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

Star trek online

Star Trek Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can we get some eyes on this article - I've just become aware of it in the last ten minutes and even a cursory glance suggests that either there is an off-site campaign to get certain (unsourced) information into the area or it's someone using a lot of sockpuppets. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi is probably the best bet. Set for 24 hours for now. –xeno (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as best as I can determine they are pissed off over a competition to win a beta key where the winner actually run 200 words more than the rules allowed and they see the entry as being important to "get the truth out there!" and so on.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it bewildering that you went to such lengths as to report this factual and accurate account of what transpired between the STO developers team and the community members and enforced its deletion on the strict, absolutely riduculous, in this situation, policy and standards of 'reliable sources' (official game forum is as reliable a source as it will get, it might be a petty and circumstantial matter to the exterior observer but it was a huge deal to many of the folks involved). Also, at the same time, you seem to trivialise the whole situation in which you otherwise acted over-zealously, particularly our motives behind editing the entry. What's more you got your facts wrong (you didn't research the source, i.e. the STO official website and its forums); it was a "maximum 300 word" writing contest, the STO team picked one with 609 words claiming they liked it the best and hadn't noticed it was twice the length of their own requirements. Then they tried to blame the perplexed and disappointed contestants and other community members and accused them of bad sportsmanship and as a punishment they stated that there will be no more creativity competitions. Faced with rising outrage they issued an apology and eventually, the next day, they awarded another first place to the guy who had actually abided by the rules. So it did have a happy ending. And it is all there, on the forums. I think that anyone interested in STO would be better off with knowledge of all this, even if it is trivial or insignificant in the long run. It is knowledge nonetheless, first hand. There is no vendetta here, no petty remorse. I am truly sorry that you decided to act upon this with strict, completely unnecessary, in this case, "by the book" approach. Shame, real shame, especially as one can see how much spiteful, innaccurate, fictional, unfounded stuff, that really requires attention and immediate action, there is on our dear wikipedia. GoGolan (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"it might be a petty and circumstantial matter to the exterior observer but it was a huge deal to many of the folks involved"
Er... that'd be fancruft, right?. Lychosis ^T/C 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. See, I know you didn't read the whole post of mine. Well done. GoGolan (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right: the Star Trek Online people didn't act according to the rules, and that's bad. We are acting according to the rules, and that's bad too. Would that basically be the gist here? //roux   11:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

5 things:

1) Do you have any third party sources to demonstrate the notability of this incident outside the STO fanbase?

2) In what sense does this require 'attention and immediate action'?

3) Will this have any effect on the game itself, and will it matter if people don't know about it?

4) Can people find out about it without using Wikipedia?

5) Why are you bringing this to here? It's the developer's contest, they can run it however they want to. If you have an axe to grind, or feel hard done by, tell it to someone who cares. It`s highly unlikely that this little (yes, little) incident will feature prominently in the game's history.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann

Proposal to Block indef

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – with an earth-shattering 'Kaboom'... HalfShadow 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see a conscructive contributor here, and I realize I can only speak for myself, but really, his actions speak louder than words. He was topic-banned away from articles, and then he goes to blantantly violate it with the edits noted above using WP:IAR. IAR is not some kind of tool to circumvent solutions found by the community, it's not meant as a catch-all to get yourself out of any situation, it's meant to be used to improve the encyclopedia. To make bold edits, not snide remarks in violation of one's topic ban. If he can't learn to follow policy, and his own topic ban, he needs to be shown the door.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, considering that I originally removed the userbox, even stating that it was probably "too polemic". Then, Orangemike (an admin, mind you), advised me that it was not too polemic, and he suggested I should put it back, since it's a stark statement about the person I am (which is the purpose of userboxes). An admin giving advice to re-add the userbox, then an admin blocking me for having it, would seem highly hypocritical and a lose-lose. Also, per Henrik's statement that I am, in fact, improving. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Conflict of interest. This user is the subject of the proposal. Grsz¹¹ 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a block would be for a userbox, rather, treating Wikipedia as your battleground. Grsz¹¹ 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest here as well, considering you complained about the userbox initially. Also, treating Wikipedia as my battleground? Lol. You're the one who complained initially, or that comment would have never been added. Stop trying to find loopholes to get me banned, kthx. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm waiting for someone to pull out WP:NOSKINHEADUSERBOXES or WP:NOSKINHEADS, of which I see are both redlinks. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's time. He won't stop grinding his axe long enough to listen to a word anyone says. It should be clear from his conduct that there's precious little chance he'll ever become a constructive contributor. Friday (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note this user's conflict of interest, considering he's been critical of me before this proposal. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why?  GARDEN  21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• cmt axmann. You violated your topic ban. You're stirring the pot now. I advise you to either A. Apologize for violating the topic ban and promise not do so again, for any reason. Or B. Just back away from the carcass and be quiet here. Further attacks on the motives of other editors may sway more people into supporting a block of you just to get rid of the disruption. Up to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, though if Axmann doesn't shut up pretty soon, he'll dig a deep enough hole that I'll change votes. I like the people who 'open their mouths and prove it', to take half an adage; those are the people who can easily be evaluated for their agendas. Axmann's on a short enough leash now, far better to have him wreck himself on actual content realted problems than this stupidity. -- ThuranX 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ditch him. He's not worth the trouble. He's not a fabulous researcher, he has zero FAs to his credit, and if he tried to so much as fix grammar or phrasing on one of our really good articles I daresay he'd be reverted due to making the article worse, not better. In short, I believe in leeway for good contributors; I believe in more leeway for truly outstanding contributors, but this jerk? No, he gets no leeway at all. In short, Delete as antiencyclopedic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've every been involved with this editor so have no COI as far as I am aware - all I see here is a timewaster, I know we have our cadre of social workers ready and willing to leap in to enable people like this but come on.. He knows he's taking the piss, we all know he's take the piss. Let's just get it over and done with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reblock, but not indef Administrator henrik is willing to work with Axmann8 so his problematic behavior can be corrected. He was unblocked and given a topic ban of five months so he could continue editing Wikipedia. However, given his recent conduct and him violating the topic ban, he should be blocked for a set amount of time for violating it. Give henrik a chance to continue working with him and if he doesn't improve, then indefblock him. — Moe ε 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Where did he violate the topic ban? I don't see any article space edits which are problematic. Please provide diffs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I believe it's these admissions: [6], [7]. "Per IAR" is a slap in the face to the admins who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Grsz¹¹ 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, per his own admission, he was violating his topic ban 'per WP:IAR' with the diffs above and [8]. He was topic banned from editing articles and discussion (which he agreed to) related to politics in exchange for a unblock. Why bother setting topic bans at all if the disruptive users can go and violate them willingly? Either he gets a block for violating the topic ban, or there shouldn't be any pseudo-restriction (which ultimately turns out to just be a threat) at all. — Moe ε 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why the heck is henrik willing to waste his time? Wikipedia is not therapy, last I checked. henrik, you have better uses for your time than trying to talk sense into a neo nazi skinhead who seriously seems to think the US Constitution grants him the right to piss in our living room. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• As much as I despise polls, from his conduct in this thread and his block log longer than Gatsby (one block for every 300 edits? No thank you) I don't believe that this user will be beneficial to the project if he stays. We don't need a toddler rubbing crayons on the couch with both hands over his ears, singing "lalala" loudly.  GARDEN  22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is The Great Gatsby considered a long book these days? :P MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, first book I could think of. :)  GARDEN  22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and close - WP:IDONTLIKE objections notwithstanding, this user hasn't come anywhere near our normal threshold for community patience exhaustion. His viewpoint being offensive to many (me included) is not grounds to block or ban him. Barring specific evidence of more severe ongoing behavior problems, this ban proposal should be closed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not based solely on this issue.  GARDEN  22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There's nothing he's done in the last few days that justified more blocking, as far as I can tell. The only reason further action is being discussed is the userbox - and the userbox appears to meet our current policy. If he manages to take more disruptive actions and gets himself indef'ed and it sticks - so be it. But this call to ban him is based on ... nothing, since he was last unblocked. We don't ban people for behaving themselves after being given another chance. If he stops behaving himself I or another admin will apply appropriate sanctions up to and including a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If your assumption on why this indef blocked is being discussed is in regards to why I brought it up, you're wrong. I did not bring it up in regards to the userbox, but in regards to his violation of his topic ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Would someone please provide the diffs for what he did that violated the topic ban? People keep saying that, but I've been through his edit history and I didn't see it. Evidence, please? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Please see the links by myself and Grsz11 where he even self admitted it was a violation of his topic ban. [9], [10] [11] The topic ban, if you review his talk page history and his block log, is on all articles and discussions related to politics which he was the one who proposed himself in exchange for an unblock. [12] — Moe ε 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - You guys have already indef'd him twice and you keep letting him off the hook. He's under a topic ban, so...

  Enforce the topic ban already. Anything that violates it in an article, revert it on sight. And let him keep his white supremacist garbage on his page, so that there's no doubt where he's coming from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  Idef'd twice shows that he's been given two more chances, not that he's somehow immune to indefing. Your argument supports re-instituting the indef rather than not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  If it were me, I would have blocked him for good the first time. This episode needs to serve as an object lesson to overly-lenient admins. This guy came in here with guns blazing and a mind full of Limbaugh mush, but the youngsters running this place somehow couldn't see it. So he needs to stay on here until he's unwound enough rope to hang himself and stay hanged, i.e. so that no admin would be foolish enough to trust him again. But he's not there yet, and he shouldn't be blocked yet. And, who knows? Miracles still happen. He might wake up some morning and become productive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to move to close this, an admin said it was ok for him to have the userbox, so that issue belongs at MFD and henrik has already addressed him about the topic ban issue which is self-imposed. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  Object to closing. Its not the ubox. Its not even the violation of topicban, altho that's bigger than the ubox. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Wait a While. The box is annoying, but he is allowed to have it. It's a good thing to the extent that it gives insight into his character.

I'm impressed by henrik's dedication, and I hope, sorta, that it isn't misplaced. But Axmann is going to keep getting in trouble until he (at least) 1) respects the topic ban, and avoids nibbling lagomorphically around its edges, and 2) comes to understand that all the trouble is not the result of a cabal of leftist editors drooling for his scalp, but a product of his own intransigence and churlishness.

My feeling is that there's no way he'll last five months. PhGustaf (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Move to close this, as it is leading no where, and is only wasting time. Landon1980 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• You are under no obligation to participate further, or even to read. Kindly do not prematurely close this while others are still discussing. It is very rude. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking to me I wouldn't dare close it, I was just rendering my opinion. You are wanting him blocked for past behavior, not how it works. Landon1980 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was talking to you, and you are completely wrong about what I "want". KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You do realise he's probably named after Artur Axmann? Which makes a potential WP:U violation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its pretty obvious that its a play on Artur Axmann, but since its just Axmann8 it isn't much of a problem, (not to mention Artur Axmann has been dead for 12 years, and WP:U is only applied on living peoples names). — Moe ε 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Block, not necessarily indef. It seems odd to indef over a userbox - which is clearly some people's view of the debate here. It's also confusing to think that a user, whose indefinite block was replaced with a topic ban, would not be indef blocked again for blatantly violating that ban - which is the view that others are taking of this. I'm inclined to split the baby down the middle and issue a short-term block as a means of ban enforcement, since this editor obviously isn't respecting the ban voluntarily. IF henrik wishes to continue mentoring after the block, then that's fine. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? He should have most definitely been blocked the second he violated his topic ban. The only reason he was unblocked is he voluntarily agreed to it. I think his unblock was premature to begin with, and was asking for further disruption, but he was unblocked. There are plenty of people watching him, and he if he makes so much as a single mistake he can be swiftly reblocked. I feel blocking would be rather punitive now, as he stopped violating the topic ban. Some have said it is not for the userbox, or the violation of the topic ban, so what then. Can you list some diffs (dated after his last unblock) that will reasonably justify a policy-based block, that is preventative in nature? Can we not assume good faith and give him another chance? Landon1980 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) Well clearly I'm of the "he was indef'd; indef was replaced with topic ban; he blatantly violated topic ban ergo the indef goes right back up" opinion. I see no benefit to splitting the baby, but as so many here seem to be confused about the issue, I won't object too darn much either. However, if he violates again after his last,last,last,really truly last chance, I suggest we indef. Enough already. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you more than you know. I just think that Henrik should have blocked him the second he saw he was violating his topic ban. I am reasonably sure that Axeman will inevitably land in the indef block zone though, so maybe it is better to get it over with. After all, the best predictor of the future is the past. Landon1980 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got it right. Hey, you're conservative, and you've been on here more than a year now without getting blocked. Maybe, if you're in a masochistic mood, you could visit with Axman and 'splain a few things to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the userboxes, they're just a smoke screen that's distracting us. He was unblocked under a condition, and he willingly violated that condition soon after. He should be blocked for a substantial time at least, probably indef. Seal the vault. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow... Anyway, in my defense, this whole convo started over my userbox, which has already been ruled by an administrator as compliant with Wikipedia policy. I followed another policy, WP:IAR, by ignoring a rule to make a constructive edit to Wikipedia to make it more neutral, therefore I completely complied with WP:IAR, which is a policy. It states, "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". I did just that. I made an edit to the warning on the politics userbox page, in order to make it more neutral, therefore improving the encyclopedia. If you don't want people to follow WP:IAR, then why don't you get rid of it as a policy? I haven't violated a thing, so I am not very clear about why we are having this discussion. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a rule for the improvement of wikipedia, not a way to get around an agreement you made with an admin to get unblocked. Dayewalker (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What takes precedent: an admin's topic ban, or the need to make the encyclopedia a more neutral, intelligent website? It's like someone under a politics topic ban reverting a correction to a spelling mistake on a political article. Does bureaucratic policy, or the need to make this a better encyclopedia, take the front seat? -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your topic ban takes precedence. Dayewalker (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum comment to Baseball Bugs' comment about White pride: So, by your argument, "female pride"=female supremacy and "black pride"=black supremacy? Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, "bugs", but don't we allow "Feminist" and "Masculist" userboxes? Okay, don't correct me, because I'm not wrong. Anyway, why are people allowed to express "black pride" and "female pride" if we're not allowed to express "white pride"? I'm proud to be white, and I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but that doesn't change the fact. Blocking me would only show the persistent insecurity of the black race, which is pretty pathetic considering "they" got their President. Why is the chip on their shoulder still? I'm proud to be white, and I'm not ashamed to say it. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked indef for this comment alone. Why on earth are we still putting up with this editor? If anyone can be bothered to provide a fair unblock reason after this, feel free, but this is an encyclopedia, not a playground for racists. Black Kite 01:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Black Kite. Now we can all go back to what we were doing. Grsz¹¹ 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now, we can close this. HalfShadow 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I really hope no one is willing to unblock axeman in the near future, just because he tells some story as to how bias we are and how this proves it, and that he will blah blah blah ....... if unblocked. Every bit of this disruption could have been, and by all means should have been prevented. If nothing else, this is the "proof" axeman was looking for. Landon1980 (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Axmann8 late intervention

Hate to bring this up, but... When I brokered the topic ban, I deliberately did not mention talk pages as off-limits, as I had assumed he knew how to use them properly. I am indeed concerned about him invoking IAR, but I'd rather give him the best chance to work constructively. I clarified it in a thread up top, which has since been archived: The topic ban did not extend to talk pages unless he started being disruptive on them, and it doesn't apply to AN/I unless the thread he's editing applies to a political article. Apologies, my friends. If you want anyone to blame, I'm your guy. I did not speak here because I've been busy with El Machete Guerrero and the harassment of another user and haven't had the chance. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. There is no valid example cited here of Axmann8 breaking his topic ban. He has been banned by popular acclaim, because we don't like his political views, not for doing anything wrong. Injustice writ large. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Note I made the above comment before I saw his comment above about "blacks getting their President". I have no objection to the block given that racist comment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why that should be seen as an unacceptably racist comment. What WP rule has been broken? Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. Check out the proposal to ban him below, as he has now started to sockpuppet in order to evade his block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing that he should be unbanned/unblocked. I am simply trying to impress on everyone (or anyone who will listen) that we have not gone about this in the best way, far from it. I am trying to have a discussion about the process. I believe that the charges made against Axmann8 should have been explicit, and that they should have been valid. The possibly valid charge, of disruptive editing, was made after his unwise/intemperate response to a false charge, of having an illegal userbox. I suggest that therefore he was, in some small way, provoked. Now we scrabble about looking for the reason we blocked him, as all now agree he did not break his topic block, and it appears what he is guilty of his the racist(?) remark "blacks getting their president". But I cannot find that an egregious example of any racism, one that breaks any rules. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD)PSB, this section was closed more than 24 hours ago. There was no discussion on the details from anyone else in that time because everything here was wrapped up. We don't "all agree" he didn't break his topic block, you're assuming consensus when one absolutely does not exist. You're the only one making your case that you don't understand why he was blocked.

