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

Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer

User:Neuromancer has a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and talk page-inappropriate discussion, most problematically at HIV and Talk:HIV, and as another editor has stated, has "violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has". This user has repeatedly demonstrated an agenda of disrupting HIV-related articles with fringe viewpoints with no substantiation in RS. Despite extensive policy explanations and warnings from other editors, Neuromancer continues to pursue this course, including creating POV forks (HIV dissent, later re-directed, and Alternative HIV viewpoints, currently at AfD) containing synthesis, BLP violations and other problems. The user has been blocked previously for WP:3RR and given multiple warnings at the user talk page and on article talk pages by a large number of editors.

Neuromancer has also contributed several copyright violations, cutting and pasting from copyrighted sources without quoting or citing. This edit contains nine paragraphs copied verbatim from avert.org and a sentence and references copied from another website without citation. Warnings and explanations (Talk:HIV#Copyright_violations_by_Neuromancer, [1]) were ignored, with the user later performing another unreferenced copy and paste from a copyrighted website.

Neuromancer, after threatening to wikistalk ("However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well"), has begun to make good on this threat by becoming engaged at Magnetic water treatment (an article on my watchlist), Cancell (an article contributed to by User:MastCell, [[2]) and Medical uses of silver, following talk page interactions, including an accusation of censorship, with a regular silver editor, User:Hipocrite. Each of these editors has warned Neuromancer about a variety of behaviours in the past, with invariably hostile response. The diversity and scope of Neuromancer's disruptions suggests that intervention could be appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice, as an involved editor/admin, to the request for some outside eyes here. Neuromancer (talk · contribs) has been active in pressing an AIDS-denialist agenda across numerous articles (representative edit). Issues include:

• Persistent edit-warring (block log)
• Canvassing potentially sympathetic editors ([3]), [4], [5], [6]).
• Most of his non-HIV-related edits seem to be based on Wikihounding; as Keepcalm points out, they're drawn from the contrib histories of editors with whom Neuromancer has been in conflict (followed Hipocrite (talk · contribs) to Dennis Ketcham ([7]), etc).
• Creation of numerous POV forks, including Alternative HIV viewpoints and HIV dissent.
• This sort of thing - not that I'm fussed about having my IQ questioned - it's probably barely above room temperature anyway - but it's a bit grating coming from someone who's constantly accusing others of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith.
• Constant references to a "WP:HIV cabal", by which Neuromancer presumably means editors who hold the "POV" that HIV causes AIDS.
• Very basic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - despite extensive forum-shopping, and hearing a universal rejection of his proposed edits, Neuromancer keeps repeating the same arguments (see the last 5 or 6 threads at Talk:HIV for examples). He's indicated that he's "not going to stop" just because a "cabal" opposes his edits.
• He's cut-and-pasted a long section from an AIDS-denialist website, and then complained of having "hours of research" erased when this was reverted (will find diffs).

I would like some outside eyes on the situation, if anyone's willing. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these are the sorts of challenges that Wikipedia needs to handle effectively if it ever hopes to achieve its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, talk pages, and assorted miscellany included here, this looks like a case of POV-pushing, with some intransigent statements by Neuromancer. I fear that this is just a continuation of a problem we've seen several times here over the last few weeks (and probably longer) where people with a strong, but minority or fringe POV feel like they are backed into a corner by consensus against them. While I'm not sure that their behaviour is indicative of a block, is there someone who would be willing (and more knowledgeable than I in these particular subjects) to work with Neuromancer to help them understand why their view is fringe and that this isn't personal, its just community consensus that happens to disagree with what they believe? I would also appreciate hearing from both Neuromancer, MastCell, and Hipocrite about their opinions.

On a semi-related note, how do we allow users such as Neuromancer to feel like they have been given an adequate opportunity to have their point of view heard and discussed and not simply swatted out of the air (not that this has happened here...but can happen very easily). While their points of view may be fringe, and not follow community consensus, how do we continue to honour their contributions while maintaining the integrity of WP, and without driving them away?

I'll return to this conversation a little later...its supper time! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Neuromancer has been resistant to guidance, and has been very confrontational at times. The exchanges on Talk:HIV have been lengthy, but I do think some have been constructive - they've dealt with substantive issues, and resulted in edits that improved the article (only incrementally, though). I have not followed the activity outside Talk:HIV, but those diffs are disheartening. The WP culture takes some getting used to, and plunging into HIV was probably a mistake for a new editor. I'd like to see Neuromancer get some guidance, to understand the difference between disagreement and conspiracy. It's tiring and disruptive when an editor insists that others formally prove numerous well-established concepts that are already supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who's interacted extensively with Neuromancer on Talk:HIV, I agree most with Scray's characterization. Emw (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has interacted, discussed, argued, and usually reached something of a consensus with both Scray and Emw (both of whom I have come to admire for their ability to semi effectively deal with me), and whom I have had much more interaction than anyone else involved in this discussion, I would like to to put out there than I am more than open to discourse of policy, disagreement and conspiracy.
• Additionally, I would like to point out that I do not believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of me, or I would already be gone. My references to the HIV cabal are due to this post on my talk page, and is mostly an attempt at humor, not an impassioned belief that "you are all after me..." Thank you for your patience, and I agree, perhaps HIV was not the place to jump into the Wikipedia as I have. But I am here, and trying to make the best of it. Neuromancer (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who posted that, it was really in response to Mister Hospodar who happened to post some paranoid kind of stuff on Neuro's user talk. It is supposed to be a smidge humorous; it's actually a rather long-standing joke turned wisdom on wiki. However, I chose that link of all the essays on non-existent cabals to highlight that there is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. I guess it didn't take the desired effect as Neuro began referring to cabals afterward, rats.

I full well admit that I took and ran, more as humorous jab back at you, and a few others, than anything serious. I don't think there is a cabal, HOWEVER, there are a group of you who very adamantly defend and revert edits on a number of similar pages. After reading your posted words of wisdom, I thought it humorously appropriate to throw it back at you in kind. My references to a cabal have never been more than half-hearted humor in an attempt to lighten the situation. Seeing as how you are the only one who got the joke... Well, crap! Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, good to know now then! Thanks for clarifying. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, here are my words on the subject. Neuro isn't the only fellow who's made himself heard towards AIDS denialism on talk pages over the years. In particular though, there has been a lot of passion from him that is very accusatory, and this more than anything began sparking contention.

I really tried to steer the conversation as much as possible to specific constructive discourse about articles in question [8], but largely this opportunity was not taken advantage of. Instead, in response to his broad debates, there have been several clear, spelled out arguments highlighting the faults in the particular angle he takes on AIDS denialism ([9], [10] to name a couple i did). The AfD for the content fork of AIDS denialism alone should be a pretty clear wake up call.

I think he hears and sees them but is still trying to game policy/guidelines in his favor, such as omitting "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below." to the WP:YESPOV quote in his response below, etc. There has probably been a bit a wikistalking, and cries of censorship/this must be heard/you can't erase history kind of brew-ha-ha, but I like keeping editors more than loosing them so I would love to see mentoring or fostering of better habits than blocks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears in regards to his below YESPOV quote with relevant (e.g. oppositional to his motives) info omitted, his response is this: [11]. A fairly by-the-book WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It could be that mentoring/fostering isn't an option after all. JoeSmack ^Talk 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Special:Contributions/24.251.114.169 and probably Special:Contributions/174.17.102.170 are Neuro, but he denies the latter here. Sockpuppety. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Loudly claims the 24; the 174 geolocates to Phoenix, AZ, where the Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company is located. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an WP:SPI warranted, perchance? Crafty (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuro emailed me a protest. If it puts one of these many issues to rest (either way), I think it would be worth it. However, this is right on the line of CheckUser criteria. Up to you. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt CU would be informative. Neuromancer just posted on their talk page pointing out another IP in another region. CheckUser uses the wrong sort of magic pixie dust to determine whether this is IP spoofing, gaming by ideological opponents, off-wiki canvassing, or just one of those things. RBI any account unwilling to discuss and let the AfD run its course would be my advice. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic part, my bad. - JoeSmack

Oh, and I'd like to respond to Frmatt above because I think it is a step we need to discuss too. For one, I would say that there has been so much effort by AIDS denialists over the years to bend NPOV of HIV/AIDS articles that it has left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. I've been patrolling for about four years now, and the last conflict that was this big was Special:Contributions/Sci_guy. Every effort since has felt like a rehash that gets a little tired, thus this tends to be my first kind of question towards the reprise - [12]. So, somewhat WP:BITEY, I would say so, at least for me. Can someone not previously involved in this incident maybe provide how they'd deal with it better? JoeSmack ^Talk 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oooh..."Specious" and "Spurious"...I'm impressed by your vocabulary! lol

In all seriousness, though, I will admit that after four years of that type of thing, my response would probably be very similar. In response to your question, I think that you were surprisingly civil, not overly bitey and all in all gave an appropriate response. I wonder if there might be a solution in creating a subpage that is permanently linked to the talk page...something like Talk:HIV/Other Claims with the notation that this page would contain discussion of other claims about HIV that have previously been discussed, and been excluded as a result of consensus...including the appropriate sources that were considered. This would allow users to see the arguments that have already been made, what the consensus was, and how the consensus was achieved. This would also allow users the option of adding new information and sources that may have come to light recently and provide a talking area that wouldn't necessarily clog up the main talk page. I know that as a (relatively) new user, I would appreciate that, especially in some of the articles that I edit which contain some controversial topics. It may also give new users (at least to that page) the knowledge that there is a place for them to express their points of view and to see what the consensus about them is. Frmatt (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on AN/I, but my sense is that we should be focused on the concerns raised here about Neuromancer's editing, rather than a side discussion of how to make it easier for new editors of HIV (even though this is very constructive and well-intentioned). -- Scray (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and I've added it elsewhere.

