self-reverted their unsavoury comment, and explained that they lost their head on their talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was warranted, although it should have been of a definite duration. I can't see how Saxophonemn's provocation was worse, or indeed how it was a provocation. A convincing unblock request with a credible promise not to do it again should be granted, I think, but eleland currently seems to be disinclined to make it.  Sandstein  09:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonemn quotes Mark Twains Concerning the Jews, but adds "[The Palestinians too.]". Saxophonemn is in effect writing the future history books to say that the Palestinians will be extinguished. For context, the full text can be found on Wikisource at s:Concerning the Jews#Point No. 6., however that isnt a high quality page:- resembles most online editions in that it is roughly correct but isnt very accurate about the typography.

eleland is doing a sensible thing by not requesting an unblock at the moment, in order to cool off. But the indef block is unreasonable for a long standing editor who has let a vile comment get to them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I did ask Eleland to knock it off earlier, as noted above, but it's a pity that he seems to have persisted, notwithstanding the provocation that he perceives. I also think that an indefinite block is excessive, especially considering Eleland's relatively clean block log. I've reduced it to three months - which is still a substantial period - and suggested to Eleland that he consider Sandstein's suggestion above. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, John, but in that text, Twain mentions peoples that were once glorious but have now passed the height of their glory. I'm not sure how adding the Palestinians to that list is tantamount to asking for their extinction. Comparing them to the ancient Greeks and Romans is even a (probably unintended) token of respect. Saxophonemn's comments seem to reflect not much more than the narrow-minded ethno-religious supremacism that is unfortunately common on talk pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's best ignored and certainly does not warrant Eleland's reaction.  Sandstein  10:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland called that comment for what it is: supremacism, or at best it is an intentional jibe intended to infuriate the opposition. I agree that he over-reacted, but that was quite probably the intended reaction. I dont think Eleland is any harm to our community if he occasionally gets very pissed off at comments like these. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Mark Twain is rolling in his grave right now!