The discussion has turned now to a permanent ban on Axmann8, as seen below. If you still want to talk about the process here, I'd suggest opening up a new thread at another point on the page, as everyone else seems to have moved on and this topic was about to be archived. Dayewalker (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Axmann8 block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus has been reached, no need to drag this out any further.

---

I come to this late, not realising it was going on, and I realise that it's all labelled as resolved. But what has happened seems more than a little unfair. Having recently rubbed up against Axmann8 I understand truly how annoying he can be, but he ought not to be blocked just for being annoying. Seems to me what has happened to him is pretty close to entrapment. He puts his skinhead userbox up (and identifying as a skinhead is not against any WP rule I have seen) but someone here asks him what he means by it, he says it's a statement of a political view. We identify that as being a racist view. Once again, being a racist isn't against any WP rule I know. The seeming nail in the coffin is the "chocolate messiah" remark which is not, in itself, uncontroversially a racist remark, and not even his. [In some circles "blackboard" is seen as a racist remark for a teaching aid, but that would widely be agreed by us to be ridiculous.] Essentially Axmann8 hasn't identifiably done anything wrong on this occasion that he hasn't been pushed into by our questioning of him, and even then, I'm not sure I understand what it is specifically he has done, it's difficult to see what rule he has broken. Certainly any prohibition from political articles here cannot really include a userbox on his own page. His userbox in support Cain is political but no one is bothered by that. No, this all seems summary justice by a lynch mob. Unless you think the only lynch mobs are right wing racist ones. What I want to know is: What precisely have you blocked Axmann8 for. That plain statement of wrongdoing is missing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that he came here with a specific agenda, and he kept coming back to that agenda, because that was his reason for coming here. He repeatedly pushed the envelope to see how far he could go. He would promise not to do politics, but then would do so anyway and try to justify it based on "someone else can do it, so can I" until finally the preponderence of opinion was, "enough, already." I didn't want him blocked yet, because I'm almost certain that's what he was hoping for, in order to use it in some way to dis wikipedia further on some other venue. Of course, that's a fairly good-sized club by now, so maybe that's not important. And I can't disagree that the apparently wishy-washy responses of the admins did not help matters. But he can't use the "look what you made me do" argument. He was given plenty of chances to straighten up and fly right, and he just wouldn't or couldn't do it - because he was, at the end of the day, either a single-purpose account, or else the latest poster child for "doesn't get it". There are other conservatives here that are not blocked or topic-banned. Maybe he could have looked up to them as models of behavior. But somehow that just wasn't in the cards. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't (or shouldn't have been) a discussion about his user box. He was indef blocked and agreed to stay off of political topics, then a week later he invokes WP:IAR and goes back to one. Then in the ensuing discussion, he makes an edit that indicated to Black Kite above he had no desire to get along with others, so he was blocked. He wasn't "pushed" into anything, he was the one who chose to claim IAR over his own promise to stay away from political articles. Dayewalker (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, you've blocked him over his conduct defending against a proposed block? What you're saying is this: The proposed block should never have been proposed as having the userbox is not against the rules. During his defence of the block-which-should-not-have-been-proposed he says something else you do not like, so you block him anyway. It's the Salem witch trial all over again. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read. I never proposed anything to do with his userbox, my proposal had to do with the fact that he purposely violated his topic ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please drop the stick and move away from the horse. Axeman was blocked for being disruptive, it has nothing to do with his userbox. It was for his racist comments, and for repeatedly violating his topic ban, either of those are more than enough to justify an indef block given his block log. Landon1980 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You see, the two posters above do not agree why he is blocked. All I am trying to do is get a clear statement as to why it that is. A consensus. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I deny that anyone has cited edits where Axmann8 violated his topic block in article space. Daedalus has not done so in his recent post above. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I am glad Axmann8 has gone. I want us to be clear why that is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)And I say you are are being disruptively lazy by not taking the time to read through this thread. I proposed the block in regards to his violation of his topic ban, which was cited in several diffs in the thread above the proposal. Either take the time to read all the material or don't comment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Address the argument. Assume good faith. I think I have followed every ref given. I can't see anything political except HERE where we trapped him into a defence of his views. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then why don't you read the above threads? "I deny that anyone has cited edits where Axmann8 violated his topic block in article space" what gave you the idea the topic ban only applied to the mainspace? Here is not the place to drag this out, as consensus has been reached. Landon1980 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide the refs. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only consensus was "block". The reasons for the block are not consensual. Everyone deserves to have stated, plainly, what rules they broke. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your agenda is, and why you insist on dragging this out, but if you have a problem you should take it up with the blocking admin(s). The diffs you are asking for are posted multiple times in the above threads, axeman even admitted to violating it and used IAR as an excuse. You are being disruptive, take it elsewhere. Landon1980 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your agenda is. The silencing of dissent? My agenda is to make sure we are being seen as better than a lynch mob. The diffs are cited but they are not what those citing them say they are! Essentially there are three. One I discuss below. The other two are back here to this proposal to block. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the diff [13] where he clearly, cleanly, purposefully violated his topic ban. He's well aware of what he did. Rather than just repeatedly asking for the ref Paul, you could have looked it up yourself. It appears four times in the above discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote your citation: I think the "controversies" should be on a different page, possibly as a "See Also" link. I don't believe that all of these criticisms should make up the bulk of her article. This article is about her, not her controversies. What's wrong about that? Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Query on Axmann block

I concede his actions are certainly pushing the limits, but that is also part of the learning process to learn your limits. I agree the comments are, at least, racially tinged. I also agree with Paul Beardsell in that his reasons for a block don't seem to be clearly and explicitly delineated. Commenting about another user is not within his agreed upon topic ban. His incivility (racist comments will not be tolerated) certainly needs to be addressed, but that doesn't mean he should be indef blocked due to another unrelated matter. I also support a temporary block (a week or two) to emphasize this point. But what if this were a WP:3RR situation? Would we indef block him because he had another issue? Of course not. They are separate things. I also don't think his agreed upon topic ban explicitly included talk pages (if it did, then I am in error and a long block is in order here). The edit in question doesn't seem to be problematic in any way other than he agreed not to contribute to the article (which he didn't). This could also have simply been handled by pointing out that WP:IAR doesn't really apply to agreements made between users and politely asking the user to remove said post instead of immediately going to WP:ANI.

I would also like to unequivocally state I do not share this person's views. I find the general concepts disgusting with regard to white supremacy, but that doesn't mean he should be blocked/banned. I also agree that this appears to be a lynch mob (amazingly ironic given the context) descending on a single individual.

In short, I think the block should be for 1-2 weeks for incivility. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that's necessary. We don't block just for racism. If he's going to be a productive editor than let him be a productive editor. Having a reprehensible viewpoint isn't a reason to block. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not blocked solely for racism.  GARDEN  17:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

His civility issues would not by itself have earned him an indefinite block. Maybe a few hours at most. The racism is what is pushing that to an indefinite block and that's not ok. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is / should be punished for being a racist in their hearts. However, it is fair to adopt a zero tolerance policy for acting on racism around here, particularly in a way that belittles, incites, or threatens other editors. Racism is, along with some other ills (violence, legal threats, sexism and sex abuse, various forms of persecution) one of the more traumatic forms of victimization that one group can inflict on another. It has no place in a civilized project. Wikipedia is an egalitarian, international, cross-cultural project open to all in the world. We are all equal here, judged only by our abilities and contributions. We give a little room on the user page to express some pride in your differences, but if it ever crosses the line to making others feel intimidated, harassed, or put down because of who they are, allowing for that to fester would be a serious break-down in the function of the project.Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, sexism and racism are viewpoints. Legal threats and threats of violence are not viewpoints. We cannot maintain an NPOV encyclopedia if we block people solely for their viewpoints. Racism that is not directed at editors is just like any other prejudice. It shouldn't be treated any differently than a user who thinks that everyone of other religions is going to hell, for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What Wikidemon and JoshuaZ said. Endorse block. Shall we WP:BAN Axmann? It's a stretch, but it's a proposal I wouldn't mind seeing. →Dyl@n620 17:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the isolated fact of his extremist point of view, it's that it was totally consistent with the point of view he was pushing in his edits to articles. He demonstrated that he could not adhere to a topic ban - and the reason he could not adhere to it is that he was a single-purpose account - that purpose being to push his extremist point of view. Now, having said all that, I opposed the block yesterday when it was being debated, because it was not clear, and still is not clear, just precisely what it was he was being blocked for. The racism charge itself, while obviously having factual basis, was not sufficient, especially given the wishy-washy nature of the complaints about the userbox and so on. Rather than getting mad and blocking him, you all should have simply enforced the topic ban. Telling him the racist userbox was OK was a big mistake. Anything he did that violated the topic ban against politics should have been removed. End of story. His argument that he was "baited" by various users, which is a stereotypically liberal "look what you made me do" game, nonetheless has some merit to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD)I endorse the block whole-heartedly. This was a twice-indef-blocked editor who couldn't keep to his topic ban for more than a week. Although I couldn't care any less about his userbox, the fact he felt so strongly about it (in the face of multiple prior bans) shows he wasn't here to get along with everyone else on a long-term basis. Lately here at ANI, we seem to be bending over backwards to offer olive branches and multiple chances to people who are only here to push their POV and create drama. Dayewalker (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said the right answer was to strictly enforce the topic ban, to revert anything he wrote of a political nature (including any politically-related complaints on this page), and see if he had anything else to contribute, which I seriously doubt. But that approach was not taken, so he's blocked, and I don't agree with how it was handled, but unless the block is reviewed by an arbitration process, it's probably a done deal. The folks here just need to learn something from this and do better the next time one of those characters comes along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My proposal goes ahead. →Dyl@n620 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Medias del hacha

In a somewhat amusing twist, either Axman himself or an admiring troll has twice today (so far) tried to create apparent sock synonyms: Axmannate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hombre ocho del hacha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Spanish for literally "Man eight of the ax/hatchet"). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And in a possibly unintended coincidence, "hacha" is also akin to "hack". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Add Hatchetguyfed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Hatchetguyfed come up on WP:AIV and to be honest I don't see any evidence, apart from what may be a coincidental username (and I don't see where "fed" becomes "8"), that they're a sock. No edits at all apart from removals of sockpuppet tags from their user and talk pages. OK, I'm naïve, but isn't a checkuser called for? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's this - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hombre ocho del hacha - which Ched began a few hours ago. The point is, this guy either is Axmann8, or he's a troll trying to make us think he's Axmann8 - and either way, he's serving no purpose except disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm a little slow, but I do catch on... "Fed" is like a synonym or cousin of "Ate", which he used earlier today as a homophone of "8". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::And now Hatchetguyfed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This guy is unbelievable. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting edit by Ax. Grsz¹¹ 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy howdy I wish I had more eyebrows to raise! //roux   00:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And now it's 3-up, 3-down today. So far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

For incivility, edit warring, pushing his own personal agenda, failure to abide to his topic ban, and racist attacks/threats, I believe that Axmann8 (talk · contribs · block log) has reached the community ban threshold. Thoughts before I get back to RC patrolling? →Dyl@n620 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. He's creating socks like crazy now. He has no future here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Common sense would have seen him indefed as a garden variety troll and total negative for the Project right from the start. But hey, 5 ANI threads spent feeding and caring for yet another painfully obvious troll is always good for a lol. I bet he's having it right now. Bullzeye ^contribs 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to my comments above, he's now socking to disrupt and attack. Dayewalker (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per my nom.

→Dyl@n620 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The man is toying with us. Not once in this whole adventure has he considered, even briefly, the notion that it's mostly his fault. Given a free ride and a topic ban, he almost immediately started nibbling at the edges of the ban to see what he could get a way with. Given a helping hand, he bit it, and the next one too. Fuck him and throw him to the wolvesEase him gently yet permanently from the wikipedia environment he hates so much. PhGustaf (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fuck him and throw him to the wolves? I wish for Axmann to be banned, not killed! :P →Dyl@n620 01:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Landon1980 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support — Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - for all the reasons given PLUS uploading copyrighted images for use in his skinhead userbox. In addition, the retaliation against me for !voting to delete American College of Pediatricians in said article's AfD, by trying to have an image on my userpage deleted, and then his AfD nomination of a highly notable individual really put me off to even remotely being able to work with him on Wikipedia as it was so painfully obvious that he has an agenda against gay and lesbian related articles. All of that said to say he's obviously only here for 1 reason and it isn't to build an encyclopedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sweet merciful heaven. I've gone to great lengths to bend over backwards for this guy, but this is too much. I think a ban is certainly appropriate here with a long-term block on the IP address as the only way to go to prevent further problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose but not against a longterm block for incivility and pointy behaviour. His argument here was logically valid and nobody refuted that other than with a swift block. I'm sticking my neck out here but minority/fringe points of view of editors shouldn't be abolished from the encyclopedia as long as they are presented in a way which is in accordance to our civility policy. The issue of "white pride" is notable enough to have its own article here and the link to double standard in the "see also" section is highly relevant to what Axmann's point was. That being said, his general pattern of editing before that comment was highly disruptive and pointy and he deserves to be reprimanded for that. This community ban would be akin to saying "we don't like any of your type here" and would be reverse discrimination. A block for his long-term conduct, and not his viewpoint or his response to Baseball Bugs would be much more welcome. ThemFromSpace 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I must disagree, the very comment you linked to has "Blocking me would only show the persistent insecurity of the black race, which is pretty pathetic considering "they" got their President". That is not just advocating white pride, but attacking other races. There is nothing logical or valid about that. Chillum 06:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Bad behavior is one thing, but making all those socks is a strong indication this person is not willing to change. Chillum 06:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Shaheenjim

I need some assistance with this contributor in regards to the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) page and the inclusion of a simple statement about a ship bearing the resemblance to on found in the game Command and Conquer. Myself and and another editor, Edoktor, removed this entry as original research, but did leave the option open for its addition once a reliable source has confirmed that it is in fact an Easter egg.