Brought this offtopic, my bad. Frmatt, that is one idea but i'm wary of having subpages as they tend to get abandoned, and subtalk pages do even more so. I'll look at the username project link you provided, thanks for the feedback. Ok, i'm gonna whisk this into a collapsebox. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that ANI is not necessarily the place to propose any type of restrictions, I would like to ask Neuromancer if they would be amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with them to help them understand the policies? Specifically, that when Neuromancer finds themselves in an edit/content conflict, that they would invite their mentor/coach into the conversation as someone who is relatively impartial and working to ensure that they understand the policies about WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:POV, especially when they find themselves in conflict. Frmatt (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I would be most amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with me. I am certainly not trying to cause a disruption to WP. Perhaps an experienced editor/admin, who has not previously been involved in the topics of this debate, would be willing to work with me to fix what appears to be flawed logic. Or at the very least be able to show me a more constructive manner in which to present information that won't be as disruptive as it has been. Who knows... Maybe I'll bring em around to my side? Haha, joking.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If an appropriate mentor steps forward, this would be possibly the best solution, and could be implemented in tandem with or in lieu of the sanctions I propose below. Neuromancer is a bit forceful and currently frustrated, but I think could be an asset to the project if given a little time and help to come to grips with the peculiar sourcing and neutrality requirements here. Any takers? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

• First and foremost, I have edited in good faith, with the intent to better the Wikipedia in general.
• Secondly, I am not trying to push a fringe POV. This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken...

• Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”

That being said, I have also reviewed WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which states:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I fully understand that there are those who think that questioning the science behind HIV is ridiculous and worthy of censoring, however, there are those in the scientific community, who have published peer reviewed papers, questioned many aspects of HIV, AIDS, and the connection between the two. While the cabal[13] currently editing the HIV and AIDS denialism articles claims a NPOV, and that they do not have to give equal eight to fringe POV, a simple review of their resistance to the inclusion of balanced information, whether it be in those articles, or in separate articles, seems very clear that they are not willing to be neutral on the subject.

As far as "Wikistalking" as Hipocrite has accused me of, I cannot even begin to express how petulant that statement is. While I will admit that I have reviewed other editors contributions, and even weighed in on a couple of the articles that they have been involved in, I am not now, nor have I ever, edited an article simply to "frustrate" another editor. This accusation was posted to my talk page by Hipocrite just this morning. While I do tend to have an interest in alternative health treatments, such as HIV, cancer, etc, I have also edited such articles as the Fort hood shooting. I think it is an unfair characterization to say that I am stalking anyone.

When it comes to canvassing... I fail to see how mentioning to another editor that a discussion is taking place that they may be interested in, is somehow a bad thing. I in fact copied this practice from such editors as Verbal and Hipocrite, who routinely post messages on one another's talk pages requesting input regarding a particular topic of debate throughout the Wiki. I have not requested that they take a particular viewpoint, merely that they have expressed interest in the topic in the past, and may be interested in the current conversation. Here is the most recent example I can readily find [14], or Nunh-huh, JoeSmack, TechBear.

I have not cut and pasted long sections from denialist web sites. I did take a list of factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody tests, which had 64 references, and use it in the site, and the original compiler was given credit. The references did not have any DOI or PMID information, let alone being suitable for Wiki formatting. Each and every one of those references was researched, updated, verified to be on point, and formated by me. I would call that hours of research.

As far as the "creation of numerous POV forks... I cannot agree with that. I have created 3 articles here. 2 on the topic of HIV. Initially, I un-forwarded HIV dissent and created article content there. That was nominated for deletion, and reverted back to a forward, the next day, prior to a discussion or consensus being reached. So I then created a new namespace, Alternative HIV viewpoints, where I published relatively the same article, which has also been nominated for deletion. Again, prior to the AfD discussion closing, the article was wiped and forwarded, and for trying to prevent this, I received a 24 hour ban. How is consensus and discussion supposed to take place when there is no article to discuss?

So, salient points:

• Always in good faith...
• Been Bold
• Ignored all rules, except for personal attacks. (Never have I personally attacked an editor)
• Modified behavior as users have brought potential violations to my attention.

Neuromancer (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone realizes that it is highly coincidental that a user who has edited what - 5 mainspace articles has somehow overlapped and edit-warred against people he has disagreements with on 4 of them - and those 4 are in totally disparate subjects, with the note that he has expressed an interest in a 5th, totally disparate subject here. How far does AGF go? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I became involved with Dennis the Menace because I was following AfD, not you. When you nominate an article for delete or merge, it is common courtesy to allow the discussion to take place for the requisite 7 days. Blanking and forwarding is just rude, and makes any discussion difficult. Neuromancer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Colloidal Silver has been used in Alternative HIV and Cancer treatments. It is not, as you say, "disparate." I have not intentionally edit warred with anyone. After it was brought to my attention, I changed my behavior. I have been involved in edit controversy in HIV and Alternative HIV Viewpoints. If there is another article you think is relevant, please list it. Neuromancer (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Neuromancer's edits: article coincidences

Neuromancer has to date edited 59 unique articles. Comparing edits with the people notified of this discussion by Keepcalmandcarryon indicates that 54 of those have also been edited by at least one person on the list (I am making comparison using different tools and a little inclusion/exclusion counting, so bear with me as they may measure unique article in different ways; also note that I am involved in several places). Subtracting the AIDS-related articles, usertalk, and a few obviously benign cases gives: Aspartame was edited by Keepcalmandcarryon two days before Neuromancer's first edit; Cancell was not edited by anyone on the list in the days preceding Neuromancer's first edit; Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company was created by Neuromancer; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination) is clear, though Denialism itself was edited by Verbal the day before; Kristian Ayre and AfD are clear - Nm probably got there from ARS; Talk:Dennis Ketcham was edited by Hipocrite earlier that day; Talk:Medical uses of silver was recently edited by Hipocrite and MastCell; Talk:Magnetic water treatment was recently edited by Keepcalmandcarryon, Someguy1221, and me; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catbus had been recently edited by me, but had also been tagged for ARS; Fort Hood shooting and talk had been recently edited by JoeSmack, though that article is highly active right now.

Assuming good faith with respect to the AfDs tagged by the Article Rescue Squadron (none of the contributions were particularly combative except at Denialism which is a mess all around), this leaves: Aspartame, Medical uses of silver, Magnetic water treatment, Dennis Ketcham, and Fort Hood shooting. The last I think can be ignored, as everyone else is editing that article too at the moment, and Nm's edits were not obviously antagonistic; although I do think that there is some confusion regarding wikt:duplicitous and wikt:duplicative. The Ketcham very much looks like an attempt to engage with Hipocrite. For the other three, I do not find the assertion that they were selected without reference to editor to be credible, though I am willing to believe that they find such things interesting. This is again based on X!'s namespace counter, which shows an edit to Talk:Fascism as the clear outlier. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

Based on the behaviors outlined by Keepcalmandcarryon, MastCell, and myself, I propose that Neuromancer be indefinitely topic banned from all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages; I further propose that they be admonished to avoid extending conflict to unrelated articles and to not seek out or harass any of the above mentioned editors. These remedies to be subject to review at AN/I or ArbCom, preferably less frequently than every three months. I would explicitly leave my talkpage open for any discussion, as we have open threads there and I am still willing to discuss with Neuromancer.

Alternatively, given the failure to follow obvious community norms such as engaging productively with other editors and not seeking out confrontation, multiple attempts to add content in an end-run around consensus, and multiple instances of copying without attribution, including from patently unreliable sources including virusmyth.com and IMDB, a full community ban may be in order. Please discuss these proposals below. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As Neuromancer has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, I have volunteered to relay their concerns here if necessary. As always, please refrain from piling on while Nm cannot edit here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I am repeatedly requested to find consensus before edits, which I have done on HIV, AIDS denialism, Fort Hood shooting, etc, etc.

The only real issue regarding disruptive editing has been in regard to Alternative HIV viewpoints. I understand that I do not own the article. I understand that it may very well be deleted in the near future. However, here are the salient issues that I have:

• [15], [16], [17], [18] In these edits, the exact same information has been removed each time. Please review the diffs. The entire chapter is properly referenced to scientific publication such as "Applied Environmental Microbiology," "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences," US patent #4520113, etc. In this edit, there was no regard for the information. There was no consensus reached, or even discussed on the talk page. There is no synthesis. This is not an article that falls within the purview of Medicine. This is an article entitled "Alternative HIV Viewpoints." As it was created, it is not a POV Fork. The idea was to present the claims of scientists who disagree with the current HIV community. There are films being made about these topics. There are papers being published in peer reviewed journals, such as this one in 2008, which dissent on the currently accepted HIV hypothesis.

• • No consensus was reached before wholesale deleting MASSIVE amounts of information. No attempt was made to clean up language accused of being POV. Rather, it was just deleted. Not one person who has attempted to keep this information off of WP has been able to provide a SINGLE citation discrediting the information in this article. Yes, there is a reference to virusmyth.com. It is to source the quote of what certain dissenters believe was wrong with the current information. It's not synth. It's not there to support a medical claim. The reference is there to show where the idea came from. It is one of MANY ideas.

• Rather than editing the article, it is deleted, forwarded, called synth and POV fork, and unsourced. This is not the case. I have spent hours reading medical journals verifying each of the actual medical claims on this article. Granted, I did start with Christine Johnson's list, which she was credited for. But that is a list. Journal references that were no longer valid, or since debunked, were removed. Each citation was verified and wikified so that others could simply click on the ref and be taken to the article.

• I am being accused of doing EXACTLY what my accusers are doing. Except that if you actually read the article, and the references, you will see that this is not synth, or a POV fork. Compare it to HIV denialism and try to find more that two duplicate references. HIV denialism focuses on a POV that HIV denialists have caused harm, have been debunked, disproved, etc. Yet there are no references to where they have been disproved. I have looked for these references, and have been unable to locate any. I have found NON scientific articles, written by journalists, and judges, but not anything from the scientific community. Yet when I present actual scientific published works, I am POV pushing. This is not the case.