Hi,
The diff of Eleland are not given in this discussion.
Is all this discussion [just] about this that was reverted by Eleland himself 15 minutes later ? (48 hours ago...)
If so, I think undefinite is not acceptable and 3 months far too long. 24 h more than enough and just not talking about them, the wiser...
But there may be something else I missed... ???
Ceedjee (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC) (edit) Eleland deleted a comment later (and was uncivil in the edit summary : [105] but it is not false he was accused to be antisemite [106] (!) in the comment he deleted... user:Eternalsleeper was uselessly provocative. Ceedjee (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think 3 months is still far too long given the provocation as mentioned above. If Eleland was to post an unblock request with a promise to cut that abuse out, I'd be tempted to grant it. The conduct of some of the other editors in the episode shouldn't be ignored, too. Black Kite 10:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would have no objection to anyone granting an unblock request in the circumstances you describe. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not a shadow of doubt that Eleland violated policy. Eleland can't stand racist cant, and varying the vowel, called the cant-ranter a 'cunt'. There is not a shadow of a doubt either that, within 15 minutes of his outburst, he reverted. The punishment now in place deals with his reactions to an admin warning to be civil. The admin, well-meaning, did not check the provocation, which was racist. In a similar situation, another well-established editor revertede a profoundly racist remark against Palestinians within 3 minutes. I don’t think much was made of this. To revert a slip is itself an acknowledgement of wrong-doing, and a form of apology to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Jaakobou: Despite my quick retraction, Nishidani was among the people making a huge fuss over my angry response to his provocation and the end result, despite my taking all but 3 minutes to recant and apologize, was a topic ban of one week.[107] I take pride that -- despite his repeated suggestions that it's extremely moral to attack Jews if they happen to be Zionists (i.e. support Israel) -- I not once called him a "goose-stepping loon" and/or "enthusiastic Nazi" like Eleland did in response to his block.[108] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC) clarify 11:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I used the diff illustratively, Jaakobou. It is not intended to reflect on your present editorial status, but simply to underline that Eleland copped a lifetime, then a three-month ban for opposing a racist, while your unfortunate remark was met with a one-week topic ban. These sorts of disparities in judgement are what disconcert many. I would also note that Eternalsleeper mischievously, and in tone with his earlier provocations, has given as the header of this incident 'Racism' as though Eleland had engaged in racist comments. This is pure and vulgar misrepresentation. Both Eternalsleeper and Saxophonemn indulged in racist comments, and Eleland's response consisted of an objection to racism.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, discussions of a master race and comparisons between Jews and Nazis are considered antisemitic. Eleland should have known better really to apologize rather than insist on "his prerogative" to attack other editors. Three months seems like a fine way to note other editors that comparing Jews with Nazis and calling them "cunt" is a shitty way to request an unblock. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I can only insist that this speed-reading damages Wikipedia. What you say reflects nothing in what was said. Eleland responded to an offensive remark about Palestinians by someone who boasts of his Torah-based nationalism. His response occasioned a further attack. Mark Shabazz, one of the coolest heads in this area, called Saxophonemn's use of Twain, an example of 'national supremicism', a euphemism for what was, contextually, Saxophonemn's ethnic supremicist use of Twain. Ethnic supremicists think of themselves as 'Herrenvolk', and the undercaste here consisted of 'Palestinians'. It is useless to engage in a dispute unless one has the good-will and patience to master what Nietzsche called 'the art of slow reading', which is the only way to read. Eleland did not speak of 'Jews'. He addressed specific individuals, and called them for their contemptuous attitudes, and this habit of taking a criticism of a fellow in one's group, clan or tribe as a criticism of the group, is extremely archaic, and injurious to intelligent discussion. An American might take offense were I to call GWB what Eleland called Saxophonemn. That happens to be what I think, but it has nothing to do with Americans. Is that clear?Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An admin, without checking what Eleland was upset about apparently, made a civility caution on Eleland’s page. I, like Eleland, noted that, once more, the agent provocateur goes unexamined, and those who respond, if intemperately, are cautioned. In comes, curiously out of nowhere, for I have never crossed paths with the editor on the many I/P pages I work on, Eternalsleeper, informing both of us he tracks our editing, and considers us ‘anti-semitic’. It is one of the absurdities of Wikipedia, that this smearing, devoid of diffs, is never punished, while those who get pissed off about racism, and being labelled antisemites, get banned for telling the smearers to rack off. The irony is what Saxophonemn did not complain about here (I don’t complain when Einsteindonut told me to ‘get fucked’ on my page) is now the object of a complaint by Eternalsleeper, who played a key role in supporting Saxophonemn’s racist remark by chipping in to remark that (a) Eleland embraces the violently racist tripe of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, (b) I apparently mock the shofar for having called a Saxophone-player a hornblower (= someone who ‘blows their own trumpet’) (c) both of us are accused of anti-Semitism.

’many edits both make tries to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems. As no one makes a big hoopla of the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel, I find your commentaries offensive and racist.’

There are no diffs in this to document the outrageous assertion. It is patently false, since neither I nor Eleland have ever identified ‘Jewish Zionists’ as the crux of the world’s problems.. It is coded language for insinuating our editing is inspired by the conspiracy-mongering of the Protocols of Zion. Eternalsleeper calls this remark ‘chiming in’. (d) it describes the Palestinians as ‘Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel’, and thus delivers up the chiming kibitzer as someone with a pronounced ideological and historically completely unfocused knowledge of the area.

Outcome? Sandstein’s suggestion (I hold that admin in high regard) that Saxophonemn’s use of Twain was innocuous, is patently wrong. To place the Palestinians with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans is not to honour them by association (such subtleties are not in Saxophonemn’s style). It is to associate them with peoples whom Twain said oppressed the Jews, and were beaten by them. The tampering delivers the message: Palestinians oppress the Jews, they are ‘history’, and are ‘beaten’. That this is what Saxophonemn meant, were there a shadow of a doubt, is shown by several other remarks he made about both blacks, and his Torah-based nationalism.