Shaheenjim has argued that it should be included despite this, using "ignore all rules" as a basis for his argument and stating that common sense says it can be added.

The problem is not the argument, but the way in which he has been doing so. He has repeatedly violated WP:Civil when making his point.

My issues with him include:

• Profanity
• Accusatory tone
• Personal attacks on myself and others
• Making threats on my talk page
• Overt hostility
• Abusive language
• Rude and offensive comments

Because I did not wish to refactor his comments, twice I removed his comments on the talk page because of these issues while leaving clear notes or edit summaries explaining my actions. I have also left a message on his talk page regarding this, once telling that I will report him for the threat, and a second message to him in regards to the civility issue. His response was to delete one of his hostile remarks and leave another in its place (diff). I was mistaken, he had moved the comment when he cut and pasted the discussion to my page. The comment was still a violation of civility. I have been trying to maintain my composure in this matter, however I did loose my temper and leave a curt message in reply to a comment he had made on the article talk page.

I realize that I have not been a saint in the matter, but I have tried to present my argument using policy based reasons for my position and maintain a professional and productive tone in my correspondence on the page.

I would like an opinion on that matter from a neutral observer who can help sort the whole mess out, and will gladly accept the conclusions and actions of those who do look into the matter.

I would also like to note after reading his talk page that he seems to have a history of problematic interactions with other contributors with whom he disagrees.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my side: I'll summarize my side of the argument, since it's been a pretty long discussion on the talk pages. Someone tried to add something to an article that is obviously and definitely true. No one is disputing that it's obviously and definitely true, but some people (like Jeremy here) are saying that it shouldn't be added anyway, since it's OR and doesn't have a RS. I said that the rules against OR and requiring a RS are intended to prevent people from adding things that are false. But since this addition is obviously and definitely true, those rules weren't intended to prevent it from being added, and it can be added to the article per the IAR rule and the Use Common Sense policy. But Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense. I have asked him, on several occasions, which part of my argument he's disputing, as you can see here. But he refuses to respond. That is, he refuses to follow Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution. Instead he just wants to have an edit war, repeatedly deleting the edit without discussing why he thinks it should be disputed.

And now, in addition to refusing to discuss his problems with my reasoning, he's started deleting my comments, claiming that they're in violation of the policy on civility. They are not. I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else, or been hostile, or used abusive language, and it's not surprising to me that he didn't give any examples of those allegations. He's also claiming that I'm making "threats." The only threat I made is to ask an administrator to block him if he continued to violate Wikipedia's policies. That's hardly a threat that warrants me being blocked. And I've only accused him of things he actually did, or been as rude and offensive as was warranted based on his conduct.

The latest development is our discussion on our own talk pages, rather than the talkpage of the relevant article. I invite you to read it here. I think it speaks for itself.

Finally, he's claimed above that I deleted one of my own remarks and left another in its place. If you look closely, you'll see that I didn't delete anything, I merely merged the comments from both of our talk pages by inserting his first comment in between my first and second comment. - Shaheenjim (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm disputing something. Essentially, we don't know whether it's the same ship, or a different ship that was made to look the same. I've posted on the Talk page to this effect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, putting "I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else" in the same post as "Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense." is just too obvious. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you alleging it was profane, or a personal attack, or both? If the former, then which part? And if the latter, then that's not what personal attack means. If you're attacking someone on the substance of the issue at hand, that's not considered a personal attack. A personal attack would be if I attacked his looks, for example. - Shaheenjim (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::::While we're on the subject of wikilawyering, would you care to comment on this remark of yours? Based on my experience on Wikipedia to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. In particular, please explain why you think it is not a "personal attack against Jerem43 or anyone else". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, it's pointless. Blocked for 72 hours (considering previous block record) for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested

• Note to reviewing admin: I'm citing the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense and Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense as specimen examples of personal attacks. This revert is the only edit-warring this editor has recently taken part in, to my knowledge. Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)#Kodiak and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shaheenjim provide, I believe, adequate evidence of tendentious editing. Length of block was after consideration of prior blocks (24h for 3RR and 48h for NOR violations). Lastly, I consider myself to be uninvolved because my only contribution to the content dispute has been to provide outside input as to how I think wikipedia policies apply to the dispute in question - I certainly haven't edited the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Declined, for obvious reasons. Black Kite 01:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite the continuing personal attacks against blocking/reviewing admins, and admitted abuse of the unblock template, I think it might be best for admins not to further sanction this editor. The ideal outcome is Shaheenjim seeing that their conduct was outside the bounds of what we want in a collegial editing environment... but for now, I'll gladly settle for no further damage being done to their standing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree in view of [14] and have indef-blocked the user (see rationale at [15]). I do not object to this block being removed or shortened by any admin who believes this user is ready to contribute productively.  Sandstein  23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree with your decision. It seemed that the discussion at User_talk:Shaheenjim was incapable of reaching any other conclusion. I also agree with the unblock provision. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith and baseless accusations by User:Pixelface

During User:Someguy1221's RfA, Pixelface made an accusation that Someguy1221 was a sock puppet of User:Jack Merridew. This allegation was found to be untrue on the basis of two CheckUsers 1, k2. PF insisted on the second because, apparently, John Vandenberg isn't impartial enough.

It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering. HOWEVER, consider Pixelface's subsequent petulance, this thinly veiled accusation that Jack Merridew is running or intends to run a sockpuppeteering operation, and continued refusal to explain just why he thought there was something dubious going on- this leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a dirty and bad faith attack on Jack Merridew, an editor Pixelface dislikes on purely ideological grounds.

Pixelface has a recent record (complaint of disruption and edit warring, complaint of incivility and hounding, complaint of belligerent editing) of objectionable behaviour and this cheap shot is just the latest escalation. I am concerned that Pixelface will continue to use cheap tricks like spurious accusations of sockpuppetry to sink the boot into other editors he comes into conflict with. Reyk _YO! 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW recent history also includes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you). For the record, I am editing with no other accounts than this one, as the AC has directed. All prior accounts are listed in;

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle

For background, see

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions and
• User:Jack Merridew/History

Pixelface is in full battleground mode re myself and has been since E&C 2. When my unban was being discussed, he stated his view rather clearly; archived here.

There was an RFC/U re Pixelface recently which he basically blew off;

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface

I have no idea why Pixelface believes, or believed, I and User:Someguy1221 are related. I'd not heard of him previously or crossed his path in any way I'm aware of.

I would like some action here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. He has admitted that he was wrong; that's not really the issue. His battleground approach to me, others, and various policies and guidelines is of wide concern as the links I and others have offered show. And of, course, there is more if one digs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what are you looking for that isn't being addressed at the RFC? What admin action are you seeking? Durova^Charge! 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the User RFC garnered a fair number of comments but no real change in behaviour. As to actions, I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Pixelface is relentlessly disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note on the User RFC, PF has not performed any more than 1RR changes on policy/guideline pages since the RFC. But the other factors mentioned do not seem to have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Masem, the only behaviour that Pixelface has changed is the edit-warring on policy pages, and all the other problems remain intact. Since he has already been blocked multiple times for this, I think a 72-hour block is in order, with an eye towards eventually making it indefinite if he cannot learn to civilly engage with other editors.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we blocking people for 72 hours now for filing SPIs on self-admitted sockpuppets? And I believe you made a comment at my user RFC about your own civility Kww. Like I've said before, when I'm treated in a civil way, I typically respond in a civil way. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your desired outcome was fairly vague. And I never agreed to follow 1RR on policy and guideline pages. Which reminds me, I still need to start a thread about that change to WP:POL which came about in October. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't blow off that user RFC, although it looks like most of the community ignored it. It was archived by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comment, and I had plenty more to say. I edited the page 11 times[16], I edited the talkpage 25 times[17], and I was the first to propose a solution. I promised to not edit WP:NOT during January before you did, and that policy was unprotected as a result. I also promised to not edit WP:NOT for two more months. However, you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned and you were warned by one of your three assigned mentors after your edit-warring on WP:NOT[18], where you just happened to accuse me of "vandalism." Now there is a baseless accusation. I suggest that if you don't want people to think you're operating sockpuppets, don't operate sockpuppets to begin with. Dominic can verify that he received an email, over 200K, with evidence that led me to believe that you might have been Someguy1221. I really think you should have told Reyk about your history before you let him start this thread. Oh, and please don't leave any more trout on my user talkpage. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are three problems with Pixelface's conduct in this issue:-

1. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry by, and disruption of the RfA of, Someguy1221 - someone completely uninvolved and blameless in this matter. Fortunately this did not affect the outcome of the RfA, and an apology has been made.
2. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry against Jack Merridew, which was not so much withdrawn as laughed out of court. There's been no apology for this and judging by the apparent past history between these editors, there is unlikely to be.
3. An unsubstantiated accusation that John Vandenberg isn't impartial - to the extent that he would falsely report checkuser findings. I'm not aware of any withdrawal or apology related to this. I'm aware that there is no explicit accusation of falsification, but it makes no sense to say "I question your impartiality, and I've emailed the evidence to another Checkuser" unless one believes the report of the first checkuser to be false.

Provided that Pixelface accepts that these are serious conduct issues and undertakes to address them, then I think no further sanction is necessary. I am well aware that the editors on the receiving end of Pixelface's problematic conduct are respectively an admin (now), a veteran editor, and a checkuser, and that as such these people ought to be able to laugh off such attacks. I trust that they will be able to do so, but our discussion here ought not to be about punishment for past actions, but prevention of future disruption, in particular prevention of discouragement to the much less-experienced editors that Pixelface will surely come into contact with. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, my accusation was substantiated, to Dominic, who had previously performed a reliable checkuser on Jack Merridew. Second of all, Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet, and is apparently proud of that fact. Third of all, I had no intention of ever submitting my evidence to Jayvdb, one of Jack Merridew's three assigned mentors, who Jack Merridew contacted by himself. I don't think any of his assigned mentors should be performing checkusers on Jack Merridew. In addition to being one of Jack Merridew's mentors, Jayvdb said that Jack Merridew had "earned" a final chance in December and Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the 2008 Arbcom elections. I expect Jayvdb to recuse in any further checkuser requests related to Jack Merridew. It does make sense to provide the evidence which led me to believe that the two accounts may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets to a checkuser, and I did so. Reyk certainly didn't seem to be aware of Jack Merridew's past history and frankly, Jack Merridew should have told Reyk about that history when Reyk told Jack Merridew he was thinking of starting an ANI thread. I have already apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking that he may be Jack Merridew. He is the only editor in this situation who deserved an apology. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no need for Jack to tell me anything. There is a rather conspicuous disclosure of his past on his user page- coming clean about his past is, I think, good evidence that he's acting in good faith now. Reyk _YO! 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Above at the start of this thread you called this comment by me a "thinly veiled accusation", which seems to indicate you were totally unaware that Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet and has edited under several sockpuppets in the past. Jack Merridew has done several disruptive things since being unbanned in December, but that's a topic for another thread. I'd be happy to list them on a user subpage. --Pixelface (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with Pixelface's suspicions in this particular instance and encourage him to be cautious when alleging sockpuppetry (perhaps consulting with a trusted fellow editor before making an allegation in an RfA?), he is by and large a constructive and good faith editor who is frequently hounded by those on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum. A good deal of what is typically alleged against Pixelface is partisan in nature and frequently hypocritical, i.e. dismissing him because of his beleifs when those doing the dismissing engage in the same allegedly poor behavior or worse. Few try to make attempts to reach out and in fact only perpetuate and escalate tensions. It becomes an effort to stifle the dissenting view rather than trying to reach an amicable understanding or a polite agree to disagree. Everyone should spend more time working together to rescue and improve articles rather than on trying to see sockpuppetry under every corner (unless it is blatantly obvious as in the recent report I filed that turned up 25 socks!) or tattling on each other at ANI. WAAAAY too much time is wasted in these discussions rather than on actually building Wikipedia and besides as Sheffield suggests above, it is really not that hard to ignore others when the accusations seem baseless. We typically only encourage people or make things worse by feeding into or getting up in arms over some things that can easily be ignored or passed over. In other words, to Pixelface, please help us work on article rescue and ask someone you trust first if you think sockpuppet looks possibly, because say if you asked me for example first in this case, I would have discouraged making the accusation in the RfA. To everyone else, please stop trying to bait Pixelface and enflaming tensions. We are here first and foremost to build "the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit". The priority should not be trying to get each other in trouble. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that anyone can gode another into behaving improperly, PF is the only editor in these cases that seems to be throwing personal attacks around. There's obviously animosity between Jack and PF, but I have yet to see an instance of Jack attacking PF on a personal note, even when PF starts off that way (I'm not saying there not might be any, I'm just not aware of any). We've been through this before that PF needs to stop engaging in personal attack, even if there seems to be an overwhelming number of more vocal editors that are against his position which may mirror an even larger number of non-vocal editors. WP is not a battleground - calm and rationale discussion is the means to settle disputes, not attacks at editors themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the characterization of Pixelface as being "by and large a constructive and good-faith editor". He is by and large a chronic source of low-level disruption and bad behaviour. His RFC demonstrates his general unwillingness to recognize the problems he creates, and, if this event isn't sufficient to cause him to be blocked, it should at least put him at the final warning stage.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sock pupperty are common, and often they are proven wrong. Maybe Pixelface had a legitimate reason to worry about Jack, since he has been blocked multiple times for sock puppet abuse:

1. 16:46, 31 March 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) blocked Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive142#Jack_Merridew, listing EIGHT sock puppets of Jack.

To paraphrase Reyk's bad faith attack on Pixelface, now we have "editor[s who] dislike [Pixelface] on purely ideological grounds", Kww and Masem joining the argument.