• As far as the mad props I have received for being Superman, please review my talk page.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer indicates above a willingness to work with a mentor to help them contribute within the project's policies. I think that this could be productive, but am myself both too involved and too unskilled in the area. If anyone is interested in the role, please step forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer's willingness to accept mentorship is encouraging. However, Neuromancer has yet to recognise their problems with straightforward policies such as copyright violation and sockpuppetry; their insistence that the "other" Arizona IP is not a sock or meatpuppet is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These aren't subtle matters in which a mentor's guidance could help, but I would be pleased to find out otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not terribly encouraging. I am going to ask the people who have commented on this thread to take another look. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite broad topic ban per all above, and 2/0. Support full ban as 2nd choice if problems continue on unrelated articles (non AIDS/medical/science - broad topic ban). Verbal chat 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• For the record... I did act in good faith. I never got into an edit war on HIV or AIDS denialism. I was accused of using those articles talk pages as a forum, but that was not my intention, and I have since stopped. I attempted to share ideas that I felt were in the general best interests of WP by creating a new article, which was subsequently nominated for deletion, and in an attempt to make sure that that article remained available for potential parties to review, I was accused of edit warring. Fine... I got a ban. I have nominated myself for a mentor, and have a couple of potentials currently. If you feel the need to topic ban me, so be it. If you feel I have been that disruptive on HIV, or AIDS denialism. Ban me. But before you do, go look at my edits to those two pages. Perhaps someone who didn't engage in the same behaviors I am being accused of, such as Verbal, Hipocrite, etc, should weigh in on this before a decision is made. Neuromancer (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for acknowledging I didn't engage in the behaviours you were blocked for. I've already weighed in above. Verbal chat 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. I agree that Neuromancer would benefit from mentoring, but I don't think the latter obviates the former. Neuromancer made some serious mistakes, and has been consistently argumentative in discussing those. Failure to demonstrate insight regarding past events, and pertinacious soapboxing in Talk space, prompt me to support the proposed ban. As I've said previously (above), I have had some constructive exchanges with Neuromancer. I hope that mentoring will help Neuromancer to recognize why this ban occurred, and to rebuild the trust of the WP community in general. --Scray (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - for reasons conveyed above by Scray. It seems like Neuro still feels like this was a personalized issue that happened because users didn't like his views. It also seems like Neuro is still itching for any way possible to get his content back in, and frankly, the reprise of discussion on why policies/guidelines don't support that is getting old. I continue to support mentorship as long as all parties are amenable to it, and additionally that we get a highly active/experienced editor to do the mentoring. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as per previous comments. Neuromancer's comments to a potential mentor ([linked by 2/0 above) show a continuing refusal to acknowledge basic policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:SYN. Neuro still insists that the issue with their edits is personal (it's not) and based on likes and dislikes rather than policy (again, it's not). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, widely construed. I am unaware of any successful mentorship of a disruptive editor (counterexamples welcome). I see no reason why this case would be different. I'm genuinely curious as to why the community often sees mentorship as a solution to problems like this. Skinwalker (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, as per Scray. I do feel that mentoring would be useful in this case, and in response to Skinwalker, I would say that why I support mentoring is that it gives the user who is being mentored someone who can review their edits and provide constructive criticism knowing that their mentor is on their side and trying to get the best for the person who is being mentored. This means that it is someone who is their advocate who is telling them when they violate policy instead of everyone and their brother, which can be difficult for a user who is trying to make good faith edits. I will say though that the post to the talk page linked by 2/0 above does cause me some concern, and I would strongly recommend that an experienced and senior editor/admin be the mentor in this case. Frmatt (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. To me the need for this was clear since this editor created an article on HIV dissent and responded to the clear consensus of other editors here that this was an inappropriate POV fork by creating Alternative HIV viewpoints, which was unsurprisingly deleted as another POV fork. Neuromancer has kept a copy of the deleted content at User:Neuromancer/HIV, which indicates to me that their efforts to force this into mainspace have not yet ended. This editor is completely unwilling to abide by consensus and shows contempt for both other people's views and our policies. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

• Comment Before giving a topic ban an credence, I would ask that diffs be included for the topic in which it is being proposed that I be banned. The only article for which I have been banned thus far, have been deleted from WP, so I would ask the following:
  • What topic is being proposed that I should be banned?
  • What are the diffs to any "disruptive editing" of the articles that would be included in the ban?
• I feel that these are reasonable requests, as there has been no specific reference to the topic proposed for ban, nor have there been any references to disruptive edits within any articles that might implied in the above. Neuromancer (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic would be any HIV or AIDS related article/talkpage on Wikipedia. You can find refs to your disruptive editing documented in the start of this incident report at the top of this section here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated above and in the proposal, all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages. This would include, for instance, AZT, people whose notability derives primarily from AIDS activism, Mbeki, and pretty much any topic covered by AIDS denialist websites. It would not include other retroviruses in general, other STIs in general, or articles on people who are notable for reason unrelated to HIV/AIDS. This article is probably ok, but you should not add any HIV/AIDS related material. The community traditionally takes a very dim view of people who try to game the system by dabbling ever closer to the topic from which they have been banned for disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please help. User Ceha has been doing personal attacks on me lately. Example, [19] He has been harasing me very much because I am persuing action to delete a frauduelent map that he has posted on wikipedia. The discussion about his map had a pause, then I restarted it again lately. I suspect that this is the reason for his attacks on me. Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also notified the user of this thread, at the exact same time as BoP. Great minds think alike! GiantSnowman 18:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize if user Laz thinks I've offended him in any way. I did not mean to insult him in any way. In this particular case that user have reverted my change without prior discussing it on the talk pages. We are having this discusion for a long time and during that time user Laz showed uncivil and rude behavior (I think that this report unfortunately part of his tactics). Time after time he is calling me a fascist. Last time was 1.November.2009. [20] He was previously reported and warned about insolting persons and calling them names [21].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we can ignore the he said she said, the apology may take us a long way. Can the two of you resolve not to insult each other, regardless of who insulted whom in the past? Also, if you all could speak English on the English wikipedia, it would be helpful, and not just for situations like this.--chaser (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I had no intentions of insulting anybody. However I would like that the guy stops calling me a fascist. Unfortunately, I think that is a pretty serious insult. :/ A little bit of civil behavior and we should solve a great deal of our worries. After all this is an encyclopedia :) --Čeha (razgovor) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of this, like the comments preceding this for example, looks to be in Serbo-Croatian, in which case I guess you'll need to find a neutral translator to help us out. Or an admin that speaks Serbo-Croatian.--chaser (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that line has not nothing with user Laz. As mentioned before, that user is very rude and uncivil from time to time, and is known for using a lot of swear words (if you find a good translator you can read what kind of stuff that guy wrote).--Čeha (razgovor) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LAz is not the only one C has targeted, I happened to stumble across a clearly racial remark that C made about me in the same discussion. [22] PRODUCER (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is clearly overdoing. Did I in any way called you some name, or insulted you? I even apologized if you felt insulted. On the other way you threatened to block my account. And user Laz, which is complaing about personal attacks is insulting me, calling me a fascist even if he was previously warned about that. My behaviour is civil, and I do not have nothing to hide. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceha is a person who becomes very rude to whomever disagrees with him in any way. He then goes about making a discussion as pointless as it can possibly be. A case in point - once a source was agreed upon on a map, he goes back as if the other person did not agree, and starts the discussion all from the beginning. So, he firstly does not want to move forth in discussions, and secondly, he starts insulting. This is what is the case here. Further, he goes about insulting and bringing up false acusations. I never called him a fascist. However, his map is contributing to fascist propaganda. The man has made a very controversial map of a region that is very very ethnically mixed. He went about doing this by on purpose excluding countless settlements. The map was a disaster, an ethnically motivated POV propaganda map. This was not my conclusion, but a conclusion of someone else. The bottom line is that he is very angry at me for questioning his work of art. Now that the discussion has moved forth and a consensus has been reached that his map is not good, he has resulted to regularly insulting me and claiming that his map is fine, yet countless mistakes have been pointed out to him. We are dealing with someone who edit wars and who is very uncooperative. I think that a ban would be a very just thing to do in this case. Please contact the user Direktor for more information. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

Please do.

User Laz: a) repeated accusations about "fascistit propaganda" [23] Fascistic nationalistic propaganda is where it all lies

b)previous warnings by adminstrators [24]

c) blocked indeffinetilly on croatian wiki because of swearing. [25]

If anyone has any suggestion what to do with this user, I'm willing to listen. If need be, I will again apologize, but unfortunately I do not see that would solve anything. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about. I could not have said it better myself. A)Fascistit- notice the use of words. The real word is fascist propaganda, about his map. He is on purpose wrongly interpreting this to mean that he is a fascist- no his map only contributes to that propaganda - if it is intentional or not is the question. Admin warnings? Sure, but look into what they are about. You and I were edit warring. Interesting how you do not mention certain info. I was unblocked on the croatian wikipedia. The user Kubara put on purpose "wrong information". I beat him on the english wiki... it all starts with the source, apparently even he can not make up stuff without a source - though you do that regularly. Lastly, the word "zajebavas" is not messing. In english "nemoj da me zajebavas" means "don't mess around with me". That is what I told him, and with reason - and this is supposed to be swearing? His information was wrong, and if you do not beleive it look at the talk page of the croatian hockey league. (LAz17 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

I would honestly like that someone sees this because it's like living in a paralel universes. What is a person who spreads fascist propaganda? What do the word fascist has to do with Balkans in the end of 20th century?

The guy was almost blocked by an administrator because of his uncivil behavior, but it just edit warring??

And the translation of "zajebavaš" is wrong. It means to fuck around. That is the language which Laz uzes.

As for croatian wikipedia, Laz can you provide link for us to see your behavior? I'm very interested what they sad to you.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, user Laz started attacking another user (Polargeo) [26].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1) fascist has to do with the ustashe movement. The movement never died with the end of world war two. It came back in the 1990s. It is at the core of croatian nationalism, especially claims that croatia should gobble up all of bosnia. Your map which shows the croats as overrepresented only fosters that. Granted that your map is not as outrageous as it was when I first started complaining, it is still outrageous. Direktor coming in to mediate the discussion gave you no choice than to fix some of the major mistakes, but there are still dozens of mistakes left. Several people have said that your map is not acceptable. For this you hate me.