The two people who provoked this flare-up get off scot-free. One of them, Saxophonemn has yet to make one useful edit, Eleland has made thousands. The other, Eternalsleeper has had the hide first to insult Eleland by calling his outrage at a racist put-down ‘antisemitic’, and Eleland a true-believer in the Jewish conspiracy, and then step in here to make a formal complaint about a violation of Wiki proprieties. Eleland deserves a ban. Perhaps I do too. But is there no such thing as cause and effect. Is calling an accomplished and valuable editor an anti-Semite okay round here? Is reacting violently to such cheap insinuations a crime, instead of a robust defence of one’s integrity as a humanist? It would be comical were it not ridiculous in its puerile bureaucratic superficiality.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost in all this is that invoking the C-word in the manner he did also expresses extreme hatred of women. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. Now Shakespeare and Chaucer are misogynists because they wrote of queyntes. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not the word, it's the way it's used - equating female genitals to inferiority and uncleanliness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish, and you're giving yourself away, associating female genitals with uncleanliness. Eleland did not say S. was 'unclean' or 'inferior'. It's you who are associating the organ in the metaphor with uncleanliness and inferiority. The best you make make of this is that E called S a female, by the figure of speech called synecdoche, i.e. calling a part for a (w)hole:). In any case, this is off-topic, and disturbing one's view of F1 at Singapore.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His use of language is precisely on topic. He's playing the "look what you made me do" game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And contrary to your statement about "giving myself away", that word can be sweet and beautiful in the right context. This ain't it. The editor uses it in an ugly way. It's not the word, it's the thought behind it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the malice in the header, which is question-begging. The complaint is about Eleland's abusive language. The racism is what Saxophonemn brandished, and the plaintiff Eternalsleeper used in wantonly attributing without any diffs to prove it, racist sentiments to Eleland. I still am waiting for some administrator to check both Eternalsleeper's unprovoked smear of Eleland (forget me) as an anti-semite, and Saxophonemn's use of what Malik Shabazz called 'nationalist supremicism'. There is no more place in wiki for wildly smearing editors with insinuations about racism, than there is for abusive language.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

One's integrity as a humanist? Please read the article on baptismal rite. Ottre 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And please read the O.E.D. on 'the price of fish'.Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani seems right to me.

If we take care to read all the edits in chronological order, trying to understand the chain of causes - consequencess, I think that if it is Eleland who wrote the uncivil comments, they were not as terrible as it could seem out of their context, and that he is not really responsible of the whole mess.

Nevertheless, taking some distance (a short wikibreak) cannot be bad for him so that he cool down and he is an editor with an experience long enough to know when he can come back (and ask to be unblocked)

I suggest we let him decide when it is ok and consider the issue as resolved...

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Not responsible"? No, he is fully responsible. He chose the words, not someone else. He's playing the old "look what you made me do" game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, are you saying that if he said "dick" instead of "cunt" he would have been expressing misandry? The literal referent of those words hardly plays a role in their use as swear words, and while they are unfortunate terms I find it a bit of a stretch to claim misogyny or misandry in these types of contexts.PelleSmith (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And I do not agree. In any case, he chose his words, no one else did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you chose to interpret them in the manner that you did (as did I). Just out of curiosity, do you think "dick" displays misandry in the way that "cunt" displays misogyny?PelleSmith (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. In this context, it does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we just disagree about this.PelleSmith (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the technically serious nature of Eleland's policy violation. I am shocked once more by the insouciance of administrators failing to look into the context before making rapid judgements, which will cost Wiki the three months disappearance of a fine editor, while several useless ***** in good part responsible for his banning stick around. If Eleland is to wear a ban, then those who provoked him to an exasperated outburst in defence of a national dignity, and his own integrity, should be called to short order, and be subjected to some attention to see if their own execrable behaviour in this smutty little hitman campaign bears scrutiny.