If I were Pixelface I would have consulted the three admins, Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs) which are mentoring Jack to make sure the bad behavior does not happen again.[19]

Pixelface apologized that he was wrong, but that wasn't good enough. Jack Merridew added a huge trout to his page, but that wasn't good enough. Why can't editors accept this apology? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike Pixelface on "purely ideological grounds". I maintain a civil and friendly relationship with DGG, for example, who is certainly as ideologically my opposite as Pixelface. I dislike Pixelface for edit-warring, incivility, and a complete inability to work with people that disagree with him.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck comment. So do you agree that Pixelface dislikes Jack on purely ideological grounds? Maybe Reyk should strike that comment too. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging only on what I've seen, the language that PF uses in talking about Jack is complete dislike or disrespect for the person, not ideology, due to Jack's past sockpuppetry that he was banned for. At the same time, PF also is very opposite in ideology from Jack. It's fine for PF to comment and debate the ideological differences, but I've seen PF engage in attacks against Jack as an editor (including calling him out by his real name). (And to echo Kww, I certainly don't dislike PF as an editor, and respect that his ideology reflects numerous unvoiced editors of fiction and thus useful; I dislike the means which he approaches debate which edges on the border of appropriate behavior.) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to evaluate. I strongly opposed the restoration of Jack Merridew's editing privileges, and still think it was a mistake on philosophical grounds (I'm equal-opportunity on that aspect as well ... I think it's a grievous error to allow A. Nobody to edit, as well, and he's on the opposite end of the exclusionism/inclusionism spectrum from Jack). That said, I'm not aware of any explicit misbehaviour by Jack since his unbanning.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww, so I guess now would be a bad time to bring up this[20][21] edit-warring by you, which immediately followed my edits to those articles? At that time, there was no consensus to merge at Talk:List of characters in Watchmen. And there was no consensus to merge at WikiProject Comics either[22][23]. That first thread is basically WesleyDodds telling WikiProject Comics that he boldly redirected them and another editor saying "yay." Look at all the complaints at Talk:List of characters in_Watchmen since then. Are you seriously saying that the characters Ozymandias is not notable? I can work with people who disagree me. But can you? --Pixelface (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I had reason to believe that a user might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jack Merridew, and I think Dominic may agree with me. He did perform a checkuser after I sent him my evidence afterall. I admit that my edits to articles have drastically fallen off as of late, but part of that is because of editors like you Kww, following me around and reverting my every edit. Like this[24][25][26] for example. Have you noticed how I'm not hounding you and reverting your edits to articles? I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else) didn't do so to me. But even considering all my edits in WP/WT-space lately (which many people support[27][28]), over 50% of my edits are still to article-space[29]. Most of those edits came at a time when people were not hounding me, and I was free to improve any article whatsoever, articles like GTD-5 EAX.

Arbcom has never considered a topic ban for me, something that cannot be said about you Kww. I don't know what problems you think I've "created." I'm not the one who said over seven years ago "I agree with this one completely" when someone said "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." Take it up with the editor who said that and the people who listened to him and followed him. I've never understood your attitude towards me. One of the very first things I remember you saying to me was "Be grateful that I'm not an admin, so I don't have a block button on my screen." And believe me Kww, I am grateful for things like this. --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface is NOT "the only editor...throwing pesonal attacks around." On his talk page, for instance, someone makes a play on his username by calling him "egg on face" or something to that effect and if necessary, I am sure we can turn up a number of diffs in which editors were incivil to him as well. I don't condone incivility by anyone, regardless of inclusion stance. Pixelface should remain civil, but so should others as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If people are ploying him on his talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA and they should be brought forward as well. I don't watch his talk page, I know what I see through the various talk page discussions on certain policies and guidelines, and clearly there PF is pretty much the only one that engages in personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww and User:Jack Merridew routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks. The parole of the latter does not seem to be working as the demands upon his mentors indicate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for this? I don't see it on the policy/guideline talk pages, but it would be helpful to know if it's happening on user pages. (as to justify any addition behavior remedies) --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in evidence that I "routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks" as well.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to provide diffs Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting, but I've already apologized to Someguy1221. And Masem, if the user RFC you started on me hadn't been archived when it did (organizing a timeline from last April was proving to be difficult), you would have seen me present plenty of Jack Merridew's inciviilty towards me, going back to December 2007. I didn't start it. But I may put all that on a user subpage. You're right Masem, Wikipedia is not supposed to a be a battleground, which is why I would really appreciate it if would you stop starting threads about me that go nowhere — your recent AE thread comes to mind. You know, a recent paper has found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes — and I've certainly found that to be true in my own experience. And I think it's worth noting that the user who intiated E&C2 and listed me as an involved party is now banned from editing Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting- again with the churlish personal attacks. It never stops with you, does it? Reyk _YO! 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One striking element of the RfC is that Pixelface entered no response to it. Also, Pixelface was more recently the subject of a Wikiquette alert. Due to the nature of the surrounding environment (inclusionism/deletionistm) it is unlikely that consensus will form at a community level. So one possibility would be arbitration. There have been enough recent formal DR attempts to justify a case. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PF did respond, but on the talk page, as well as offering one possible remedy that wasn't accepted by the editors involved (including myself, full disclaimer). But there seemed to be no effort by PF to work out towards other remedies given. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, past experience with established editors has been that unless they do something really obviously bannable (legal threats, etc.) it's difficult for the community to take action. Action may occur, but generally slowly and with plenty of drama. Since Pixelface has 12,000 edits and is a participant in a polarized wiki-ideological debate, perhaps the best approach would be:

1. Try a little more dispute resolution.

2. If that doesn't succeed, initiate RFAR.

In the meantime, please exercise care to avoid provocative action. Place trout on the grill, not on the editor's talk page. When a first trout doesn't succeed later trouts are rarely effective. Just be as reasonable as possible. And for editors who agree with Pixelface ideologically, please encourage Pixelface to pursue that belief without sniping at others who disagree. No one likes arbitration, so let's do our best to resolve this amicably. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem created that user RFC about me 5 hours and 20 minutes after Jack Merridew started an ANI thread about me on December 30, following these edits[30] by Jack Merridew and me to the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, where Jack Merridew stated he was reverting "vandalism" by me. The section of policy I was removing does not have consensus to be policy, it has not had consensus to be policy ever since it was proposed, and many threads at WT:NOT have been devoted to it. The policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was protected for a month, and was unprotected after I promised not to edit that policy at all during the protection period, and after I requested unprotection. In addition to that, at the user RFC, I promised to not to edit that policy at all during February or March 2009, and I've kept that promise. Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008 and was warned by one of his three assigned mentors about his edits to that policy.

In the Statement of the dispute, Masem objected to my long responses and use of diffs, which makes crafting a response a bit difficult in my opinion. I asked Masem and Protonk for a wordlimit, and received none. Nevertheless, I edited the user RFC page 11 times[31], I edited the talkpage 25 times[32], and I was the first editor to propose a solution.

I am still unaware of which dispute it was exactly that the four certifiers made previous attempts to resolve, and when they attempted to resolve it. Diffs were never provided. I did respond in several areas below on the user RFC page, saying much of what I was going to say in the Response section. IIRC, JzG entered no response at his user RFC. I considered (and still am considering) putting a response in my userspace, going over Masem's complaint line by line, as well as others. The user RFC about me was archived by Ncmvocalist after over two weeks of no comment. During that time I was busy doing other things, and I was actually quite surprised when I noticed it had been archived. I had typed up a fairly long statement by that point. Protonk had also started an RFC on a proposal during my user RFC, and that consumed much of my time.

Bignole did file a recent Wikiquette alert against me, but he seemed to misunderstand some things I said to him, although I admit many were uncivil. That WQA thread was archived with no action. Masem did file a recent AE thread against me, after I suggested a thread about Bignole might be warranted because Bignole was arguing over a page that Arbcom explicitly mentioned during E&C1, an arbitration case which lists Bignole as an involved party. The AE thread about me that Masem started was also archived with no action. I am getting really tired of Masem starting threads and pages concerning me.

John254 listed me as an involved party of E&C2 (but is now banned), and Masem's RFA occurred during E&C1 and Masem edited the E&C2 case pages quite a bit. I think arbitration is a bad idea, since I believe E&C2 only served to inflame the dispute and make it worse. Many of the current arbitrators would also have to recuse. I think the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy is lacking in several ways, and that seems to be supported by a recent paper which found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This complaint was filed by User:Reyk. This [33] suggests that the complaint is ideologically motivated. It is uncivil to use AN/I to play the "ban my opponent game". I suggest Reyk drops this mode of operation. Arbitration is probably not necessary here. Judicious application of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out where Reyk asked for a ban? I don't see it. It was Jack Merridew who stated I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Mentioning a possible ban as the extreme end of a range of possible remedies is a bit different, and it was not Reyk who made the mention. Unless there's another post to that effect? Durova^Charge! 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if Reyk had brought it, that wouldn't invalidate it. Nothing about being an exclusionist means that he has to accept misbehaviour from anyone, including ardent inclusionists. This board should be about behaviour, not ideology, and Pixelface's behaviour is certainly open to question.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more worrisome to see an outright accusation of game playing against one editor, based upon a comment made by someone else. If this dispute does sink to outright game playing (which I hope it doesn't) a mistaken accusation by an administrator could be used against Reyk. It would be more helpful of Jehochman to either substantiate the accusation better or else withdraw it. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After getting a new source in the mail today, I have made a suggestion for Pixelface to help me at User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on, but I extend the request to help to everyone. Let's all stop trying to get each other in trouble, escalating tensions in AfDs, etc. and work together to use such sources as the one I mention on Pixelface's talk page to bring these articles concerning the most "notable" fictional characters all up to DYK, Good, and/or featured status. We know the sources exist for these ones and now is the time to pool our resources together to bring them to these statuses. I trust any editors who in good faith are not here to perpetuate ideological disputes will put that all aside and work for the good of the project and who knows maybe and hopefully in doing so, we will all gain better respect for each other in the process. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effort, it doesn't address why this ANI exists: PF's means of editing. We will never get rid of inclusionists vs deletionists, even if we work towards good middle ground efforts, and it is important to keep civility in line regardless of where one is editing. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think editors would be more civil with each other if they have some constructive interactions as well. One editor a while back referred to me as an "extreme inclusionist not welcome" on her talk page. So, rather than just take her to ANI for being incivil or what have you, I helped identify socks that were harassing her and we've had various other helpful gestures toward each other. Sure, we'll still be on opposite sides of AfDs, but it isn't mean when we debate anymore. Rather than trying to defeat opposition by calling for blocks that tend only annoy editors, why not try a more carrot approach? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need editors to behave civilly toward those they disagree with. Behave is the operative word. Speaking polite words while sticking the knife in another editor (and twisting) does not count as civil behavior. The attempt here to get Pixelface sanctioned might have been taken seriously if it had been filed by an uninvolved editor. Disagreements should not be escalated with WP:AN/I filings. People aren't given flowers here--they get blocked or banned. We all know that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Make tulips, not knives.

This thread is not about me. It's about Pixelface's pattern of escalating belligerence- behaviour for which I and others in this thread have provided actual evidence. Which is more than I can say for your vague and spurious notion that, just because Pixelface and I don't see eye to eye on the inclusionism/deletionism debate, my objections to his behaviour must be politically motivated. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear how uninvolved Wikipedians are to become aware that a problem exists, if involved parties may not post evidence to a noticeboard. Question to Jehochman: what avenue would you recommend as appropriate for Reyk, if you find this so objectionable? Bear in mind that user conduct RFC and Wikiquette alert have both been attempted already. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an RFC where plenty of uninvolved Wikipedians reviewed the problem, and you'll notice that WP:ANI is not listed on WP:DR. If a user is making snarky comments, WP:WQA is often a useful. "Help me with difficult communications I am having with this user" is a better approach than "sanction this user for being rude." If a sanctions request is made, the prior dispute and the prior RFC should have been disclosed. Both important pieces of context were left out of the initial complaint. That's what made me skeptical about motives. We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and bash each other. Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Many editors aren't talented at initiating noticeboard threads; they don't know what to say. Yet it certainly added to the appearance of good faith that two prior types of dispute resolution had been tried: these people attempted DR over a conduct issue, then sought administrative attention when the conduct failed to improve. This board would be a more orderly place if more editors followed that approach. WP:AGF is indeed a good idea; best to lead by example. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reyk, first of all, it's not "bad faith" to think that Jack Merridew may have another sockpuppet, since he is an admitted sockpuppet and has edited under multiple previous usernames (D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, Moby Dick, Note to Cool Cat, Senang Hati, Thomas Jerome Newton), he has previously lied on a noticeboard about it[34][35], and is apparently proud of being a sockpuppet ("This account is a sock puppet of Davenbelle, and has been unblocked indefinitely.", "for great justice and epic lulz" [36])

My suggestion that Someguy1221 might be Jack Merridew was also not baseless. After MSGJ told me to file an SPI, I began gathering my evidence together. My email to Dominic, who previously performed a checkuser on Jack Merridew during the arbitration case E&C2, was over 200K. Dominic can verify that. During the time I was organizing my evidence, Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb to perform a checkuser, an editor who said Jack Merridew had earned a final chance when Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned (from abusing multiple accounts) in December. Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the December 2008 Arbcom elections and I voted against Jayvdb. Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb before I could email Dominic, and I questioned Jayvdb's impartiality regarding Jack Merridew. I was not going to send the evidence to Jayvdb.

After jeers and sneers yet another unwelcome trout on my talkpage from Jack Merridew, and after what could be interpreted as insults to me from Jayvdb and Sceptre and MSGJ, I apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking he might be Jack Merridew. No insult was intended to Someguy1221. I think I behaved quite civilly, considering.

I would like Sceptre and Jack Merridew to stay away from me. One thing I was never able to bring up at my user RFC (which was apparently closed by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comments) is that last May after I got into an argument with Sceptre's friend Seraphim, Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim. Then Jack Merridew commented, while banned. Sceptre mentioned that "badger ring" just a while ago at WT:RFA.

Jack Merridew has already been ordered by Arbcom to stay away from one editor. And I want him to stay away from me, although that may be a matter for RFAR and not ANI.

I didn't disrupt WP:N like Karanacs claimed, I never called Bignole "pathetic", and Masem apparently only opened that AE thread (yet another thread Masem has started where zero action as taken) because I told Bignole that Bignole's recent actions at Talk:List of South Park episodes (which Arbcom explicitly mentioned in E&C1, an arbitration case Bignole was an involved party of) might violate the ruling of that case.