2) I have never used or heard the word "zajebavas" as go fuck around. Serbocroatian is a very dirty language. We have words like "jebiga". Jebiga means "oh well". But it can also mean "fuck him". Almost always it is used as "oh well". So, I think you should stop trying to trick our people here in translation.

3) For croatian wikipedia, just go to the ice hockey page. You can see that there is still very much un-sourced fraud information. Kubara has backed down from the fraud on the english wikipedia. Neither of us were completely right, so we came to a comprise halfway inbetween. You on the other hand want all or nothing.

4)Polargeo was not attacked at all. He might have been intimidated with some sources that I posted on his talk page. How can one interpret information as an attack. He made a particular rape in a war article, and I told him why I felt that it was biased, and I gave him some more sources that might help improve the article to a less biased tone. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).

Exactly my point.

a) Calling someone or its work fascist is a grave insult and has no place in any encyclopedia, no matter what you though about or how you cover it up. You should be sanctioned for that.

b) No. "Zajebavaš" comes from "jebati" which means "to fuck" it is always a dirty word, no matter in Croatian, Serbian or some hibrid. It is not a word which is spoken on TV or in public.

c) I do not understand what you think that I want, but is that important? You had problems on Croatian wiki because of your rude behavior.

d) One word. Dictionary. And a lot of swearing. Laz, Polargeo is right. You should watch your manners. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your map itself is a grave insult. The mediator of the map problem, Direktor told you very politely and clearly how it is very obvious that many people can easily be offended by such a wrong map. Your map is a grave insult.

Zajebavas has nothing to do with fucking. In my years I have never heard it being used that way. Recently at a soccer game. It's quite sad if you think that people here believe you. But, maybe there is some dialect difference in serbian and croatian. In serbian the word is very common and used all the time.

On the croatian wiki the only problem was that one word. Is that rude behavior? I don't think so. The problem was that the thugs over there do not even want to discuss the problem, and the problem remains there. On the english wiki, the same article has been cleaned up by myself.

I did not swear at all when talking to poligario. (LAz17 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).

User Ceha is now trying to force me into doing something that to me does not appear to be easy. He is almost attacking me. For info see here, Talk:Central Bosnia Canton. Please can someone tell him to stop harassing me on that page? (LAz17 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)).

Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed

• Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs)
• Tombaker321 (talk · contribs)

Apologies for posting here but I'm afraid the talkpage on Roman Polanski is rather spiraling well out of any semblance of collegial cooperation. I've personally been accused of many things but being thick (stupid) is pretty low on the list, yet two editors Proofreader77 and Tombaker321, seem to be locked horns with otherwise other well-intended editors seem to be trying to untangle a mass volume of verbiology - IMHO from Proofreader77 - to try to step through any solution. I think there actually is some NPOV dispute on this BLP but after many days of trying to get a clear/concise "I think this sentence should state XYZ instead of XXX" we still seems to out of balance on the signal to noise measures.

I've first experienced what I feel are some WP:Own-ership issues with Proofreader77 when trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article, something that apparently happened many times before. The article seems well sourced but they cited WP:Original Research concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that. I found that annoying but the talkpage on adding or removing content. Whatever subject along with many others was archived away as the volume on the talkpage can be measured in truckloads, mostly from this editor and those trying to sort out what's going on with them. (Note: struck example that was clearly a different editor)

They may be making good points but it seems veiled in layers of discussion including mark-up and redirects and frankly is all a bit WP:TLDR thus repelling away those who may actually be able to assist. Lately they have been admonishing, both publicly and on their talkpage, Tombaker321 fro removing the NPOV tag from the section, Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case. This is a 32-year old case that remains open and has been headline news for this film director as he was arrested in Switzerland in an effort by the US to extradite and try him for the charges. The content ballooned out of control and luckily a subpage for needless details has staved off much of the drama. There remains some outstanding issues but they, and other relevant issues to improve the article all seem lost in this barrage of words which I remain hopeful are well-intended. Some other eyes on this would be welcome as every time I take a break and then return to it, there seems more ratcheted-up heat than closer to well-spoken disputes emerging. -- Banjeboi 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77

NOTE ADDED AFTER REACTION: re markup at ANI
A submission to Signpost "opinion" request. Read the one on the left:
User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility"

• Quick acknowledgement that I am aware of this ANI topic. Agree it is certainly time for broader scrutiny. NOTE: The underlying issue may better be addressed at WP:BLPN (a NPOV clarification in the context of a BLP), but the path of how this is progressing amidst some admittedly extraordinary measures (arising from the highly culturally contentious current-events inflamed matter of the Roman Polanski case) certainly has aspects which can well, and perhaps should, be addressed here.

  NOTE: I must deal with some real world matters for a several hours, but will return to give my perspective.

  FORMAL REQUEST: If acceptible, I would ask that complex discussion of the matter be delayed until I provide my more complete initial response. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Banjeboi: paragraph 2

“ I first experienced some WP:Own-erish issues with Proofreader77 when trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article, something that apparently happened many times before. The article seems well sourced but they cited WP:Original Research concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that. ”

Mistaken (wasn't me)

• Probable intended editor 18 October 2009 Sinneed EDIT SUMMARY: (The refimprove was lost repeatedly in the edit warring over the arrest. Restoring it, with its comment.)
• See: Archived discussion: Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_5#Refimprove restored - lost in the edit warring after the arrest

(Response status update: I am currently preparing response with diffs/data etc. A complex matter.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• ABOUT / WIKIBACKGROUND: Proofreader77 (me) sometimes does current events wrangling. EXAMPLE: The weekend of the Koss rumor about Sarah Palin (on Monday she would reveal her daughter was pregnant to the press, partly because of "the rumor" of something else), I was working the talk page, keeping rumor from being discussed on the talk page (and out of the article) for BLP reasons.

  re Roman Polanski - Very contentious edit-warring/personal attacks ... full lock from Oct 1-8. I began doing what I sometimes do on Oct 3. Lots of energy arrived determined to make the BLP as negative as possible. Lots of aspersions on the character of anyone appearing not in agreement with villification. STORY: I noticed one new editor was so upset by the atmosphere, they erased their user and talk page and began undoing all their Roman Polanski talk page edits that could be undone. I had not witnessed something like that before, and it hurt to watch. So I left them a note, put a picture back on their (erased) user page ... and they came back. Probably first and last time I'll do that. Extraordinary circumstances.

  Extraordinary measures: Banjeboi doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'm not at all surprised. What I do is a complex response to the situation (no, not the cause of it). Although it may not seem like it, I am a sort of practical expert at rhetorical interaction. The BLP NPOV issues of Roman Polanski are very complex, and affected by the set of editors who arrive, given the givens.

  I would like for you to pause now and imagine that I know what I'm doing. That there is a hard BLP NPOV issue to solve ... which has to be solved more complexly than usual. That complexity involves, of course, the editors at hand.

  And what all that text on Talk:Roman Polanski is ... is documenting the issue so it can be resolved.

  The arrival of this at ANI followed the final steps of documentation—including my warning[s] of Tombaker321 for disruption.
  (1st)
  (add documentation +3RR)
  (2nd)

  On that note I pause, save this here, and go to gather the next part of this response. Less words,:) more diffs and data. (to be continued in the next few hours) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• What came before:

Stages - how we got to here

(Stage 1) 75K "discussion" of a block quote (lots of logic) Tombaker321 v Proofreader77's blockquote (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)] (Archive/locked unresolved) “ Unresolved Current discussion is locked in repetitive unproductive loop filling up the talk page. Broader issue of NPOV balance probably to be continued in NPOVN in due time. ” (Stage 2.a) TomBaker321 begins to reword and expand (summary) section of Sexual assault case (note: case has own article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case—detail of summary version should be appropriately limited) Proofreader77 documents changes/expansion with topic: :Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree) (Stage 2.b) Proofreader77 adds {{POV-section}} - Impetus: Tombaker321 had so-far expanded the summary section ~25% ... and Proofreader77 had experienced what kind of "discussion" would ensue to balance (given that there is no clarification yet of the NPOV interpretation differences which would make discussion something other than futile). (EVENT - Stage 3.a) Banjeboi (as doppelganger: Benjiboi) condenses summary to ~400 words—an acceptible consensus size for summary (which has a main article) (Comment: Tombaker321 believes this to be part of NPOV dispute. But Banjeboi/Benjiboi has no horse in that race. Tombaker321 is outraged.) (3.b) Tombaker321 edit wars to undo Banjeboi/Benjiboi condensing (with another editor - not Proofreader77) 08:48, 6 November 2009 NOTE: characterizes exp. editors condensing of overgrown summary as "weed whacking" 21:41, 6 November 2009 NOTE: Mistakenly believes condensing is part of NPOV process 02:27, 7 November 2009 (ditto) (3.c) Tombaker321 edit wars to remove POV tag (with Proofreader77) 12:20, 8 November 2009 01:41, 9 November 2009 04:46, 9 November 2009 (Stage 4) ANI - Banjeboi goes to ANI to cast aspersions on Proofreader77 :) [stop Proofreader77 from confusing Tombaker321 with all those words?] [for the good of the community!] ... but that is exactly what needed to be done next. The universe works. :)

• What now?

1. Tombaker321 is an articulate new Wikipedia editor who, I would say based on our many hours of interaction, believes strongly in his powers of judgment—and that his interpretation is actionable, and if his interpretation is not being followed by others (at least on some matters), drama will ensue. (NOTE: He has been encouraged rather than restrained by a more experienced editor—who will not be named at present.)

   Guidance: Adjustment of perspective re enforceability of one's judgement. Admonished not to edit war over a tag which says "don't remove until the dispute has been resolved." Do not assume you may make those you disagree with comply with precise specifications defined by yourself. Do not assume everything is such a rush.

   And specifically be informed that a section of an article which has its own article should not be expected to keep growing.