Especially now that Eternalsleeper persists in his assertion, as per the header he has now reverted back, after I corrected it to 'Abusive language', that Eleland's offense was one of racism, I would ask the administrators who have participated on this thread to examine his conduct for smearing and insulting language, specifically here.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with an established editor who calls Jews "master race" or another calling them "horn-blowers" when many edits both make tries to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems. As no one makes a big hoopla of the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel, I find your commentaries offensive and racist. Eternalsleeper (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The offense, grievous in my view, is that Eternalsleeper:

(a) asserts, without evidence, without diffs, that Eleland called a whole people, the Jews, the 'master race', when the record shows he simply called Saxophonemn for touting a master race concept, or what Malik Shabazz called Saxophonemn’s 'theories of national supremacy' which Malik asked Saxophoneymn to refactor, and in doing so, gave indirect support to Eleland's own original assertion that the remark was racist. Eternalsleeper maliciously twisted this, a challenge to Saxophonemn’s theory of Jewish ethnic supremacy, in order to make it appear as if Eleland embraced the ideas of the antisemitic smear The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This understandably outraged Eleland, who promptly elided it here and was reproved for deleting the smear In turn, Eleland remonstrated with the administrator for denying him a natural right to kept smear material off his page. The administrator was mistaken, no malice, just haste, and Eleland was fully in his rights to remove Eternalsleeper's smear from his talk page. It was the flagrantly patent injustice of being reproved for removing smear material, and for telling an ethnic supremacist to shove off from wiki, that is the germinal spur to the outburst that has now be sanctioned.

At a minimum, Eternalsleeper should be obliged to provide the diffs from Eleland's record which support his judgement. If they are not forthcoming, then Eternalsleeper will have in fact smeared a fellow editor as an antisemitic racist. It's about time behaviour characterized by frivolous baiting and denigrating of people as antisemites, when they are simply defending Wiki neutrality, gets as vigorously an administrative riposte as the reprehensible behaviour of antisemitism does.

(b)He should be asked to provide diffs for the assertion that both Eleland and I abuse Wikipedia by endeavouring in our editorial practice to portray Jewish Zionists as the crux of the world's problems.

(c)He designates Palestinians as ''the Islamic occupiers of Eretz Israel', ultra-Zionist cant. I don't know if nescience is sanctionable. Probably not. The comment about a fellahin indigenous community gradually converted from paganism and Christianity to Islam after the 6th.century CE being, by retroactive paradox, 'illegal occupiers’ of Eretz Israel, is so outlandish, the said editor should be warned to stay clear of articles dealing with historical events in the I/P area. We have no use for purblind ideologists here. He should clarify why the indigenous population of Palestine is both 'Islamic' and 'occupiers' of their native land, as Maoris are occupiers of New Zealand, Indians of the United States and Aboriogines of Australia, all having stolen title from the English immigrants.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, another of the crowd who suddenly drifted in here after the Camera contretemps, and militates on the Islamic threat and wiki's woefully anti-semitic POV, asked me to Get fucked, when I turned down his fishing expedition last night. I don't ask for punishment, since I don't complain about these outbursts. But the fact that I've been called an antisemite now, six times or so, and been told to get fucked for refusing to talk to ultra-Zionist flag-wavers who don't edit much, gives you some idea of the kind of atmosphere people like Eleland find exasperating. We've lost the invaluable Eleland on formal quibbles, and are now stuck with vapid ranters like these, as once more, formalism's etiquette provisions, which I think was intended for naive high-school geeks, trumps mature substance editors. Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Before coming here, and aside from arguing with the other user, what dispute resolution channels have you followed in this case? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get into dispute resolutions. I dislike whingeing to administrators. I try to ignore idiots, and not get distracted by their drifting in to waste our time. I have no intention of taking the Onestonedonut to the knackery. I cite the instance to document what those unfamiliar with the absurd shenanigans of some I/P actors may not know. I don't even read the rule books, which I think are necessary but mainly for many who haven't had a tertiary and post-tertiary background, and that is why etiquette is everywhere, and substance struggles to get past cunctatorial finagling by the astute. What worries me about the present case is that it is an old pattern: an intruder jumps at an exchange, in which neither of the two involved give administration reason to arbitrate, and uses it to wipe out one of the two, in a stupid game of scalp-hunting that mars the creation of a liberal and informed collegial editorial spirit, tolerant of lapses.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What form of dispute resolution did Eternalsleeper attempt before coming here? Let me answer: none. This board is for incidents, and fellows ... I think we have one. Baseball Bugs and Nishidani, your respective points have been made by now; please wait for others to chime in before continuing this batter banter between the two of you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC) batter->banter correctionJohn Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "batter" going on. However, I admit I should have asked the dispute resolution question much sooner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is an overreaction, and 3 months is still too long, if he posts a conciliatory unblock request that should be granted, otherwise the block should be reduced to 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