What admin action is necessary here Reyk? I suggest you brush up on the following pages: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] --Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, my "involvement" in E&C1 was when I stated that I would not be taking part in said discussion because I didn't have the time to devote to it. So, please stop saying that I was an "involved party", because I wasn't. I have one comment, which was given right when it opened. I never ventured back to the page again. Secondly, I made not "actions" on the List of South Park episodes. Discussions of mergers is not a violation of anything, especially when I did not start said discussion of merger. The E&C1 says, "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Dicussing a merger is exactly that. As for the "pathetic" bit, you called my actions "pathetic", which is the same thing as calling me pathetic. I let it slide, but considering that that wasn't the last time you said that to me at the LoSPe page, that was why I filed that Wikietiquette alert about your behavior. The fact that you cannot even recognize when you are being incivil to other editors shows that there is a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I know that Jack Merridew has done some shady things in the past. I also know that, for the last ten months or so, he's scrupulously kept his nose clean. All the evidence suggests that he's a reformed character and almost certainly innocent of continued misbehaviour, and deserves to be treated with the same respect and decency given to any other productive member of Wikipedia. Having a bad record does not make him an open target for your frivolous allegations.

You made a baseless accusation in a very public place rather than going through SPI like you should have. You dragged an innocent person into your attack on Jeck Merridew. You insisted on a second checkuser after the first one told you something you didn't want to hear and called another editor's impartiality into question in the process. When conclusively proven incorrect you refuse to apologize to the person you've wronged and continue to insist he's currently sockpuppeteering. And throughout the whole thing you have not provided the community one shred of evidence that you were actually acting in good faith; you refuse to, because apparently Jack might use it improve his nonexistent socking campaign. Personally, I think if your "evidence" was ever released the community would ridicule it as obviously desperate and contrived flim-flam.

Now you say you want Jack Merridew to leave you alone. Well, why don't you leave him alone? Why provoke him into "sneering" and troutslapping you with this muck-raking, when otherwise you have not much to do with him at all except maybe the odd encounter in policy and guideline talk pages?

You are in the wrong here, Pixelface, and your behaviour is getting more and more obnoxious. It needs to stop. For your own sake, listen to all these people who say your behaviour is poor and consider they may have a point. Otherwise, one day, you'll go that one step too far and wind up with a lengthy block. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably would best for those on both sides to disengage and avoid each other. Wikipedia is a big place and as such there are plenty of articles needing improvement and people can and should focus on what interests them while ignoring those trying to bait them. There's been clear incivility and escalation all around and nothing good or bipartisan is coming from anything. As I've suggested above, we should focus on specific article improvements. We should not just beat dead horses on ANI. Pixelface had suspicions, checkuser didn't confirm them and he said he was wrong and apologized on his talk page. All this thread is doing is escalating things. When I recently asked for admin input on ANI when I suspected canvassing, the editor in question notified other editors and that's that. Just as I asked a question in my thread title rather than asserting he had done wrong as if it were a fact. No need to assume I'm right and no sense going on and on any further against him. I should not and have no interest in demanding anything else or needlessly escalating things. I had a concern, it was addressed and that's that. It shouldn't be about venue shopping or trying to squash our opposition. Thus, this thread too is moving away from constructive discussion and is not going to result in anything worthwhile by continuing it. I hope that Pixelface consults with trusted editors before making any accusations public that may be unwise to make and I hope that editors on both sides will not be incivil toward each other. Moreover, I hope that editors will devote the bulk of their energy to improving articles rather than adding to a battleground atmosphere in discussions. And finally, it would indeed be wise if the various editors with argumentative pasts avoid provoking each other further, and I mean all of us. Let's start the week on a good note, disengage from escalation, and all see how many DYK, Good, and featured articles we can get! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this entire long discussion can be summed up with this sentence found in the first paragraph:

"It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering." Ikip (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck marriage date & DOBs

redpen keeps reverting. I have made the concession of the bio section being named early life. Having DOBs & marriage dates doesnt make her more likely to have her identity stolen. Mariage dates & DOBs are all throughout wikipedia. So please you alll intercede as redpen keeps reverting. Thanks. 70.108.79.147 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above thread as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.108.110.22. MuZemike 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I had to explain on my talk page here, user is demonstrating a patent unwillingness to work with others. IPs keep adding back in falsified material (violation of BLP) and repeatedly breaking 3RR for it (this is clearly laid out, diff by diff, at SPI). This has also caused Elisabeth Hasselbeck to be protected. IPs are also causing a bit of disruption by placing {{HELPME}} and {{adminhelp}} templates all over the place. I think a rangeblock is necessary here. MuZemike 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed that a rangeblock would case a bit of collateral damage. I would then request that Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, Carson Daly, and Girlfriends all be protected (note I am requesting it here since we are already here, or I can go to WP:RFPP if not appropriate). MuZemike 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to work with others. I havent added false info. EH page is locked bc redpen successfully manipulated you all. I have not abused helpme or adminhelp tags. Y do u want to lock these pages but not tell redpen to stop editing the pages? 70.108.102.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential death threat

I'm not taking it too seriously at this point, but this could be of concern. Thoughts? –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hm, we could call the FBI, or the CIA, or CTU. But perhaps calling CVU might be more apt.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's almost certainly nothing, but it couldn't hurt to drop a note to the relevant authorities. The IP in question seems to enjoy vandalising Harding Charter Preparatory High School. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Lankiveil. I scanned some of the contribs too and it seems to be a vandal account but it is concerning that the edit names people so maybe contacting the school to inform might be a good idea and/or the local officials just to be on the safe side. Obviously the editor should be indefinitely blocked to stop the disruptions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

An indef block would be fairly impractical, as the vandalism originated from an IP address. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't think of that when I suggested it. Has anyone contacted anyone about the threat though just to be in the safe side of things? I'm just curious as I know that usually someone makes contacts to make sure it's not a serious threat though I agree it's probably just a vandal edit. I am just concerned with the use of specific names in the threat which might be RL. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#Officeworks123 from March 24; it is probably best to contact the local authorities and WMF (info at wikimedia dot org). This is probably good protocol, and then there is not much need to follow up once the contacts have been sent. --64.85.216.213 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Above stuff is good, but I'd also suggest a Checkuser. It can't hurt to see if the account is a sock. Ceranthor 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material

Resolved

 – Deletion review has been started. Further discussion should take place there. Aleta ^Sing 02:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body, Buddhism and the body was deleted. Prior to the close, User:Spasemunki had begun a reworking of the article in his userspace. After the article deletion, he moved his work back into the main space. I am concerned that this may be a violation of GFDL as well as recreation of deleted material. I wanted another opinion before speedy deletion though, as I am involved. Aleta ^Sing 14:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on whether it's a rewrite, or substantially the same (but corrected to address the failings at the AfD). If it's the latter, then a simple history merge will fix all ills. — Coren ^(talk) 14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A history merge would be good but the result of the AFD should then be recorded as Keep or No consensus. Note that the recreating user User:Spasemunki !voted delete in the discussion and this influenced other !voters but, given events, this should now be understood as keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If the material is substantially rewritten with respect to the problems, it does not violate the AfD close. The AfD close--unless the decision was to salt the article--does not prevent re-creation of an article on the topic. 15:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the original article. As far as I can see substantial portions of the re-created article are the same or closely similar. Note the clumsy English in some sections, e.g. "...the Buddha words were not stated on what he thought about this topic...". There is definitely some new material, but what concerns me most is that an important issue that emerged in the AfD was that the entire notion of the article was flawed, and this re-creation seems to be simply a better quality version of something that shouldn't exist in the first place - a rewrite of someone else's OR. andy (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of what emerged in AfD is that 1) the current focus of the article was flawed, but that 2) there were a very small number of elements in the article worth keeping (I did deleted 80-90% of the old article), and 3) that an article that was re-focused would be an appropriate topic. I attempted to do this by creating a new intro and creating essentially a 'sample' outline structure based on the topics discussed in the article 'Body, Buddhist Perspectives on the' in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. But please see my comments below for a more complete explanation. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I 'voted' delete, however I think Spasemunki's actions are ok. Obviously, the new article could be listed at AfD, but I don't think a speedy would be appropriate. If the new article isn't going to be zapped, then I guess a note should be appended to the AfD close explaining what's happened. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I idsagree - just got an edit conflict, and what I was posting under Andyjsmith's edit was that I was about to say the same thing. A number of things that people said should not be in the article are in the recreated article. This still reads like a personal reflection on the subject, not an encyclopedic article. I'd amend Andyjsmith's comment to say a "slightly better quality version" and that may be generous. It is basically a recreation of a deleted article. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO the easiest course of action is to take the new article by User:Spasemunki to WP:DRV and ask the community if this new version brings enough new information to the table to overturn the old AFD. MBisanz ^talk 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So here is what happened: I created the 'new' version of the article as an exercise to see how much of the old article could be saved if it were cut down to fit the rubric of an article on the same topic in an academic encyclopedia. I intentionally avoided doing things like rewording the awkward wording that User:Andyjsmith mentions and left almost nothing but the referenced material. The 'Suicide' section still contains some essay-like material because I was undecided at the time about how much of it other editors would want to move into the 'Religious views of suicide' article. I also omitted the references for the new material I was adding (most of them from the MacMillan article) for expediency. My aim was to quickly put something together that the editors involved in the AfD could discuss to make clear that the article in its form as taken to AfD was inappropriate, but that there was potential for a proper article covering the topic, in which a few elements of the current article might still exist. It was an attempted compromise. My hope was that we would get some more feedback on the article I created, replace the content of the article with it, and then close the AfD. Unfortunately, the AfD was closed before more than a couple of other editors had commented, so I wasn't sure what to make of it. Thus the move last night, which I realized later probably needed a history merge or other solution to preserve proper attribution for the portions of the old article that survived. My personal suggestion for a remedy is to restore the old article and re-open the AfD, and see if the involved editors are open to the 'rescue' option that I floated above. If most editors think that even in the new form, the information from the old article makes this one unrescue-able, then we create a completely new article covering the topic at some later date, otherwise we just preserve the history of the old article and replace it with the new version. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be a bad precedent. And it doesn't really address Aleta's question which started this discussion. Your re-created article should be considered on its merits which are, IMHO and unfortunately (despite your good faith), that it's a rewrite of OR. andy (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with deletion review if that's the procedurally correct thing to do. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) MBisanz's suggestion makes a good bit of sense. Taking Clay's current version to DRV, either the deletion will be upheld and his version will go too, or the deletion decision wil be overturned, and Clay's version can be the next edit after the last version that was deleted. Any merits and faults of the version Clay has produced can be evaluated there. Aleta ^Sing 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested a history-only deletion review of the article here. Please add feedback there. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:CSGV

A few nice cups of tea needed here.

Incident regarding Coalition to Stop Gun Violence article and a conflict of interest and legal threats by editor

CSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

who has disclosed being Director of Communications for CSGV (here).

Editor CSGV was then notified of the WP:COI policy here.

Editor CSGV has now threatened legal action against Wikimedia staff and Wikipedia editors here.

-- Yaf (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the full text of that 'legal threat':

We very much look forward to taking the matter up with Wikimedia staff, and to offering primary source evidence--including public statements, testimony, and documents--for every revision we have made to this page in order to ensure its accuracy. We also greatly look forward to reviewing the activity of Wiki Firearms Project members on this page and on the pages of other organizations that advocate for strengthening gun laws to prevent gun violence in order to see if their activity has reflected a "conflict of interest" or not. And since you have been involved in defending content on this page (and others relating to gun issues) that is clearly biased, it would be an appropriate point to review your activity as well. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they want to strengthen gun control laws--which is their stated mission after all. He or she is offering to discuss sources, which is what we encourage new editors to do. No legal threat there. Is there another statement that contstitutes one? Durova^Charge! 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a legal threat. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Does anyone think that This page has been overrun by individuals from the Wiki Firearms Project that vehemently oppose the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's mission (and gun control in general). Is painting a broad brush a little bit? Looks like user will keep fighting until his editing privileges are taken from his cold dead hands. MuZemike 17:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. But, "public statements, testimony, and documents" are all what is usually requested/required in a subpoena, as part of litigating a legal case. "Primary source evidence" is more of a legal term than a preferred method of documenting on Wikipedia. But, if no legal threats are seen here, that is certainly one interpretation. It is not the interpretation that I read, though. Yaf (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NLT exists for very specific reasons, which are outlined clearly on that page. This instance does not come close to matching those reasons and there's really no alternate interpretation. That's not to say there isn't a problem with the user's editing (I have no idea if there is or not). I'll be honest, though: throwing around baseless claims of legal threats to try to get an instablock is very bothersome to me. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is a case of WP:NPLT, based upon the litany of items expressed in somewhat rather precise legal terms. Having been subpoenaed for precisely these type of documents previously, in real life, perhaps I have a lower threshold of sensitivity to these specific terms. Yaf (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:CSGV also accuses other editors of "slander", another precise legal issue, here, which causes further perceptions of legal threats. Libel, slander, and similar terms carry definite legal threats. Yaf (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people who are new to Wikipedia misunderstand our site standards and policies. How about a referral to WP:ADOPT? If this person is interested in contributing collaboratively that should help, and if improvements don't occur then this board could review developments at a later time. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI is not a policy, but a guideline, not intended to revert people's edits out of hand. I suggest that you help the user contribute rather than get into a back and forth, constantly escalating, edit war. Bastique ^demandez 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By WP:COI wording here, though, "This section of the guideline is aimed at editors who may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden." All content cited from other sources that was the least bit critical of the organization was removed by User:CSGV editor. Are significantly biased edits in mainspace forbidden or are such edits simply discouraged? Forbidden doesn't sound like a guideline. Yaf (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI states it's a guideline. You're citing it as a revert reason, as if it were a policy. Why don't you cite the policy that discusses biased edits, rather than the guideline that talks about conflicts of interest? And why don't you address my last comment, about helping the user rather than getting into a constant edit war? Bastique ^demandez 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That policy is applicable, too, but clear violation of the "forbidden" act of making significantly biased edits with a self-admitted COI through removing all content that, although cited, is the least bit critical of the organization, while adding copyvio content from the website of the organization, all without engaging in discussions on the talk page other than to make veiled legal threats involving accusations of slander and mentioning other legal terms common in acquiring evidence through subpoenas, does make working with the self-described Director of Communications for CSGV difficult. His admitted phone calls to the San Francisco office of the Wikimedia Foundation to complain also don't help, but sound instead like more veiled legal threats. Yaf (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CoI is a guideline, not a policy. You can edit an article in which you have a vested interest, but it's best to a) disclose that interest and b) not be obnoxious about it. DS (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose for a moment that this person means well. He or she has disclosed the conflict of interest, as recommended in the guideline. Other statements express either misunderstanding or confusion about our site standards. This is normal for any new editor. How about slowing down and perhaps opening mediation? Durova^Charge! 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not under that username, though. That username has been blocked as a spamusername, for obvious reasons. I take no position on the COI edits, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair call regarding the username. Durova^Charge! 19:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME states "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." It is not a broad call to block a user based on the name. The reasons for blocking are not "obvious" to me, and doing so in the middle of this discussion was not a very good call. Bastique ^demandez 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they're fairly obvious - I left a message for them recommending that they provide us an alternate individual account name and we can unblock and name change.