2. With disruptive patterns calmed, we can move to the getting on the same page with respect to what NPOV in a BLP means—as the specific selection of facts are balanced (in the sentences of the summary). At this moment, we are not. Perhaps incommensurable. :) Perhaps WP:BLPN? Or something.

   [CODA] It has repeatedly been said (misleadingly) that I have not provided any specifics. Of course it depends on what the meaning of "specifics" is. The demand has been repeated (as a rhetorical hammer) that "specifics" are completed rewrites of precisely what one wants to see with final refs. Let's be very clear. There would be no POV tag if that was the requirement before one placed it.

   The specifics I have provided are sufficient to convey, most surely to those who have seen the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (as Tombaker321 has) the information that should alter specific sentences I've enumerated (based on information provided in spoken interviews with prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton). I have also specifically mentioned that if the summary of the grand jury testimony in sentence 2 is included, then a similar condensed summary of the probation report should be included providing the rationale for why not prison. Or, as alternative, remove it altogether.

   Those are specifics. But the specific that determines all is the meaning of NPOV in a BLP of Roman Polanski in the culturally contentious matter of the Sexual assault case.

BOTTOM LINE: An experienced editor posted a (primi facie ridiculous) "drive-by tagging" response when I first opened the NPOVD. Tombake321 has kept up the chant as a rhetorical hammer. Demanding "specifics" by his definition. That's really the issue. Tombaker321 appears to believe that he has perfect discernment of what the "NPOV" facts are. We disagree.

“ Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are.

It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. (FROM: WP:NPOVD)

”

That's my POV. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker321

• I am researching Polanski, and editing the topic. I believe a certain base level of information needs to be within the main Polanski reference, that it have quick encyclopedic information regarding what is in the news now, about the events 30 years ago. The content was about 4 paragraphs, which had be hammered out over the course of weeks in discussion. The 4 was reduced to 3 paragraphs, for economy of words only. These deletions were never reviewed, however they instantly became incorporated into a NPOVD which used the 3 paragraph version as the base line. I do not believe this was the intent of the editor who compacted the entry, by deleting specifics. The original NPOVD then suddenly starts with this 3 version as its baseline. I tried repeatedly to restore the 4 paragraph version, as the version for whatever this NPOVD process would be, but could not. I then attempted to gain clarification of what the NPOVD was asking for. I looked at the information about NPOVD and asked for specifics. Bear in mind the NPOVD was raised by the formation of Sonnet couplets.
• After not being able to get specifics, and my requests wholly ignored and the substance not replied to...I removed the NPOVD tag, and gave long details to as to why it was removed. I would spell out my concerns and they simple were not responded to in substance. There was nothing being asked to be done to remedy the NPOVD. However, there was an attempt to cap the amount of words able to be used to 500.
• Proofreader77 started a new NPOVD, to which I tried to show was new, and for the dispute to go forward without the anchorage of the past. Lets start over and move forward, is my logic. I created a new section for the new dispute to go forward. Fresh slate was my thinking. It seems like this olive branch is not being accepted. As it stand now, without clarification of what the NPOVD dispute is....I think the Tag is not serving any purpose....yet the implications of some amorphous dispute, hangs over all. I simply want to know what is the NPOVD? What specifically needs revising, inclusion or deletion? I do not see the 500 word rule as being mandatory. In sum, I want the normal talk and discussion process to work, as it did when we were able to provide 4 concise paragraphs with exceptional review and citations. Much of this sea-saw is simply if we can include, about 5 lines of information that is from reliable sources and well cited. As to the NPOVD dispute, 1rst or 2nd or same, I just want the specifics of what is desired or disputed to be raised clearly, so we can address them.
• I think Benjiboi's raising of his concerns here to be earnest, and well stated. Beyond saying what I have said, and then the history of the talk page, I don't expect to have anything else to offer. I have said what I needed to. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have someone here who is familiar with Proofreader77's native tongue and can translate what this editor is trying to say? Thank you. Hans Adler 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the note on my talk page reminding me the formatting is unusual. See this submission to Signpost "opinion" request. (Read the one on the left:) User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility". Proofreader77 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That one also lacks translation. This is a collaborative project. Please try to communicate rather than show off your superb obfuscation skills. Hans Adler 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your response seriously, but also suggest that, as a collaborative project, allowing for the variations of speech of different people is perhaps worth considering. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, have a look at the edit history & discussion concerning Boke -- which includes this discussion. A few minutes of your time will suffice. -- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was very helpful indeed. Hans Adler 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion (1) Advise Tombaker321 not to edit war over POV tags. (2) Admonish me for my excessive markup and verbosity. (3) Admonish Banjeboi for casting an aspersion on Proofreader77 by forgetting it was someone else they were thinking of (paragraph 2). (4) Mark it resolved. (I believe this trip to ANI probably set the stage for resolving the BLP NPOV issue—or if not, WP:BLPN is the place for that matter. And surely you don't want to read all that, do you.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  (Must now sleep a good while. Excuse delayed responses.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate all those who have interacted with Proofreader77 so far on their extreme patience. Is this editor currently under any editing restrictions? I am thinking of something like the following:

• Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space.
• Proofreader77 is not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes and is not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.
• These restrictions can be relaxed on a case-by-case basis by a consensus of involved editors.

Would that have a chance to work? Hans Adler 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would. First off my apologies for misplacing the odd ref tag issue at Proofreader77 when it was clearly someone else. I was using that as an example of WP:OWNership which I believe is still a core issue at least in this case. I would support a restriction on mark-ups, that seems disruptive in and of itself. I also see lengthy posts and excessive posting as violation WP:Talk which nicely states - When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. It may not be their intention but I feel like Proofreader77 is simply overwhelming "opposition" to anything they believe is the right way to go. This seems to be suppressing good communication and driving away people who care enough to use the talkpage. As far as I can tell everyone is frustrated and getting Proofreader77 to simply conform more to community standards for talkpage behaviours has to be addressed before anyone can really understand what the content issues are. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with your assessment, based on what I have seen so far and my own reactions to this editor's output. This seems to be headed to a siteban, but preceded by a lot of drama due to obvious good faith. In my opinion, if Proofreader77 is unwilling or unable to change their communication style, they will have to be excluded per WP:COMPETENCE. This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:TLDR aspect alone may be thwarting more eyes on this. The example cited here which was only 6-7 months ago suggests a real bad fit if nothing else. If someone is simply playing editors here for fools that is indeed dreadful as we all have better things to do. If not I think there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Either way it seems deliberate and disruptive. Maybe asking for a few of those previously entwined would help make a better informed path forward? -- Banjeboi 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe WP:HEAR has been a factor, and will continue to be. Proofreader77 said:

"I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child."

He wants to mitigate in the readers mind, an impression of a child of 13, by inserting in the text of subjective POV appraisals of the girl's appearance. I spent huge time refuting this with pictures of the girl, who really looks 13, and objecting on the concept. The consensus was drawn that appearance of the victim would not be appropriate.

Proofreader77 then asserted that Polanski stated that she looked older, and advocated that the Polanski POV Defense needs to be maintained for NPOV. Problem: Polanski never said this, and actually under oath said he was aware she was 13. Proofreader77 just ignored this (5) or so times I asked him to back up this claim. Again WP:HEAR Proofreader77 refused to acknowledge his own error.

Now we have a general banner of NPOVD, with Proofreader77 saying its all about the "general issue of the POV of Polanski's Defense." What I believe will happen is these already rejected items will be inserted as a defense to balance out POV. Further than a defense position will be crafted out of thin air. Polanski plead guilty, he did not defend the charge of his conviction, the rest are procedural disputes post conviction. The urban myth that Polanski had a plea bargain regarding his sentencing, is 100% refuted by court documents, the entirety of the plea bargain was to drop 5 of the 6 charges. Full stop. Speaking of consensus so few want to get engage in this muddy froth, voting is rendered meaningless.

I believe that the flag waving banner of NPOV dispute without specifics, will be used to Trojan Horse enter back in, items that were already rejected by consensus. WP:HEAR Proofreader77 is making himself to be the orchestrator WP:OWN of NPOV Dispute and process. I am told to "cease X" (I have seen others told to cease Y, which I imagine generated the same flinch as I had). I don't get direct responses to questions, repeatedly, but I see plenty of "Let the record reflect" and "in Due Course" to build a case for summation to some body. Simply said, Proofreader77 is going to use the NPOV Dispute to interject items failed by WP:HEAR. Do I believe that the ambiguous NPOVD Banner is a foot in the door technique, YES. Finally, yes, I do feel played with, I am pretty sure I am on the wrong side of some bad rolls of a (20) sided dice. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From reading your comment, Tombaker, I think communication is an important piece of the problem here. First, you appear to explain your opponent's position far more clearly than s/he seems to have, & if you are correct i believe I remember what Proofreader is alluding to: many years ago, in either Time or Newsweek, Polanski was quoted as saying he thought the girl in this case looked much older. (Whether or not this ever was claimed in court is another point.) If I am right, then there is a case for saying there is a NPOV dispute here; if a source can be found for Polanski actually saying this, may I assume you would agree that this should be included? Second, & perhaps more important, a reliable & verifiable source must be provided for including alternative points of view, especially when the matter is controversial -- as in this case. One can't simply say "I remember reading in either Time or Newsweek", & expect everyone else to admit there is a dispute. (Along the same lines, if a reliable source were found showing that Polanski claimed he had sex with the girl because he was being blackmailed by the Bavarian Illuminati, then it would be a NPOV violation not to include it.) And lastly, if Proofreader could be succinct in her/his comments & specific in her/his objections, his fellow editors would be more likely to be comfortable agreeing with them, & not suspicious about "foot in the door techniques" because they'd know exactly what he wanted. -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, llywrch, for clarifying some perhaps confusing aspects of NPOV. (I.E., Some may believe that information that is controversial/contested must not be included—and as you point out it is first a matter of reliable sources (and, of course, who the information comes from is important.) With respect to the particular issue of looking older, there was a long debate about that (finally archive locked as futile until NPOV concept clarified). As for sources, there are solid sources (Polanski in interview, police investigator Philip Vannatter's description, as well as Judge Rittenband's summary of the probation report's description from Philip Vannatter in open court—covered by LA Times and repeated in smaller papers via AP).