48 Hours? That would be letting him off way too easy. This is an editor who has already been blocked twice before for incivility and edit warring, and has declared that he is deliberately flaunting wikipedia policy in order to cause disruption. A one month block, possibly coupled with a longer topic-ban seems to be in order. NoCal100 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleland's last block was over 6 months ago. Also, I don't share your interpretation of his comments. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

His exact words were "not only did I knowingly violate Wikipedia's various "civility" and "personal attacks" and "play nice in the sandbox, kids," policies, I did it with the very deliberate intention that it cause what we euphemistically call "disruption" here". There is no need for "interpretation" here, just basic reading comprehension skills. NoCal100 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PhilNight's suggestion of a drastic reduction may be too lenient, but it was conditional on a conciliatory unblock request. As to your remark, NoCal100, that in the diff you cite, Eleland admitted to 'deliberately flaunting wikipedia policy in order to cause disruption', this is incorrect on two grounds. The first is, petty: you confuse 'flaunt' with 'flout'. The second is that, even so, he did not deliberately 'flout' wikipedia policy to cause disruption, pure et simple, but to a purpose. His words are:-

'Let me confess; not only did I knowingly violate Wikipedia's various "civility" and "personal attacks" and "play nice in the sandbox, kids," policies, I did it with the very deliberate intention that it cause what we euphemistically call "disruption" here. Quite simply, I was, and am, at wits end, and I have neither the patience nor the passive-aggressiveness to work through the normal WikiPolitical methods that EternalSleeper has so evidently mastered.

He was warned by one admin for incivility, and the judgement was correct. The admin did not warn the other two who provoked his incivility, and this was incorrect. He was insulted by the second with a vile accusation (these things if unchallenged stick in the record), and further offended when, in removing a patent and vicious smear on his own talk page, was notified that this quite perfectly just action was a matter of concern, in the same administrator's view. Since, as an experienced editor Eleland knows what cranking up the huge creaky machinery of administrative appeal means, (endless wasting of many editors' time, administrators harassed by pettifogging etc.,), he spoke his mind in a way that was, yes, deliberately disruptive, attention catching. It caught attention, all right. Instead of his original grievance being reviewed and some measures taken out on both Saxophonemn and Eternalsleeper, Eleland was further punished. The refusal by administrators to examine his original complaint roundly and neutrally, means effectively that Eleland is correct. Antisemitism is subject to immediate sanctions, rightly so. A blind eye is turned to people who flay other editors with smears insinuating they are antisemitic, when they are simply trying to cope with dogmatic intruders who barge about without significant contributions and make editing in the I/P area difficult. This intolerable inequivalence is the 'purpose' behind his outburst, a 'disruption' to protest systemic bias in the use of administrative sanctions. Both Eleland and I have a good deal of collegial esteem and respect for many colleagues who are Jewish, and play impeccably by the rules. We dislike newbies or shysters with an ideological chip on their shoulders, pro-Zionist or pro-Palestinian as the case may be, fooling around provocatively with articles that require immense patience, hardwork, and a nose for facts. Eleland's remark is a call for more speed in administrative oversight, less bureaucratic longueurs, in handling real 'disruption', which is what we wish to draw attention to. Had this simple incident been dealt with swiftly and equablyand the administrator posted an incivility remark to my page, and those of both Saxophonemn, and Eternalsleeper, we should not be here, wasting our time. It was a simple, and forgiveable oversight, but that is what caused the frustrated outburst. The Japanese even have a technical word for what Eleland did, funshi (憤死) remonstrative suicide to draw an authority's attention to an ignored grievance, in the finest samurai tradition.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then let's have a proper funshi - Eleland should be perma-banned, the Wiki equivalent of death , so that enough attention be drawn to this cause . Nothing less would achieve the desired result, it appears, nor be appropriate for this Samurai. NoCal100 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this thread has drawn enough attention to this matter that all the involved parties here will be carefully watched from now on, including Eleland if/when he returns. Black Kite 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention drawn to Eleland, not to those who used racist language or smeared him. Zilch. The message is, you can call innocent people antisemites, or a living people 'history' extinct, with impunity, but can't be told you're a **** when the offended party calls you on these racist and smearing cracks. I don't se much attention paid. I see a good deal of silence standing to attention. Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Article history merge help needed