For a normal user they're on the margin of advocating a bit much - there's a back and forth, that needs neutral input, and I think the pro- and anti- people are oscillating around something that has a neutral enough center. But using organization named accounts for that is something I would block for and I've seen a lot of other people block for... We probably should tighten up the username policy going forwards, it seems to lead to far too many cases like this where people think they should do this for their organization under its name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, Cary makes a strong point. Let's try to work with this individual rather than taking a punitive approach. Let's all pause for WP:TEA Durova^Charge! 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the sequence, they would probably perceive it as unfair. The name issue isn't blatant enough to hardblock. We can be flexible... Unblock with a note that they need to change username fairly promptly and ask them to do so as soon as possible? That lets them continue to contribute while we sort out the name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no 'legal threat' here. I encourage Yaf to strike out, <S>Legal threat</S>, his false accusation against another editor. This looks more like a behavior and content dispute and I see bad behavior by both of the involved editors. One editor with a couple dozen total edits needs help learning how things work around here, the other editor with many thousands of edits should know better. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't see the legal threat either. A look at the way the discussion went on the talk page of the article in question is kind of disappointing; while I'm strongly against anyone with a COI editing related pages personally, this editor seems to have been leaped on with little in the way of actual discussion of his/her concerns. The username thing needs to be done, for sure - Georgewilliamherbert's suggestion above looks good. Unblock for a username change, and encourage the editor - and the others on that page - to work on the talk page collegially to clarify any of the issues being raised. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

editor CSGV was certainly not shy in being uncivil, not assuming good faith, slinging personal attacks, and expressing sentiments consistent with believing he owned the article. while i became mildly heated after multiple verbal harangues by this user, i hardly think CSGV was 'leaped on with little in the way of actual discussion of his concerns'. he was advised politely (for the most part) that he was way out of line in scrubbing material from the article that was not favorable to his organization. he also violated 3RR it should be noted, and was quite adamant that he would continue reverting and removing material that was not favorable to his organization. this was hardly a case of an innocent newcomer being lept upon by experienced editors, i think. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a message for OrangeMike, but lacking response after a decent waiting interval I have gone ahead and unblocked with a request that they change usernames. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The "threat" was a statement of his intention to contact "Wikipedia staff". As someone not familiar with Wp, he may not realise the extent to which Wikipedia staff is a rather vague term. He may use legal terminology because he's familiar with that, not with our unusual nomenclature. Since he is making accusations of COI, the Wikipedia staff I will charitably assume he has in mind are the Wikipedia administrators. The appropriate place for this would be the COI Noticeboard. If it gets there, I'll look at it. People are encouraged to complain here. If he would prefer, there is OTRS, but I think they'll refer it back to us. DGG (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike: please avoid phrases like "are taken from his cold dead hands", as they may be construed as a violation of WP:NPA. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

*blink* Huh? When it links directly to the originator of the phrase, Charlton Heston, there's really no way this can be even half-heartedly considered against WP:NPA...unless his hands are cold. Or their hands are dead. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Iliijapavlovich

Iliijapavlovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has made it apparent on their talk page that they do not wish to follow policy, besides that, they appear to have been trolling several users pages, not to mention the article space with inserting NPOV violating content. When made not of this, they did not seem to care. This was taken over from AIV. Anyone feel like blocking this obvious SPA?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

24 hr block, along with explanation on NOT, BATTLE, NPA, NPOV. If they repeat after this, longer block to come... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Check the user's talk page. They apparently disagree with you, wikipedia is censoring the truth, blah blah blah blah blah. Soapboxing, POV pushing, etc. He obviously doesn't want to abide by our policies here, I believe a block is in order to prevent further damage from him. He has made it quite apparent what he's going to do by the time his other block ends.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if someone could block this guy with the ability to edit his talk page taken away. He is continuing to soapbox, and is now personally attacking us.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just leave him alone on his own talk page for now, Daedalus. He's only got a 24 hour block, but he seems like the kind that won't last too long as soon as he's able to post again. No point in scrimmaging with him while the clock's not running. Dayewalker (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User Wikidemon

Resolved

 – What administrator action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 05:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

---

This isn’t the first time that Wikidemon has stooped to removing other editors comments from article's talk pages [42], but Wikidemon's attempt to cover up criticism of his persistent Biting of new users should be addressed [43].

There are 69 ANI threads involving Wikidemon, clearly he's not the innocent editor that he has portrayed himself to be. CENSEI (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note to admins who are reading this thread as much as some other editors would like to make this ANI thread about CENSEI this is about Wikidemon his BITING of newbies, rudeness on talk pages and his repeated drama here at ANI.

:That's a deceptive retributive report by a problem editor - I'll describe the problem in a moment. Wikidemon (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Removing the comment now that I've posted my account. 69, huh? Wow. Think of me as Baseball Bugs' more polite cousin. But really, I do a lot of article patrol and wikignoming... those threads have resulted in dozens of blocked sockpuppets, a bunch of indef. banned vandals, etc. The majority of complaints about me were from a single puppet master, and the second-biggest issue is procedural game playing.Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "69 threads involving wikidemon" verges on outright lying, if the intent was to imply that there were 69 threads "complaining" about wikidemon or "opened to discuss wikidemon's disruptive behavior." Instead, these 69 threads appear to be ones he contributed to that ended in the indef blocks and bans of a handful (maybe just one or two) abusive sockpuppeteers, and otherwise commenting on disruption by others. To be clear: Censei -- you should be ashamed for trying to take the good, productive efforts of an editor to stop disruption, and spinning it into a false accusation of disruption against that editor himself. The real pity of all this is the pup axmann got blocked (a racist, to be sure, but much less disruptive to editing here than censei) while the far more disruptive Censei is to be allowed to carry on because he will, now that the heat is on and hackles have been raised to satisfy his need for drama, back away for a few hours or a few days.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI for a little background. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• No interest in this dispute, but Wikidemon, why did you alter CENSEI's title?[44] Since you're the subject of the thread and he is not a vandal, do not change other's comments unless they are yours.--Caspian blue 02:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please change it back? AN/I titles should fairly and neutrally reflect the subject of the dispute. This is a behavior problem involving CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the Drudge Report article - CENSEI, after being warned, filed this report preemptively against me. I'm not going to defend my actions - I get dragged here too often by disruptive editors, and my work here speaks for itself. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not change it. CENSEI did--Caspian blue 02:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You're funny, CENSEI. Do you remember when you changed the title of the last dispute you were involved in here? [45] — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are 68 ANI threads involving Wikidemon Methinks somebody doesn't know how to read very well. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Not by a long shot. My experience with you at Martin Luther King, Jr. showed me that you're just as sloppy in citing sources, sometimes not even bothering to read them. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like another attempt by CENSEI to attack WD again after he got banned from Obama articles. Remember, this was his sole purpose for editing. Why do we still deal with this, again? Grsz¹¹ 03:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• CENSEI had no recent activity at that talk page until he began harrassing WD and opened this discussion. His wikistalking needs dealt with. Grsz¹¹ 03:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is supposed to mean something relevant, I presume? KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, CENSEI, but there's a growing consensus that your behavior is disruptive (see here) and so, yes, this is about you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would just ask that Wikidemon give a little more leeway to new editors who are often misguided and unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Wikipedia procedure. He should also try to show more respect and consideration of other good faith editors who express viewpoints and perspectives he doesn't agree with. Especially on political subjects, people can be a bit emotional and passionate, but a gentle nudge is a better response than to attack them. My opinion is that Wikidemon comes on VERY strong and is a bit aggresive with his comments and templates etc. On the other hand I know he thinks I act inappropriately (although I rarely template anyone except to respond in kind), so there you go. I don't really see the need for any administrative action here, even though I'm a target of Wikidemon's unhappiness. Hopefully we can all do a better job of cooperating and getting along in the future and commit to diligently avoiding comments that aren't content and article related. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking for leeway, or thinking Censei needs leeway? KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Between CENSEI, Wikidemon, and User:Chipdouglas whose Talk:Drudge Report comments started this, I have a hard time avoiding a conclusion that 3 disruption blocks are appropriate at the moment.

(CofM appears blameless so far...)

CENSEI and Wikidemon - please calm down and stop pushing each others buttons for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to tango into a mess this deep. A report could have been made, by you or another editor, which didn't exacerbate the problem. A dozen of your edits in this thread exceed the threshold for disruption, however.

The report's made - the topic's visible. The edit history of what started this is in people's review thresholds. Step back and let us review. Further disruption is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, GWH, although usually there is plenty of blame to spread around, sometimes there really is one aggressor and one innocent party. I have seen no evidence Wikidemon has done anything at all wrong. I'm not saying he hasn't, mind you - merely that its not true that it "takes two to tango" - and that I have yet to see a dif which shows Wikidemon acting inappropriately. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

From the second diff posted by CENSEI as an example of biting the newcomer: I'm aware of the rules; I've been a user for several years now with [limited] contributions and discussion on controversial and non-controversial topics This is the poster child newbie that Wikidemon is supposed to have bitten? I must be missing something. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Georgewilliamherbert's assessment. I would add that taunting, baiting and the pursuit of vendettas is a wholly inappropriate use of this noticeboard and far more likely to be cause of sanctions than the original storm in a teacup that begun this nonsense. CIreland (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The edit summary Wikidemon left was "taking it to the editor's talk page" and in his very next edit he did just that[46]. This is completely acceptable and appropriate when the topic is an editor (Wikidemon) and not the article. There is no validity to this complaint. CENSEI, you're stirring the pot here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am on article patrol, acting in good faith to help calm disruption. I am not one of the parties to the long-term edit warring on that article. I have not caused, and will not cause, disruption. Please do not equate me with CENSEI. I have no vendettas and bear no grudges, and do not taunt other editors. I would appreciate a retraction of any warnings on the subject. Also, please give me time to post a description of what's really gone on. Wikidemon (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is at the very least highly controversial to remove someone else's talk page comments - even if they're disruptive in some way. Taking it up on their talk page is great - removing it and taking it up on their talk page is stretching the rules. Asking them to strike it is fine.

If people don't object there's no harm or foul - but people objected. I agree that the comments you removed were misuse of a talk page for advocacy etc - but removing them, as opposed to asking the poster to strike or remove them themselves, is a high drama and high disruption probabilty response.

IAR has experienced users doing stuff like that at times, yes. But none of us experienced users have any excuse if we do something like that and it blows up in our faces...

When that happens, we really have no choice but to take our lumps. Getting aggressive in response to it blowing up is not a reasonable or acceptable response. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I strongly disagree with you - moving a comment is not the same as deleting it, and you know it. Its not that different from moving a comment from a user page to a talk page, or from an article to a talk page. It was in the wrong place; it got moved. And where is this "aggressive in response" of which you speak? I don't see it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That practice is not well supported, no. And nor is changing someone else's ANI filing name.

I don't want to beat up on Wikidemon - I see why he did that in the first place. But he's taken several steps that were polite but escalated drama rather than calming things down, and that needs to stop.

It would be easy to point at CENSEI and say "Disruptive" here because of the tone and demeanor and volume, but it wasn't just him, and he's made a couple of good points. I AGF about Wikidemon, but he muddied the waters. That's gotta stop while we sort it out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

While I take your point about changing the title, I still disagree on the post move. I'm not sure what you mean by "point at CENSEI and say "Disruptive""; I'm not certain to whom you're addressing that comment. I myself have only said that Censei is stirring the pot by his post here, which is surely true. His "bite" is not a bite, and the talk page move is at the very least debatable, and is between Wikidemon and CoM anyway. Censei bringing it here is also pot-stirring. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If i understand -- in one case Wikidemon removed a talk page post of childofmidnights without permission. It looks to me like that was uneccessary, and has had the effect of disruption. However, Wikidemon is one of the more even keeled editors I know, and the description of his actions here by CENSEI is ridiculously over the top (and designed to cause disruption and distraction by Censei). Wikidemon would have been more than happy to discuss this, and avoid potentially upsetting behavior per such discussion. What i'm quite sure of was that disruption and drama were not Wikidemon's intent, and that he is almost always amenable to discussion and efforts to calm situations (in fact, in my opinion, too amenable; he often suffers fools by extending good faith farther than it should be stretched). I'm also quite sure that disruption and drama were the sole intent behind CENSEI's posting here. He's a relentless game player seeking relentless drama. I believe wikidemon may have made a small procedural error, and CENSEI has sought to make a federal case out of it as a way to strike out at a responsible editor who does lots of good work here, but in the process thwarts the efforts of POV pushers whose intentions are not in line with building an encyclopedia. If any admin action is needed, it isn't in Wikidemon's direction.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He did not remove he moved - to Childofmidnight's talk page, where he responded. Otherwise I concur with Bali ultimate's succinct summation and statement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Drudge Report

I was going to call it "the long and short of it" but anyway...

There's been long-term trouble at Drudge Report and Matt Drudge over whether to call them "conservative" in the article leads: revert warring, IP-hopping block evading WP:SOCKs, and two page protections in the last 1+ months.[47][48] I've made 18 talk page edits this year to offer my $0.02, none on the main page. The most active editors are probably Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), soxwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and a bunch of IPs. There were at least 7 talk discussions about "conservative" this month alone and the discussion continues.

Tonight Chipdouglas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), made his first edit there to start a new section about "MOB RULE", "liberal editors wearing the thinnest facade of concern for truth--RATEL, this one is apparently your baby--really feel good about this, or about the self-aggrandizing comments, or about BANNING conservative editors?"..."liberal editors who revel in asserting their INTERNET TRUTH..."). The only substance in the post was that it was unbalanced to call it "conservative" if articles about liberal-leaning news sources did not follow suit.

I've dealt for some time with similar threads at Talk:Barack Obama and after some trial and error found the best thing to do is collapse them with {{hat}}...{{hab}}. It avoids deleting anything or declaring it resolved, lets people who really want to carry on do so by uncollapsing it in their browser, and cleans the page of distraction and incitement. You may or may not agree with the approach but it's a fair call, and a standard practice on some high-volume contentious Wikipedia pages. There's an Arbcomm case at the moment on how this applies vis-a-vis Obama article probation.

This time I think it worked! After I collapsed his new thread[WP:TALK|drudge report]][49] Chipdouglas left an initial sarcastic message on my page accusing me of censorship and something about dishonesty,[50] for which I issued a caution.[51] Chipdouglas toned it down[52] and was friendly and polite thereafter[53] while sticking firm to his opinion. So, disruption avoided, no chilling effect, and that should be the end of it.

But not so fast. ChildofMidnight[54] and then Chipdouglas[55] re-opened the discussion. When I asked that it be closed[56] ChildofMidnight scolded me on the article talk page.[57] I took the matter to ChildofMidnight's talk page and left a demand there,[58] (which ChildofMidnight deleted as "trolling")[59] because we really needed to avoid behavioral complaints on the article talk page.