That debate illustrated the NPOV problem of different interpretations of NPOV, but the information I am most referring to is the information from interviews with prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. (NOTE: I checked with WP:RSN and was informed that the documentary may be quoted or summarized as with any reliable secondary source.)

So, while it might be perceived that the NPOVD is simply a ploy to include the looked older information, what I assert is that the looked older contention illustrates the different interpretations of NPOV which must be resolved (to avoid more page-filling futile arguments arising from different understandings of the implications of NPOV in the Roman Polanski BLP).Proofreader77 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, you completely misunderstand what I wrote. I honestly can't believe I was that unclear. My comment was not what you & Tombaker disagree about. If it were, we would refer you to dispute resolution because content disputes are not something resolved here. My comment was about your inability to communicate. Hans Adler has proposed some severe restrictions based on his understanding of your inability. I was providing a more nuanced description, in hope that a better solution can be found. I strongly suggest that you review this thread, identify the problem we are discussing, & start working to address it. Because if you continue to miss the point of discussions you take part in (as you have in your response above) the community may take harsher measures than what Hans Adler has proposed. -- llywrch (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Below text was being written, before the comment from llywrch immediately above ^ --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker321's content-related arguments in response to my post 22:38, 12 November 2009

llywrch: I am going to respond in bullet format to hopefully make it clearest. 1. Proofreader, said the reason he wanted to insert the subjective remarks on appearance is to mitigate the impact to the readers mind when they see "13 year old". Proofreader77 goes on to say "neither was she child". This is not NPOV, is adding selective information to create a defense case, which does not exist in actual history. 2. Proofreader77 adamantly stated that Polanski thought she looked older, as further justification for inclusion of subjective appraisals of appearance. When asked for sources by his fellow editors, he ignored them. I asked him well over 5 times and he never responded WP:HEAR 3. No source information exist to suggest that Polanski thought she looked older. I have looked, simply don't see it. I would welcome seeing any citation. The baseless assertion that it somewhere exist keeps this available for use by Proofreader77. I think he would have shown the source by now, if it existed. 4. Proofreader77 states above "With respect to the particular issue of looking older, there was a long debate about that (finally archive locked as futile until NPOV concept clarified)" A. Proofreader archived that discussion over the protests of other editors...he just declared it as futile. B There is no need for "NPOV concept clarified". WP:COMPETENCE C. By virtue of WP:HEAR the issue is portrayed as not resolved. 5. But this is all moot, and it was clearly pointed out to Proofreader77, with him never responding. Bigtime WP:HEAR. Reference http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html A. Polanski says he understood that if she appeared to be older and he believed her to be 18 or above, that it would be a legal defense to the charge. B. He answer's "She was 13" when asked how old he believed her to be. C. When asked if he understood her to be 13 an the day of the crime, he says Yes, this is all under oath. And you can see it clearly done consulting with his lawyers. IE it false for Proofreader to try to show the defense position of Polanski, when his lawyers are right there in 1977 with the judge. D. Confronted with the facts that she was 13 and Polanski knew it, and never used that she looked older, or that there is any record of Polanski saying this.....given all that...Proofreader77 opens up a NPOV Dispute. When challenged for what this NPOVD was, he simply never says. NPOV is not a complex topic that only a few editors grasp. 6. The documentary through the power of film creates strong false impressions, which become repeated in Reliable Sources. Specifically the Plea Bargain never had promises of time in jail or any other things. See the bottom of the link above and then the next pages. A. The terms of the plea are stated, in the only place that counts...Open Court. B. Polanski under oath says he understands that no other promises are made. C. Polanski lawyer, states under oath there are no other promises made in the Plea Deal. D. A few pages prior, Polanski under oath state he understand its the Judge who will decide his sentence. E. The entire concept of reneging on the Plea Bargain by the Judge is false. The Judge indicated with all counsel present what he was leaning towards, but those remarks in chambers are not binding on anyone. Its also commonplace for a judge to lean on lawyers in chambers to get things moving. Nevertheless the Movie make Reliable Sources believe a Plea Bargain was going to be reneged. F. The entire crux of the documentary is the Judge reneged on the deal. However the documentary can not even read the actual court documents to define the plea bargain. The documentary actively does not communicate the best information. Seriously the director does not show the facts of the plea deal, which is a simple court record. 7. Proofreader77 is using the NPOV "storyline" to create out of thin air, a defense of Polanski, where the historical record of that defense does not exist. He states the NPOVD is the "general" contention the Polanski viewpoint/defense is not reflected. Yet Polanski offered no defense in actuality, he plead guilty to the charge. The other charges were to be dropped...and WP does not at all give the 5 other charges too much weight. 8. Going forward, the most critical thing will be the continuous [WP:HEAR] issues, particularly not responding to being asked questions. And most importantly the offering of the Documentary as a Reliable Source. The documentary is a highly biased work of art. It concludes that in chambers arguments are binding. They are not. It has a newspaper reporter talking about the laws for Judges, but does not show any lawyers making the same assertions. It has Polanski's lawyers saying the plea bargain was reneged upon. It was not. Polanski's lawyers want to suggest that the in chambers talks, were out of line, but at the same time wants them to be binding to have modified the plea deal. The photograph was published in the Santa Monica paper, it was going to get to the judges eyes. I can go on.

Summary: Proofreader does not answer questions to him. He has chronic and perhaps incurable [WP:HEAR] issues. He is thrusting the appearance of the girl to mitigate the readers mind of the crime, he states as much. The actual records reflect that Polanski and his lawyers knew the victims age, and the exact details of the Plea Bargain. The documentary actively miss-portrays the record. He has [WP:OWN] issues, makes declarations at other editors such as "CEASE X", and uses the talk pages a plaything of this own, noting things "for the record", makes summaries of others remarks by reframing them to his own ends, archiving content, then saying the archiving evidences X.

Simplest recommendation: Ban Proofreader77 from any Polanski content, in its main and related pages. "BOKE" is a clone of Polanski. His continued justifications, and apparently thinking it just about "font choices" just shows intractable [WP:HEAR] issues.

Whether or not the circular self linking maze of highly formatted collapsing expanded Sonnet-ized commentary is allowed to surface again is not my choice...but enough of this for Polanski.

Sorry for the extend remarks here. FWIW, getting to read the remark: "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism" made all the time spent seem worthwhile. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Response to llywrch's reply to Proofreader77)
For the sake of civility and assuming good faith on my part (which does not appear to have been raised as an issue), let us briefly, if we may, hold in abeyance the characterizations of Proofreader77's clarity and their (very serious) implications, to focus on the parts of what llywrch wrote which very well illuminate the basis of the NPOV dispute which eventually led us here.

Proofreader77's continues making content-related arguments, ignoring or not understanding Llywrch's post at 06:21, 13 November 2009

The benefit of llywrch's NPOV expertise should not be lost amidst the other matters—which we can surely get to in due course. My response was specifically to the following assertions. llywrch wrote (in response to Tombaker321) [excerpt, letter section references a-d and vertical spacing added]: "... [a] i believe I remember what Proofreader is alluding to: many years ago, in either Time or Newsweek, Polanski was quoted as saying he thought the girl in this case looked much older. (Whether or not this ever was claimed in court is another point.) [b] If I am right, then there is a case for saying there is a NPOV dispute here; [c] if a source can be found for Polanski actually saying this, may I assume you would agree that this should be included? [d] Second, & perhaps more important, a reliable & verifiable source must be provided for including alternative points of view, especially when the matter is controversial -- as in this case. ..." Quickly, in the context of [a-d]: Quotations with source links re victim looked older “ The explanation comes quickly. It needs no more than a single paragraph. On 11 March 1977, Polanski was arrested in the lobby of the Beverly Wilshire hotel by Detective Philip Vannatter (a cop who would figure in the OJ Simpson case). The Polish film director was charged as follows: giving Quaaludes to a minor; child molestation; unlawful sexual intercourse with that minor; rape by use of drugs; oral copulation; sodomy. The girl was 13, though Polanski would say that she looked older. (Guardian.co.uk) ” “ G: She was thirteen years old. P: She was about to turn fourteen. Three weeks later to be exact. G: That's no excuse. P: If you had seen her, you would have thought she was at least 18 years old. ” (Polanski interview with Franz-Olivier Giesbert) Roman Polanski: Interviews, p 110, By Roman Polanski, Paul Cronin “ Sergeant Vanatter stated, "I have no doubt the events happened." He described the defendant as "extremely hyperactive." He described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting only as if she were 13 or 14 years old and, "not really knowledgeable."Probation Officer's Report, page 20 lines 26-29 to page 21 line 1 ” “ The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the victim was a well-developed young girl who looked older than her years ... ” From Judge Rittenband's summary [of probation report in open court reported in secondary source - The Spokesman-Review, 9/20/1977 [Note several articles written due to AP coverage. L.A. Times not used here to illustrate due to paid archive status] Returning to [c] - The question posed by llywrch to Tombaker321 was: ""if a source can be found for Polanski actually saying this, may I assume you would agree that this should be included? While Tombaker321's answer to that question is posited as peripheral to the serious matter of Proofreader77's communication competence, civility suggests a brief pause in the proceedings for the response to that question is not unreasonable. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The sound all of you just heard was my head hitting the desk hard. Hard. (Yes, it hurt -- almost as much as my brain after reading the slabs of text I have collapsed.)

Tombaker321: I was worried that you would respond to the content examples, not to what I was illustrating. Although I believe it can be can argue that there are other explanations for what Polanski did, for it to be credible one must provide sources. If these were provided, & they haven't been discussed to death before this, then the NPOV dispute tag is legitimate; if they aren't provided, then there is no credible NPOV dispute. Whether they end up in the article is a matter for the Talk page -- not here.

Proofreader777: I have been assuming good faith on your behalf. In truckloads. My initial observation was that you did have understandable grounds for placing the NPOV tag. But my latest observation is that you have a problem communicating and you need to fix it.