Resolved

 – Done. Caulde 14:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kikkokalabud asked me for help restoring an article that I had taken to AFD. I told him if he wrote a good article, I'd help. So, he wrote it at User:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Say OK, and once he passed the basics of actually having sources for his statements, etc. I put notices on the talk pages of everyone that had voted for redirect. As you can see by comparing WP:Articles for deletion/Say OK and User talk:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Say OK, everyone that argued for redirect has said the article can be restored. The problem is that the original talk page and article page have an edit history, and multiple editors have made changes to the sandbox version and talk page, so they have an edit history, too. What I need is for the sandbox versions to be moved to mainspace, and the histories merged. If this isn't a good place to ask, can someone please tell me the right place?Kww (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Personal Attacks

User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ has been making blatant personal attacks recently. This user has made defamatory statements about two editors by claiming that they may be living in "lala land".[109][110][111]

Also, there is a similarity between the edits listed above and this user page User:Nefbmn (they all involve information on genetics data regarding particular populations).

Furthermore, the user has created an article titled Mandarin people that I suspect could be frivolous. As far as I know, there is such a thing as "native Mandarin-speaking people"; however, I have never heard about ethnic Mandarin people, only North-Easterners (of China), Hebei people and the like. It needs to be thoroughly reviewed and possibly split. 122.105.150.242 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and I, as well as a few other administrators, are looking into this user's contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you please also investigate the possibility of a connection between User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese and User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ? According to the user log for User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese, User:Nefbmn appeared after an indefinite block was placed for a violation of the username policy. As I have remarked above, there is a disturbing similarity between Nefbmn's userpage and some of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ's recent contributions. If this alleged connection is proved, then it will become very clear just what the user's agenda is. Thanks. 122.105.150.242 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to post a request at WP:RFCU for this. I doubt that anything will be achieved from a check on User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese because the edits are too old.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Consistant spam link additions to Online classified advertising

Online classified advertising, which may not deserve an article to itself admittedly, is a target for User:Peterbisset, whose user page says he is the MD of PoundAd. This user originally created an uncited article with external links to advertising sites including his own. I and others changed the links to internal links, fact tagged and warned him with a uw-spam warning. Since then an IP address has reverted back to the spam-ish revision; in fact this has happened numerous times, and new user, User:HotCityAds has also joined in. It's not serious enough for a check user, but it is, to my mind, serious enough for a block or two for some period of time. --Blowdart | ^talk 06:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just redirected the page to Classified advertising, as it was unsourced and as noted above a great target for spam dumps. There wasn't enough in the article to worry about, but if anyone wants to merge anything to the bit discussing online classifieds on the new target, that would be fine. I'll keep an eye on it as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. There is nothing obvious that one can say about online classifieds which is not inherently obvious from the title, and it's an open invitation to spammers. I guess they will now move in to classified advertising, so some watching of that is in order as well. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I whacked in a {{NoMoreLinks}} for good measure. MER-C 10:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist Not Updating