Finally, CENSEI moves ChildofMidnight's comments back to the talk page,[60]. I tell CENSEI to revert or I will bring the matter here,[61] and he files a preemptive report against me.[62] The rest you can see here.

That's what happened. Wikidemon (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Chipdouglas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not a newcomer, he's an obvious sock or sleeper account with the same "chip" on his shoulder attitude displayed by users such as CENSEI and Axman. His last edit was in 2006, then he suddenly pops up here, a day after Axman's indef-block, spouting the same rants as those two. That situation suggests some need for some admin attention, at least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, after thinking this over I know I can do a couple things better. First, although I think I was correct in closing the discussion I could have been more proactively friendly with Chipdouglas. I assumed the worst based on his liberal-bashing on the talk page, and (unles Baseball Bugs is right) he exceeded my expectations and was the one who reached out to me. And I should have moved ChildofMidnight's complaint to my talk page rather than his. I'm not sure how much more or less firm one should be in cautioning editors over inappropriate talk page edits. The incident was brief and harmless. I think ChildofMidnight and Chipdouglas have shown good sense and restraint here, and whatever CENSEI is doing right now is not in itself a cause for action. So... exactly what are we talking about now? Wikidemon (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC) oops - didn't see the discussion was closed. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily claiming he's a sock of either of those two, it's just odd that a user who registered 4 years ago and has been dormant since 2006 suddenly turns up. During the siege against the Obama article by the WND mushrooms a few Sundays ago, a lot of sleeper accounts starting turning up, although most of them hadn't been dormant for 2 1/2 years like this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Montaj13

User:Montaj13 has been warned about copyright violations multiple times (see User talk:Montaj13) but just today has created three articles by lifting text from other websites.— TAnthony^Talk 02:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor has also been blocked multiple times previously for this behavior.— TAnthony^Talk 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's enough of that. Blocked indefinitely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Shiham K

Resolved

 – Already at WQA. 03:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(cur) (prev) 17:01, 27 March 2009 Shiham K (talk | contribs) (55,658 bytes) (Every hamam needs a tellak) (undo)

Shiham K is doing vandalism and personal attack.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Developed_country&curid=78255&action=history

This is another Greek vs Turkish dispute -- they are arguing about whether sources justify calling Turkey a developed country. The offensive edit summary seems to mean something like "every Turkish bath needs a sex worker". Looie496 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, this was already raised at WP:WQA and the user was already warned about the edit. Nothing new, so why the new thread? The Seeker 4 Talk 03:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What Seeker4 said. If there's any recurrence of this, let us know. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Scott5307 evading a block/recreating deleted material?

Resolved

 – Gogo Dodo indef blocked them. Pretty poor effort at a sock really. --GedUK  12:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Scott5307 (talk · contribs) is actually Scott5306 (talk · contribs) who is evading a block and recreating material deleted via discussion. See Feces Bandits (created by Scott5307) and Feces bandit (created by Scott5306) which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feces bandit. Since I'm a brand new admin, I want a second opinion on this before doing anything. (I'm not even sure I'm posting this in the right place.) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Other eyes please

Ks64q2 (talk · contribs) recently returned after a recent 3RR block and a sockpuppet investigation which was closed and archive with the conclusion:

“ Delisted. Clearly a breach of WP:SOCK has occured. However, to his credit the user has been honest about this. The user didn't believe that he was doing wrong, but has accepted that he was. On the strength of his assurances that there will be no repeat, no action is required at this stage. ”

9Nak (talk · contribs) who initiated the 3RR, "welcomed" Ks64q2 back with what I see as disingenuous interest and went about reviving a sock search and prodding Ks64q2 to essentially confess beyond what has already occurred. Without excusing inappropriate use of socks, I feel this is essentially intimidating another user who has already been through the ringer. Perhaps this is borderline but to me it really feels uncivil. I would feel the same about any editor who had conflicts with another posting similar messages. Essentially I'd like to invite 9Nak to leave Ks64q2 alone since there does seem to be some animosity there. Any suggestions on what course to take would be appreciated, I'd like to nip this in the bud and if a second sock case needs to happen then so be it; all of this can be accomplished while remaining civil to one another. -- Banjeboi 08:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like intimidation to me. If the sockpuppet case has been properly and acceptably closed as settled by an admin (which it seems it has) then 9Nak has no business stirring up trouble or browbeating Ks64 like that. I'd suggest a firm message on his talkpage to that effect. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, looking at the exchange on 9Nak's talkpage (section "Socks and leggings"), he is being very passive-agressive, with comments such as again, a lack of ambiguity would be of considerable help here - seemingly portraying himself as some sort of official investigator. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. Now I stand accused of intimidation, bullying *and* pretexting – without a single word of complaint from Ks64q2, the other party a two-party conversation. If Ks64q2 asks to be left alone I would honour that request without thinking twice. But outside of that, and absent a broach of policy, what exactly are we discussing here? 9Nak (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Intimidation is bullying. Three times now, twice by myself and previously on your talkpage, you've been encouraged to drop this and move on yet here you are defending your right to essentially broach WP:Civility. Really, I see little good coming out of this. If the user opens the sock drawer again then post here for an uninvolved admin to sort it out - if you're wrong it's a mistake but made in an effort to stop abuse, if you're right then an admin can suss out how to adjust the user accordingly. -- Banjeboi 21:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In short: Drop it. You may appreciate closure but others don't appreciate kicking when a person is down. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have this burning desire to protest, but clearly I'm on the wrong side of the consensus. So, without conceding a civility breach, I'm topic-banning myself from everything Ks64q2-related, just to be on the safe side. Though I can't promise not not gloat (just a little) when the sockpocalypse hits ;-). 9Nak (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Blu83fir3 repeatedly deletes "speedy deletion" templates

Resolved

 – Article now deleted.  Sandstein  14:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Blu83fir3 has been repeatedly deleting the "speedy deletion" template at Shed loose the armor. He has been warned numerous times by multiple editors, but continues to do it. He has also been told that he needs to place a hangon tag instead, but he deletes that as well as the deletion template.WackoJackO 09:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Muscovite99 evading block

Muscovite99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked; initially for repeated edit-warring, and then whilst serving his initial block he had his block extended for evading the block with a sockpuppet User:MastM. He has now evaded this extended block as Special:Contributions/217.26.6.12. Please note this in which the IP editor removed dispute tags, which User:Offliner has almost instantly reverted, only to be almost instantly reverted by Muscovite. The aggressive removal of dispute tags is the first indication. Then note this history in which Muscovite and the IP editor are the only contributors - the IP editor adding interwiki link to the ru article which Muscovite worked on during this time. Then note this removal of information, which Muscovite also aggressively removed from the article (I am certain Offliner or User:Ellol could provide specific diffs there). Note at ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Muscovite99 he was found to be socking with the IP 217.26.10.144 (amongst others), which is in the same range and also belongs to Tascom. This is obviously Muscovite99, and this has occurred whilst he is under an extended block for sockpuppeting/block evasion, a further block (even indef given history evasion of blocks and sockpuppetry) is warranted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear. Re-blocked for 2 months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Question if I may, just so I can understand how such blocks work. On 2 March he was blocked for 2 weeks, then on 4 March this block was extended to 1 month, and you have just now extended to 2 months. Does this mean that he has in effect been blocked for 3 months 2 weeks? Or does it work differently to that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the new block I put in today replaces the old one, and the two months start counting from now, so in the end he will have been blocked from 2 March to 28 May. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite99 was blocked for a further 2 months for evading a block he was currently under. An IP editor has now made the same edits that were made (edit here). This edit was made by Special:Contributions/62.118.179.114, and it should be noted that he was also found to be socking on ruwiki (ru:Википедия:Заявки_на_арбитраж/Muscovite99) with 62.118.179.117 and 62.118.179.115. A further block, if not indef, is now in order here I think. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruwiki is irrelevant, blocks are preventive and not punitive, and unlike some others here he is not disruptive in his edits, quite to the contrary. Indefblocking a productive user for evasion of a block, not a community ban, few days before its expiration, is a bad idea. He is blocked for two months now, what's the problem? This is not a venue to win content disputes forever. Colchicum (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I suggest you look at his block log -- blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring, then blocked for a month 2 days later for socking, then whilst blocked for a month, he is blocked for 2 months for evading that block, and now this. This is more than enough to show that he does not take blocks seriously, and hence should be indef block as a disruptive editor. Just how many concurrent blocks is an editor entitled to here on enwiki? And as blind freddy can see, the ruwiki has only been mentioned to demonstrate that this is in fact Muscovite99; and whilst what happens on ruwiki stays on ruwiki, evidence raised there as to IP's used to evade bans and engage in sockpuppeting can clearly be used and taken into account. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have actioned the indef block, since the last sock ip edited after Fut.Perf had extended the sanction above - there seems to be no apparent desire by this editor to comply with WP policy, so there is no need for the named account to be able to contribute. I see that they use a reasonably stable range (62.118.179.11X) to sock from; is it worth contacting a CU to see what collateral damage potential there would be in placing a range block to cover these addresses? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree. I believe this is block shopping by Russavia (talk · contribs). Muscovite99 previously came to my talk page with complaints about Russavia [63]. The indefinite block is not justified taking into account the long-term animosities between these two users.Biophys (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, was the sockpuppetry confirmed by Checkuser? If not, the indefinite block is not justified.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Honestly, what part of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry don't people understand? If one is blocked, they are NOT permitted to edit WP. People are blocked not without good reason, and when one ignores this block not ONE - not TWO - but THREE times, then in my mind an indef blocked is warranted. I also find it funny, because I guarantee that if I were to have been blocked and did what Muscovite did, Biophys (joined by some others) would be the first to run here; the difference being, I am not stupid enough to even try and evade a block, and if I were that stupid I am certainly not stupid enough to make the same edits to the same article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Take it down a notch everyone. Issue number one is that Muscovite has broken a completely seperate policy, which is the use of multiple accounts against policy. The new two month block is for that action and for no other. Don't pretend that this is about extending the edit war block. There was a new rule violation, and we need to enact a new block to prevent those rule violations. If Muscovite wants to edit again, he will stop vioalting the rules. It is that simple. Issue number two is that the blocking admin will give whatever length block he feels like. Not to be blunt about it, but there is no point in argueing over length. If Muscovite abides by his 2 month block, there will be no more problems. If he socks again, someone may or may not block the main account for longer. In any event, it is not anyones position to beg for a longer block here. He's not editing now, and that is all that matters... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag on Homeopathy article

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue.  Sandstein  14:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a POV tag on the Homeopathy article, but some people are against it. There presently is no consensus on the contents of the article, but it is policed by the skeptical critics. I hope y'all can insert the POV tag and keep it till a consensus is reached. Thanks in advance for the help.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue does not need admin intervention.  Sandstein  14:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy is quackery, so putting a POV tag on it seems a tad redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre deletion of talk page comments

Resolved

 – blocked for 24 hours

-- Donald Albury 15:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This user is consistently deleting a comment on the talk page of an article despite numerous reversions and warnings (example diff). Protecting talk pages seems kind of silly, but this appears to be a WP:SPA and blocking it may not be very productive. SDY (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave a level 3 warning, then he blanked his talk page. He appears to have gotten the message for now anyway, but will still keep watch. Momusufan (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that was short lived, he is still up to no good. Momusufan (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious AfD'er

Resolved

 – Blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Deletion Mutation is a new account who just joined today. Given his username, I think it's awfully funky that all of his contributions so far have been to AfD or have been about the deletion tag on articles. Looking through, I don't know if he !voted to keep anything yet and he doesn't scream n00b like most new users at AfD in that he argues notability and original research instead of his opinion. Anybody else smell a sock/meat puppet here? At the very least he's trying to make some sort of point. ThemFromSpace 16:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably sock of User:Juvenile Deletionist, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Disruptive AfDing by user Juvenile Deletionist. --64.85.223.59 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. It would also explain the animosity towards black kite regarding the deletion tags. ThemFromSpace 16:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No animosity there. The articles are still discussed, so why remove the tags? James Burns did the same with some other articles. Deletion Mutation 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going through Category:AfD debates (Media and music) at the moment, as I went through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 28 before. What's wrong with this? Deletion Mutation 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the patterns are very suspicious. I've started an SPI, with a request for Checkuser evidence. Blueboy96 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser  Confirmed. Still unblocked, though. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All the AfDs this user participated in should be revisited and checked for validity. — Becksguy (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been through all his contributions and struck out any !vote that have not already been struck through or reverted. Unfortunately, two AfDs[64][65] have already been closed but I don't think it's worth taking any action on these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The two closed AfDs are not worth reopening since no one argued to keep and both were re-listed for a more thorough discussion. Case closed. — Becksguy (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User:JoeJohnson2

I am very concerned about this user's ownership behavior on Kobe Bryant. On one occasion, he removed a paragraph about Kobe's sexual assault allegation [66] in the lead without discussion. I added it back citing WP:LEAD. But he removed it again [67] even saying that "if [I] have problems with this undo please contact an administrator". [68] A discussion on the talk page then ensured and most editors agreed with me. But he still disagreed as evident by these comments [69] [70] and later removed again [71]. Now, he escalated the dispute to images by removing one he disliked [72] and create another discussion which he announced that "the image will not be used in any Kobe Bryant related articles." [73]

I think a warning by an admin is warranted to prevent further ownership behavior from this user. Thanks.—Chris! _ct 20:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the tone of debate with JJ2. In my experience at WP, I have never had such resistance against the inclusion of PD images. His thinking makes little sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:71.115.3.186

This user has been repeatedly removing a reasonable dablink from sleeved blanket with snarky comments (example). I've made an attempt to explain why it's there, but the user seems determined to remove it. May I ask for some help?--Father Goose (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest if I'd seen the diff that added this "reasonable" dablink I'd have reverted it. It looks mad as a box of frogs to me. I can see Google hits on "Snuggie wedgie", but a number of them are merely commenting on the fact that "Wikipedia thinks a snuggie is a wedgie". This gives an alternative (though I suspect it's at best a neologism, more likely a protologism). Rather than simply reverting this removal it might be very advantageous to discuss it on the talkpage; I agree on the snarky reply but the removal itself does seem to be in good faith. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As it happens the point's moot, as the IP was blocked for a month for NPA earlier today. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible merge discussion canvassing?