Until you do, I propose the following restrictions, modified on what Hans Adler proposed above:

• Proofreader77 is not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to enforce) and is not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.
• If Proofreader77 exceeds that limit, any editor is encouraged to use {{collapse}} or related templates to redact this.
• Admins are instructed to modify or remove the tags & templates of any post Proofreader77 makes, specifically those relating to color, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page.
• If these restrictions encounters resistance from Proofreader77 (e.g., edit reverts), enforcement may include blocks of increasing length.
• If Proofreader77 seeks and successfully obtains mentorship for help with his idiosyncratic style, & makes clear progress improving her/his communications skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of involved editors.

Any objections? If none are forthcoming, they should be enforced immediately. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Objection: Administrator llywrch raised the content issue, directed a question to Tombakder321 to clarify the NPOV dispute. NOTE: I will be preparing documentation of improprieties of this ANI topic (inappropriately initiated without first discussing matters on Proofreader77's (my) talkpage. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox again

In a recent discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Likebox and tendentious_re-insertion of original research) User:Likebox was placed under permanent sanctions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Results. Specifically,

If User:Likebox makes any edits deemed to be tendentious, point of view pushing, addition of original research, or disruptive by an uninvolved administrator, Likebox may be blocked. After three incidents the block length may increase to one year.

Since then he has continued to act disruptively in exactly the same manner, on the same topics. He has pushed the failed WP:ESCA guideline, hoping to permit via the back-door the exact kind of OR that got him sanctioned in the first place. In addition, he insists that the failed ESCA guideline/essay contain wording that directly contradicts policy, and edit-wars to keep that material in. As an example, note the following paragraph:

When editing or creating an article of any type, editors are expected to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies. Original research is not allowed, anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and all articles must be written from a neutral point of view.

One would think that this is a simple and uncontroversial statement of basic policy, but User:Likebox cannot abide it, since it contradicts his own preference to be allowed to introduce OR. Thus he has reverted it out of the failed guideline/essay 3 times[27][28][29] in just over four hours. I noted on his talk page that I considered his behavior in violation of his restriction, and requested he revert himself or I would request administrative action. He rejected my statements, removed my post from his talk page, and told me not to post messages to him any more (as far as I know that was my first and only post on his User talk: page). I'd appreciate it if uninvolved admins could discuss this issue. I'd also appreciate it if his fellow ESCA creators User:Count Iblis, User:Michael C Price, and recently blocked User:Brews ohare could stay out of the discussion, since I'm looking specifically for the views of outside admins, rather than entirely predictable support from like-minded collaborators. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was one of Likebox's principal opponents in the discussion that resulted in his sanction, and I inveighed against the OR-enabling aspects of the now-rejected ESCA guideline proposal on the ESCA talkpage and elsewhere, so I'm certainly not a like-minded collaborator of Likebox. So I hope Jayjg doesn't mind if I weigh in.

As I see it, Likebox's sanction was intended to stop him from disrupting articles and from wearing out article editors on article talkpages. While edit warring anywhere is never good, I don't think this incident with the ESCA page rises to the type of disruption he was sanctioned for, now that ESCA is an essay.

WP:ESSAYS states "[e]ssays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." The ESCA essay in particular sets forth the opinion of Likebox and its other authors (Michael C. Price and so forth). While "[e]ssays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace", editors fundamentally disagreeing with the opinions in an essay usually shouldn't change the essay to substitute their own opinion. They should instead write a contrasting essay, or discuss the issue on the essay's talk page; or if they think that the essay contradicts policy so much that its existence in project space is problematic, they should propose deletion or userfication at MFD.

People participating in a revert battle about the contents of an opinion page basically get WP:TROUT from me (and more TROUT for making drama bringing it here to ANI). Likebox is entitled to his opinion even if it's an unwise opinion that contradicts policy. As long as he's not disrupting article editing, if he wants to write essays til hell freezes over, I don't have a problem with that. We don't POV-fork articles, but POV-forking essays (or ignoring them) is a longstanding practice, so warring over essays and bringing down heavy sanctions over them is not that helpful. Less drama please!

I do agree with Jayjg that Likebox's version of the essay is better suited for user space than project space, so maybe the next step is to propose userfication. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a lot of drama over an essay; essays are specifically designed to represent minority viewpoints. I suggest that Jayjg just calm down and allow the essay to evolve. The essay is not Likebox's essay (and neither am I the essay's creator), it represents the views of a number of editors. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked Likebox for one week - given the sanctions detailed above, and their previous history of edit-warring, I don't regard the fact that this isn't occurring in mainspace (ie on an article) as any mitigation. Likebox's edits have been resisted by other editors, yet they have kept reverting; a clear breach of both their sanctions and the collaborative, collegiate spirit that we are expected to adhere to. Edit-warring isn't a natural, or acceptable, part of the development of policies/guidelines/essays, any more than it would be for an article. Review welcome, as always. EyeSerene^talk 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg was clearly behaving in a similar way as Likebox as far as reverting is concerned. If we say that Jayjg's behavior is ok. then surely we cannot sanction Likebox. I think the one week block encourages more edit warring by Jayjg. As Michael said, we need to calm down here. On my talk page I proposed to SlimVirgin that I would be ok, if she would edit the essay in such a way so that in her opinion it could be an essay.

I also urge everyone to take a look at Jayjg's comments on the talk page. He clearly does not understand what the essay is about and he is reverting on the basis of his misunderstanding. E.g. as Likebox tried to explain to him there are no POV issues w.r.t., say, a topic like enthalpy. Jayjg insists of construing everything in terms of the editing disputes on politics pages he is so familar with and refuses to accept that there may exist other kinds of problems on other articles that he is unfamiliar with. The effect of this is that a revert by Jayjg is then seen to be edit warring instead of constructively contributing to the essay. Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the only people who actually "understand" the essay are you, Likebox, Brews ohare, and Michael C. Price - the people who authored it, and zealously revert out any contributions by other editors. The many other people who opposed it, failed it as a guideline, and resisted its spamming onto Talk: pages(see here), must all be stupid, I suppose. And the 29 people who !voted to delete the related Template here, versus you, Likebox, Michael C. Price, and Bduke who !voted to keep it, must be similarly impaired. Anyway, I specifically asked that you not comment, for precisely this reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea that there are no POV issues on articles related to apparently long settled unambiguous scientific fact is unfortunately naive. Some people do not understand the science. Some people are exploring new approaches to the science. Some people believe the "long settled unambiguous scientific fact" is simply wrong, or incomplete, or inappropriate for children under the age of 18. The policies have to apply evenly all around, even in articles where they "should not" be a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right here. What Likebox and I mean is that the typical problem on such articles is usually of a different nature. Of course, there are also controversial scientific topics, but that is not what the essay addresses. Also you can have problems with cranks etc. But we already have policies to deal with those problems. The essay does not say that other Wiki policies do not apply. I now remember Jayjg saying to me that: "If the essay is not about editing disputes then what problem does this essay address?". And that right after I explained that in detail.

Anyway, when Likebox was put under restriction, I actually argued in favor of a 1RR restriction for Likebox, instead of the vaguely worded probation. Because now if Likebox acts in good faith and Jayjg is edit warring, Jayjg can come here, misrepresent the facts, point to Likbox's probation and bring in other irrelevant arguments so that it looks like Likebox is the bad guy yet again. In theory 1 RR could still mean that you can disruptively revert once per day, but I think in practice a sensible editor would see that this is futile. Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the people currently edit-warring over the failed proposal appear to be Michael C Price and you.[30][31][32][33] Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I only edited ESCA once today. I try to stick to 1 RR too. I gave a detailed explanation of my action on te talk page. I invited my opponents to make edits that explain in detail potential problems with the given points and how one can deal with that.

You also asked that I don't comment, but that is a non-starter at AN/I. You can, of course, request that others besides me, Likebox etc., take a look and comment. You want others to take an independent look that is not coloured by our POV. That's perfectly understandable. Now some others who we all know were not big supporters of the essay have already commented here, particularly the Anon who has complained several times about Likebox and Hans Adler. Then, having got those comments, you choose to reply to me instead of to them. I find that very strange. Count Iblis (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment here because it's a bit hard to get an overview of the situation. But now it appears that everybody else felt the same. I must say that what Count Iblis says seems to make a lot of sense. Among the editors working in a specific scientific field there tends to be a general consensus about things that may not be at all obvious to editors from outside that field. E.g. in WikiProject Mathematics, most questions that come up are resolved unanimously with regard to what is best for Wikipedia and its mathematics articles, and with little regard for what the policies say. That's the ideal state. If it worked like that everywhere, we wouldn't need policies.