Resolved

Currently, my watchlist shows the most up-to-date edit (even for this page) as about 1:27am EST (current time 4:01am EST). Obviously, something is goofed in updating of watchlists and edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but the best place for something like this is probably Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) since there's not much any administrators can do. AniMate 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. I figure it is being worked on as we type. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a note at the top of the watchlist saying "Watchlists are currently broken! This will be fixed shortly." I presume that means they're onto it. Orderinchaos 08:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just talked to someone on the tech IRC channel and I was told "there's nobody around to look into it" and "it's not sufficiently urgent to summon anybody". So, I doubt this will be fixed anytime soon. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So, ironically, this happened on no one's watch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's working now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Return of banned user USEDfan

Resolved

 – Blocked for obvious block evasion.  Sandstein  08:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has an extremely long history of disruption, checkuser has confirmed sock accounts of his on three different occasions, and a couple others have been blocked under WP:DUCK. It got so bad that all his favorite articles had to be semi-protected. He is back under the account User:Less than you and claims that he has decided his ban is over, guess he took that amongst himself. See here and here for proof. Landon1980 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. He has been using the same IP for months, would it be possible to block account creation for a month or so maybe? Im asking because he usually returns the next day or so after his latest sock is blocked. In the past the articles had to be protected, and he is the only one disrupting the said articles. Landon1980 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What IP would that be, and how do you know it is his?  Sandstein  09:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago he used his IP to edit and it was blocked as a sock of his. Just the other day when he was making a series of edits on The Used he used that same IP that was blocked earlier. I'll go see what it is hold on. Landon1980 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) See User_talk:66.195.30.2 and the contribs of the IP. Landon1980 (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To give you an idea of how likely it is he will return look at this] Landon1980 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, 66.195.30.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 3 months. Seems to be only used by him.  Sandstein  10:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully that will take care of it. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably impossible to verify, but this look a lot to me like User:Michael. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Happy puff and ips such as 61.7.183.25

Resolved

 – 61.7.183.25 (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Happy puff (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Academic Challenger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Report to vandalism noticeboard if more IPs vandalize the same way. SoWhy 12:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

don't know if this rises to the level of sockpuppetry, but Happy puff and this IP (and maybe others) are posting the same boilerplate vandalism about 'President Lee Kuan Yew Singapore'. can someone look into it? --Ludwigs2 08:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Academic Challenger blocked User:Happy puff about 5 minutes ago, not sure about the anon user. - NeutralHomer • Talk 08:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• This ip has recently been blocked for spamming the same message. It looks like they will ip hop to achieve their aims, so can admins keep an eye out for AIV reports. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

simple vandalism - no response at AIV

Resolved

 – Blocked by WBOSITG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 12:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

61.7.179.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- look at the contribs since reporting at AIV. — Alan^✉ 09:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, blocked at last I see -- thanks. — Alan^✉ 09:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

We've been having some issues with block evasion on Wikiversity the past week or so by User:Moulton, using IPs and signing with "characters" he uses for dramatic flair. Apparently he's doing that here now: see this edit for example. Just something to keep an eye on... his IPs are dynamic and probably widely shared, so be cautious! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of background for those editors – like me – who do not follow events on Wikiversity: Moulton was blocked indef by Jimbo[112], who subsequently posted his rationale here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A little more background: Moulton was blocked during the situation that has sparked claims of an "ID Cabal" (these claims were mostly instigated by him). He spent time after being blocked on Wikipedia by collecting personal information on those involved and "analyzing" their contributions. He began using Wikiversity servers for that purpose, and started posting personal information there, which brought about the first censures against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

grawp-like account

I don't know where is the right place for this nowadays. User:DrinkThineCookies was found (via checkuser) vandalizing grawp-like on kab.wikipedia. I see it's an active account here, so I thought I would drop a note (the account is globally locked now anyway). -- m:drini 15:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not Grawp, it's the Zodiac vandal I think. D.M.N. (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Swamilive sockpuppet activity