Resolved

 – Disengage, boys. The requirements of WP:CANVASS have been met, nothing here requiring administrative action. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this, but a user has posted a message on various users who participated in a recent AfD's talk pages of a merge discussion. See [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], and [79]. As of the time that I am typing up this message, ONLY those who expressed an interest for the merge in the AfD were notified of the merge discussion and not those who argued to outright keep the article, i.e. DGG, Jclemens, Peregrine Fisher, and Dream Focus were not notified. Isn't per WP:CANVASS an editor required to notify potentially dissenting opinions as well? I am also somewhat concerned that the same user in question may be approaching AfDs as jokes and possibly insulting inclusionists in the process. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I was directed by closing admin to start a merge discussion,[80] which you yourself agreed with: "A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page". As you evidently oppose this merge and decided to "report me to ANI" instead of just informing the parties you may feel are interested, I can only assume you're attempting to slur my character in attempt to oppose an editorial decision. Hence the linking to a comment I made in a completely unrelated AFD over a absolutely rubbish article. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting a merge discussion is perfectly fine; however, canvassing support for the merge by notifying only those who are likely to agree with you is usually frowned upon here. Now, if you notified everyone who participated in the AfD of the merge discussion, that would be totally acceptable. Seeing the comment in the other AfD about notifying inclusionists for "lulz" is needlessly mocking of your fellow editors and only raises tensions. One can say, "Delete due to verifiability concerns" without having to make a dig at your colleagues. Now seeing such a comment and also noticing what appears to be canvassing as well, my concern is that these may reflect a larger pattern of disregarding or not seeing any value in what inclusionists have to say. Another example is having an "lol" in an edit summary and in another comment and in still another comment. I may disagree with deletionists, but I certainly wouldn't say to keep an article and then toss in a comment about how if we notify deletionists it would be funny and similarly if I only contacted those who argued to keep an article on their talk pages of a discussion, beleieve me, someone would take issue with it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow just read those links you put up, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comments I made and I urge any "concerned" parties to read the entire AFD themselves. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who commented on the AFD has now been notified, also I'd like to point out that I also add the usual merge tags to both the article and intended merge destination (hardly a secret way of pushing through a merge).

Also I highly recommend to anyone reading this to check the edit history of "A Nobody's" Editor review and also find out his previous username, it's not well hidden and will allow you more insight. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have now notified the other editors in question, althought it really should not have taken a thread here for that to have happened. Please be sure in the future to not exclude those with whom you may disagree and I again urge you to refrain from these Encyclopedia Dramatica-style mocking of those with whom you disagree in AFDs. We are here to edit in a constructive and collegial fashion. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I obviously was not attempting to canvass a discussion as I put up merge tags for all of Wikipedia to see. Yes it is a pity that you attempt to use slur tactics such as "reporting to ANI" and linking to unrelated comments, to try an achieve your goals. Anyone who looks at my edit history when compared with your "colourful" past will see what you're like, I really regret giving you such a nice review now. I'm not going to comment on this matter anymore as I know you also happen to enjoy long threads. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you put up the tag, but then only contacted those of a like mind from the AfD with talk page announcements and only contacted the other participants in the AfD after this thread was started here. Please just keep in mind as well with AfDs to avoid escalating tensions by laughing at fellow editors or making irrelevant references to an off-wiki attack site that seriously slurs many of your fellow editors. Anyway, please just keep all this in mind and yeah, since you did subsequently contact everyone, no need to beat a dead horse here. Have an enjoyable weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original notifications were a clear violation of WP:Canvassing#Votestacking, rectified by Ryan4314's subsequent notifications of the remaining editors. A Nobody, was there a particular reason why you immediately escalated to AN/I without contacting Ryan4314 first? Flatscan (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The first merges by User:Ryan4314 were around: 19:50, 28 March 2009, conviently all to one side.

A Nobody posts this ANI at: 21:55, 28 March 2009.

User:Ryan4314 only starts posting to those who probably will oppose the merge at 22:40, 28 March 2009.

User:Ryan4314 then tells everyone that everyone is notified here at 22:46, 28 March 2009.

Let me get this straight editors can canvas one supporting side, and only when they are caught, they then must notify everyone else?

I am going to suggest the merge discussion be closed for now. Ikip (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Ryan Moats

I'm bringing this one here because the report has been untouched at the edit war board for an hour and a half, and the editor is still very active. On the Ryan Moats article, IP 70.128.85.90 (talk · contribs) has removed the section on Moats' well-publicized (and properly sourced) encounter with the Dallas Police Department now fourteen times over the last two days. I've reverted him twice, but he continues to revert and since he doesn't care about 3RR, he's just outlasting the other editors. He's finally talking on the article page, but not productively. Will someone please either block the IP for the edit war, or semi the page to force consensus? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A Texas IP, probably the officer himself, lol. Needs taken care of though, yes. Grsz¹¹ 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it can't be Texan; he spells coherently. (ZING!) HalfShadow 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

—bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's a colleague or friend of the officer involved. And why do they always come here? EPSN ran the story,why not take it up with them? We're simply reporting it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody please block User:DavHam and delete his Talk page?

Resolved

Could somebody please block DavHam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and delete his Talk page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, by multiple people at once. Grandmasterka 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And now tagged with {{uw-voablock}} to add it to Category:Temporary_Wikipedian_userpages so the botfairy can delete it in a month. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi requesting unblock

User talk:Martinphi - Don't know the backstory on this in full but I do know it's a long, drawn out, and unpleasant one, so I send the unblock request to the only place suited to dramafests of this nature for community review. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For convenience here is the ANI thread in which the ban was imposed. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For further convenience; the ArbCom to which Martinphi alludes and which made a decision upon his actions specifically can be found here; it should be noted that the Arbs decided to return to the community any decision of what restrictions might be applied should the indef block be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to unblock him, I would ONLY support doing so if we he is placed under editing restrictions such that he is banned from editing any articles and talk pages related to "Fringe Science" topics (homeopathy, chiropractic, astrology, witch doctory, and snake oil sales, etc. etc.) as broadly contrued as possible. Seriously, I (and I think many others) are well tired of all of the bullshit that has gone on around this topic, and I think if we let Martinphi back into the fold, he should prove that he can be a contructive editor in some other topic than this one. As long as he doesn't edit the articles, talk pages, or attempts to discuss or in any way reference these topics I would support an unblock. However, any unblock which does not place strict restrictions on him against editing in this field will only lead to more of the same crap we just got rid of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock From what I could see MartinPhi managed collaborate well with OrangeMarlin who is not the most fringe friendly editor around. MartinPhi seems to be genuinely contrite regarding the 'outings'. From what I have seen MartinPhi has been a valuable and sane contributor to wikipedia as a whole before becoming embroiled in the SA drama. See this for an example. I honestly do not see any problem with him being involved with fringe or pseudoscience articles, I think the underlying problem is that some other editors think that there should be flashing lights, loud sirens and 2 layers of 'are you sure you want to read about non-mainstream topics yes/no ' along with disclaimers declaring that reading such material may rot your brain. There is nothing keeping us from blocking him again should he prove to be genuinely disruptive in the future. Unomi (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep him banned. The trouble he caused far outweighs his useful contributions. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Keep banned or at least a topic ban from anything fringe It will only end in tears if we don't. And if we topic ban him that should include related policy and guideline pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ghobchuq loDnI'pu'

Can someone please indef block this user PRONTO? He's only been creating malicious racist redirects to Barack Obama. Check out his contributions. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Screw it, he was blocked as I was typing this report. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a persistent vandal that is creating BLP violating redirects to Barack Obama like this. Is it possible to add something to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or some other filter to block this? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe the WP:ABUSEFILTER? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remembered that that after I made my post. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Deskanna is using the CU bit to preemptively block accounts... LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone should give Deskanna a cookie for that useful bit of mopping up then! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This guy is one of his socks, you can't tell me that it's pure coincidence that two separate users are creating racist redirects to Barack Obama. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Curesearcher

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

New user registered, somehow creates userpage and uses edit summary on first edit [81], then proceeds to spam user talk pages [82]. Claims to be "a graduate student with the University of Colorado Boulder", and yet for a "graduate student" this comment contains multiple spelling errors and also grammatical errors. I would like to assume good faith - but would like to get others' thoughts on this. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks quite fishy. Misstates the name of the university, posts a gmail address instead of a university address. Goes directly to specific user pages to request information, rather than posting to Village Pump. Durova^Charge! 03:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

funny...no one has contacted me through my colorado e-mail adress... just saying that may add credibility, especially if you link through your own google search rather than the link I provided.Curesearcher (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, another comment in all lowercase, if anything I'd think "Colorado" as a proper noun should be capitalized. Also note that the user misspells "adress" (again). Cirt (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Curesearcher's user talk) Respectfully declining the offer. It's a bit unsettling to see this approach, particularly where people who have recent or ongoing involvement in a sensitive arbitration case appear to be preferentially targeted for no explained reason. It does not impress that the editor posts to the admin boards while failing to note that he provided a university email only after concerns arose. Durova^Charge! 03:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I smell an attempt at scamming going on... --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so maybe he's not scamming but it's definitely spamming, whether he realizes it or not. Asking users to fill out a "questionnaire", provide contact info, I don't think that's allowed on any basis around here. Maybe the user is a teenager who thinks he might be taken more seriously if he says he's from college. Or maybe he's from a rival encyclopedia. Or maybe he's a user who previously had an account that was blocked for persistent spamming, who knows, but this isn't something to be ignored, that's for sure. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

durova, no offence is taken at your decline. I would like to clarify the order of events in order to show that it was good faith errors on my behalf. my plan was to e-mail the editors from wikipedia, but that link disappeared from the last time I saw the user pages. so plan B was to post the survey on my user page but then I realized that posting my Colorado account e-mail was probably not the brightest thing, so I set up a g-mail account (you are not the only guys who don't want to be spammed, I am sure that you understand why I wouldn't want my Colorado e-mail on wikipedia for all to see...) for the purposes of this survey. Then I hit the random page button, and started asking users who where participating in discussions.

Some users where not random, but I have no idea about an arbitration hearing (although looking at your talk page, you are frequently involved in higher level discussions, so I assure you that it is coincidence). In casing Wikipedia a few editors discussions showed a higher proficiency in Wikipedia rules and their comments tended to steer the discussion, so I made sure to ask those editors as well. The choice however rested entirely on talk pages.

Some of the not random came from:

Scientology

Alcoholics Anonymous

Since those tend to be heated topicsCuresearcher (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry curt, again this feels more like everyone taking out their grammar ruler and whipping me, than anyone wanting to actually contact me and find out the truth. I don't think I have broken any Wikipedia rules...I am sorry I don't spell well (you fret at peoples spelling, I fret at people using fallacies in logic and not understanding how to critically asses their mediated politics...everyone's educational bias comes out). I do understand that in an electronic medium that bad spelling and form provide the same visual clues that dressing up in a dirty suit does in real life, and I made some mistakes...I wish people could look past that, but evidently that is not the case. again I ask you that if you are conserned about a spammer, you could contact me...if you want to use this as a forum to make an example of a poor speller...well that is what is going on...Curesearcher (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agenda/POV pushing

I think it's time an admin or 20 look into User:Ejnogarb's edit history and have a word with him/her about ownership and such. I think a topic ban is in order. The user appears to be agenda driven in removing valid, sourced content dealing with gay rights issues or adding POV content against the subjects. The latest edits to American Family Association where the editor is trying to strip the article of valid, sourced content that points out how the AFA is against all things "gay" is the last straw so to speak. His/her edits to that article alone have been reverted by several users but he/she continues to edit war. We don't whitewash articles on Wikipedia and this should be stopped across the full medium of topics this editor is doing this to. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in question had a source from Southern Poverty Law Center, which first of all isn't appropriate for a controversy section given its bias. Second, the primary sentence in question asserted that the AFA was implicated in hate crimes against gays. Given that this is such a licentious assertion, and that the article doesn't mention any such action by the AFA, I repeatedly tried to delete. A content-ban is entirely out of order, considering that I've never even been temporarily blocked. I see this move as an attempt to prevent neutrality in Wikipedia. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an administrator block some socks real quick?

User:Stezie2 has gone and created a bunch of accounts in numerical sequence. Likely a sockpuppeteer. Could somebody look into this? Inferno, Lord of Penguins 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of misuse, and WP editors are not actually prohibited from using multiple accounts. However, based on the username he could be related to User:Stezie. Somebody to keep an eye on his contributions page and look for any edits that look off, maybe? Ironholds (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

IP abuse on British Isles by User:78.16.116.115

We have a problem with the above user and other IPs on British Isles. As can be seen here] it is a case of 3RR from a single purpose IP, however we are also getting abusive (possibly racist) edits such as this. Similar edits were made by another IP address here and here. For these reasons we also need semi-protection for a period of time and possibly a range block. It has been a persistent problem for some time. --Snowded (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Psb777

Psb777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user apparently has an axe to grind as well as the one that Axeman apparently had. After Axeman's indef block was issued, this user promptly decided to go to the talk pages of admins complaining, instead of heading to ANI and starting a thread about it. So far, the edits this user has made to the said talk pages don't appear to be anything but disruptive, not to mention that it looks like that was his/her intention(Maybe I am hitting a nerve. Good!). Could someone possible tell him to stop? Mayhaps issue a warning? I don't see him stopping otherwise anytime soon. I, along with others, are growing tired of this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do have an axe to grind. Several. I want a good encyclopedia where editors, especially new editors, feel welcomed. Where admins behave properly and courteously, and where they too follow the rules and guidelines. I have discussed the Axmann8 issue in several places. I note that Daedalus has followed me about trying to turn the arguments I am making into ones about me or about my supposed disruptive conduct. I admit being disruptive, and deliberately so, but not in the sense that Daedalus means. I am disappointed in the way the Axmann8 matter has been pursued, and I am glad that what I have said has struck a nerve with some. I ask that Daedalus be admonished not to relentlessly respond to almost every post I make with an unsubstantiated accusation of bad conduct: That he be politely and ever so gently be reminded to AGF. Thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Psb777 certainly appears to be in the midst of some tenditious editing. In addition to the above admission of pointy editing [83], he's also just flat out refused to get the point above in the Axmann8 case. He's made false assertions of consensus [84], and reopened a thread closed 24+ hours prior [85] just because he was unhappy with other editors making their opinions known [86] on Jeske's page. For several days now he's been asking for explanations, and refusing to acknowledge them. He's quite draining to talk to, because nothing satisfies him and he doesn't make any positive contributions to the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious is good, or can be. I wish Dayewalker would not engage with me if he finds me tiresome. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Tendentious is not good when trying to build consensus. After trying to discuss things with you days ago, I realized you're asking questions with no intent of listening to the answers, so I disengaged. Tonight, you came back to ANI and opened a thread 24+ hours old simply because you refuse to get the point. Then, I saw you had gone to other pages with the same non-consensus bulding attitude. Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He has been torturing everyone the last couple days, yet he has not stated what he wishes to accomplish. I have told him to come here and state exactly what he thinks should be done, and let others comment on his suggestion, and then to drop the stick and move on. I don't know if he is being so on purpose, but his comments are creating conflict, and disruption. Landon1980 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)