Resolved

 – Sock drawer cleared out

Indef blocked user Swamilive (talk · contribs) seems to be spending a lazy Sunday using their sockfarm to create nuisance mixed drink hoax articles. Rather than reporting to AIV, which seems sluggish today, or poking individual admins, I'm giving a heads up here. Recently blocked socks are:

• Lorries and owt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Stanley Jacobsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Colin Jacobsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Stanley Collins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and
• GilfordJames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New, as yet unblocked, sock: Delicious Jacobsen (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone know if there's a noticeboard where I could report ongoing problems to admins? You know, to tell them about active vandals and sockpuppets that need blocking? Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it took that long, but if you need help faster you can try to look through the deletion log and poke whoever's first on the list. Anyways, blocked the new sock. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive Black Kite 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was over half an hour to get an identified sock blocked after I posted it here. Just saying. Thanks to you both. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys did a great job. I used to work on Sundays too. I recall the day passing by very slowly. TomStanRobert (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

*cough*sockpuppet*cough* Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done :) also see the RFCU, where User:Sam Korn has done the job. I've blocked the two that weren't already. Black Kite 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square‎

This is an edit war that has been taking place since 2006. A user who has operated multiple sockpuppets has been attempting to repeatedly re-insert content via WP:SPA accounts that read "There are lots of people that go to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Some are businessmen stopping for a bite to eat. Others are families out to see Portland. And some say that the square has many homeless persons who congregate there although most are harmless."

Multiple established editors have reverted this content over the last two years, only to have it restored periodically by the involved SPA accounts. In the process, at least 15 sockpuppets have been banned. Now, User:Beenturns21 appears to be the latest sockpuppet incarnation.

I was going to wait until the current semi-protection expired and if it continued to then request indefinite semi-protection if the vandalism continued; but a new (incorrectly placed) mediation request has been created at Pioneer courthouse square where the user appears to be taking the issue to while waiting out the current semi-protection that expires on Oct 2nd; so I believed this needed to be escalated to WP:ANI.

The user involved has demonstrated a complete disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines ... some of the onces involved are WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. Because of this, I would request that the latest user be banned, and due to the tenacity of the user involved that the article placed in indefinite semi-protection. Is a mediation case required for this - or can such action be taken here given the evidence below?

Here's a summary of the accounts that have attempted to inserting the content ... due to the large size of the evidence involved, I've listed it within a toggling collapse box.

Thanks for taking a look. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your comment to indicate that this does need to go through mediation despite the provided evidence of past sockpuppetry/trolling, or is it just informative that the "mediation" request has been moved to the proper location? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support indefinite semi-protection of Pioneer Courthouse Square. When there has been the amount of past abuse documented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pioneercourthouse I'm not sure why mediation should still be considered appropriate. New SSP reports should be filed as necessary to deal with probable socks such as User:Yourew21 and User:Beenturns21. See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pioneercourthouse. If it is possible that all this abuse may trace back to a single editor, a Request for Checkuser might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Excessive image uploads

User Talk:Paaulinho see his talk page for the ridiculous amount of image uploads and copyright vios he got away with. He was given a warning a few days ago but while i was looking through his contributions today, I noticed an image upload that had gone unnoticed. I tagged it and warned him again . The image is now deleted. I think a block is well overdue. OgiBeaR (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport cubed

• Wikiport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fresh back from being blocked for "disruptive editing, and unfounded accusing of Blaxthos being at fault", Wikiport's very first edits again make sideways accusations that I am either lying or editing in bad faith, and he continues to take an adversarial approach (including condescending "quotation marks" and snarky statements) while stedfastly refusing to acknowledge the longstanding consensus that exists. This editor has yet to make any constructive contributions, and has proven time and time again that he's more interested in fighting battles, canvassing (here and here), and pushing an agenda than he is in building a community project and respecting consensus. Not sure what to do, so I'm bringing it here again for a third time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)