Sometimes editors who are not experts in a certain science edit in that field anyway. Some are confrontational, and so it becomes necessary to follow standard wiki procedures. But some are editing in order to learn something about the subject, and are happy to learn from the experts: details of the subject itself, but also how people practising the subject approach their field and hence also Wikipedia. It may not be necessary, but I don't think it's totally wrong to write an essay for this situation that explains the scientific method as applied to Wikipedia. Hans Adler 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone trying to use Wikipedia as a dating service

NOT YET RESOLVED

Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea. I wonder if there's a good way to limit it by location, gender, and orientation? It wouldn't help me to succeed in getting a date with a straight guy from Guam. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the all caps, but I thought someone should note that it was Chaser's page that was turned into an attack page by Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111 at 70.'s user page. In the circumstances, might it not be appropriate to oversight the edits of the now-blocked user? Bielle (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Might help Jimmy with his revenue problem. Irvine22 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Forbidden (palhost)

This user is displaying admin icons on their user and user talk pages. They have blanked my advice to remove the icons. I'm leaving notice of this post on their talk. Thanks Tiderolls 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked; obvious vandalism-only account. --Golbez (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: it looks like this is the same user as 70.121.37.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of the preceding section. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Also blocked (48 hours). Probably the usual 13-year-old boy with too much time on his hands. Shame, because I wouldn't mind the blow-job he's offered twice [34] [35] but I don't want one enough to commit a felony. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not even funny. Consider a refactor, please. Durova³⁶² 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gross. Lara 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

...Redvers, that's warped, chummer. Refactor it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Drip by drip, this place gets less and less enjoyable and more and more politically correct every day. ➜❝Redvers❞ 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, consider it another instance where you shouldn't feed the trolls. -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential suicide threat

Resolved

 – User has made these threats before, and been posted here RBI--SKATER ^Speak. 04:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported at WP:SPI that Eggbaguette (talk · contribs) has made a potential suicide threat in the Sandbox. See this diff. Other editors have expressed concern on the user's talk page. I am reporting this here per WP:SUICIDE. Tckma (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when has these recurring joke "suicide" messages on Wikipedia become "plea for help" messages? They should be like any other dubious claim made on Wikipedia: delete them unless they come with a proper citation such as a medical opinion about the state of mind of the poster, or a death certificate (and even with proper citations, delete them as non-notable). Meowy 15:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is the same user who made a potential suicide threat in the sandbox on 8 Nov (see WP:ANI#Suicide threat (first)). The exact same wording was used - I would not count it as credible. Suitable advice was given on the user's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Marking as closed, he's made these threats before and I seriously doubt he's gonna do it.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if he/she's playing a prank; however suicide threats should never be given the cavalier treatment as the person who is threatening to kill him/herself is somebody's child, sibling, parent, or friend, and they could be serious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's the same wording because it's the same diff/revision ID. (I searched ANI for "suicide" to make sure I wasn't making a duplicate report, guess I fat-fingered it or Firefox is being wonky with text searches.) Tckma (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though at the end of the day the threat is most likely a prank, etc., I see absolutely nothing wrong with a standard practice of running a Checkuser inquiry and contacting the local authorities. It is perfectly consistent with Checkuser policy, which allows an inquiry to be made "where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public" - in this case, the safety of the person making the threat. And local authorities have repeatedly said they do not consider it a waste of time if we contact them regarding a threat. Either the threat turned out to be something real (either a an actual threat or a cry for help) - in which case contacting the authorities is the right thing to do. Or it turns out to be a prank, in which case the local authorities would still be interested, as they take these type of pranks seriously - in which case contacting the authorities is still the right thing to do (and will hopefully prevent that user who is making the prank from doing it again).

At the end of the day, as per WP:SUICIDE, we should take ALL threats seriously, and leave it for local authorities to make a final judgement call, not us - no matter whether we think the threat is real or an obvious prank. Singularity42 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The content of all these so-called "suicide threat" messages should be ignored, and they should be removed as off-topic as soon as they are noticed. Meowy 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your callous nature is somewhat disturbing. All suicide notes? I know at least one person who has previously made the attempt. Repeated threats are not a joke, they are often indicative of a longterm state of mind problem. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed? Yes. Ignored? No. GiantSnowman 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And like I said on the other thread, the essay WP:SUICIDE implores you to take such threats seriously. It does not describe a standard practice to use checkuser tools nor does it require editors to respond in a particular way. If you feel that any threat is a credible threat, then you may respond accordingly. Obviously you need to find an equally credulous checkuser to report IP information to what we presume are local authorities, but you are allowed to do that. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SUICIDE policy should have two options: a) Do Nothing - don't revert, don't block, just ignore it b) Do Something - contact local authorities, talk to user. This would allow repeat suicide message posters to be blocked / banned. 87.114.7.38 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for more eyes on a volatile situation regarding The Troubles

Recently, User:Elonka placed User:Domer48 on probation with regards to the Troubles Arbitration Case. Domer has stated that he will not accept Elonka's actions (aided and abetted by at least one other user in the area, Vintagekits) and intends to continue editing like nothing happened. I urged him to bring this to ANI or AE rather then do this, but it's his decision, and thus forces my bringing this here myself.

Now the reason that I bring this here, instead of an ArbCom clarification, is two reasons, time wise. A) The sanction is only for 90 days, and by the time ArbCom can clarify if Elonka can place Domer under the probation, a good chunk of the probation will have already expired, and B) This has the chance to devolve very quickly. If Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and gets blocked, well, we have excessive drama.. and if Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and doesn't get blocked.. well we have excessive drama from the other side.

My personal opinion is that Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator. any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. (per the terms of the Troubles ArbCom). I do consider it valid (and note that Elonka did apply it to one of the other frequent targets in this area, from the other PoV, so it looks like she's not favoring one side or another), but again, this is my opinion, and Domer has decided to ignore my note as well..

Pre-emptive edit: For VK's continued hostility in the same discussion User talk:Domer48#Probation, I have blocked him 48 hours. I leave it open to review, but VK's taking a volatile situation and trying to see if he can light it on fire. SirFozzie (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

VK is getting blocked so often these days he hardly has time to update his little counter! [36]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely its about time an indef block was considered for VK? His incivilities are too frequent, despite being warned/blocked about it so many times. He is obviously never going to learn. Jeni ^(talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

His user page states he is retired, & he's been blocked three times since he claims it took effect. As an uninvolved Admin (his name is familiar, but I don't remember having any interaction with him), I second Jeni's suggestion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd note that both Domer and Mooretwin, aware of the 1RR on the article, simply made sure their reverts were spaced at least 24 hours apart, and continued to edit war with each other [37]. Which is exactly what the ArbCom remedies were supposed to prevent. If editors game the system to evade general restrictions, there is little option but to add specific restrictions. When you consider how many fronts this same sort of problem editing is occurring on from some of the same editors, I can't really see any other option. Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator, therefore I see no basis to discount her probationary measure. I'd also note that this pattern is depressingly familiar. Every single time an uninvolved admin makes a sanction on one of them, the same invested group of editors claim bias and insist that admin is involved. It happened to me (Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)), to Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)... Either the entire admin corps is involved in a grand Anti-Irish conspiracy or else we have to begin to see this tactic for what it is. Rockpocket 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer to persistent edit-warring in this area: Troubles topic bans. It has worked in other areas, I am already considering proposing this for the endless British Isles naming dispute edit-warring, and I see no reason why it would not work here either. Black Kite 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite. Note that I am not uninvolved as have previously blocked Domer and have been accused of harrassing these partisans per RockPocket. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with SirFozzie, Rockpocket and Black Kite. Elonka is perfectly neutral in this and has made a good-faith effort to enforce our norms. In a scenario that has become depressingly familiar, she has been greeted with abuse and accusations of bias. I'm afraid 'partisans' is the right term per Toddst. Sad. --John (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, agree. I've not looked at the specific case, but a general topic ban would seem to be a reasonable approach to the problems indicated by the block logs of Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some other regular participants in these disputes. Such a ban would need to be community-imposed, though, as the case remedies do not allow for it.  Sandstein  21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree that it's high time action was taken against a number of editors who've learned to get around the current restrictions. Elonka's 90-day 1RR per week probation on Domer is a start. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for Troubles topic bans, starting here and now with Domer48 and Mooretwin, and hopefully ending there too. Not only are they perennial edit-warriors, they often seem to bring out the worst in other editors. The Socratic method may be fine for teaching face-to-face, but it really doesn't work so well on Wikipedia talk pages and especially not when Socrates is selectively deaf. Both of these editors have not hearing things down to a fine art.

The only concern I'd have with a broad topic ban is that the boundaries of the Troubles could conceivably be stretched to cover most Irish topics in the last two centuries or so along with no end of foreign ones. Dedicated edit-warriors could even find things in the realms of myth, pre-history and archaeology that need the Truth adding to them, just as they can in EE or A-A topics. I'm not sure what the answer would be here except that it would not be defining the topic narrowly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind backing up your allegations against me, specifically that I do not hear? Domer48 is a problem editor who is unwilling to collaborate with other editors. I have often been the only editor to have the patience to confront him. Yet because I am the only one doing this, I get punished - but if several editors confront him, then that is OK. There are several articles on Wikipedia where I have been faced with the choice either of leaving an article under Domer's ownership or reverting him. The former choice is not in the interests of the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that it is convenient to tar me with the same brush as Domer so that admins can say they are "treating both sides equally". I resent the implication that I am on anyone's "side". I am merely opposed to articles being written from a particular POV. The elephant in the room here is that there is a group of Irish-nationalist-inclined editors who have, over time, succeeded in inserting nationalist POV into Ireland-related articles. It is a logical fallacy to argue that someone seeking to redress this must be pushing the opposite POV. Mooretwin (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit unfair on Mooretwin. I have problems with his editing as he is aware, specifically the slow edit warring. But in talk page discussions Mooretwin is civil despite provocation, contributes constructively and is willing to compromise. Domer, as noted by several other editors in the past, is almost impossible to work with. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Vintagekits has asked for an unblock, would a completely uninvolved administrator (if there's any left) review his edits on Domer's page and review his unblock request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not just ban him, per this edit summary. This user celebrates his disruption and we are feeding him. I am tired of the abuse the AGF receives here. We try to be nice, form a community, and provide for dispute resolution and then we let users like this abuse the system and our good will. I propose a community pan on Vintagekits and then we can move on with our live.--Adam in MO Talk 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed his unblock request, and declined it. Since he referred to the blocking admin's logic as "retarded" I think it's safe to say unblocking would be a mistake. I've never come across this user before, but I'm astounded that they have been blocked 31 times. It may indeed be time for a indef block/ban, but for now I am simply declining to undo the current block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: He is now simultaneously saying he is once again retired, and asking to be unblocked again, based on some hair-splitting about what exactly is a personal attack. He's also refactoring the conversation on his page to remove references to this thread and explanations of why he was blocked. I'm done, good luck finding another uninvolved admin to look at this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't as done as I said I was because I still had his page watchlisted. After yet another declined unblock, I have revoked his talk page access for the remainder of the current block. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Block Vintagekits indefinitely

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

Enough is enough, this user is never going to behave civilly. Usually at any hint of an indef block, he goes into retirement, then comes back as soon as the coast is clear, so lets have this discussion regardless. Someone above (as well as myself) proposed an indefinite block, so lets gauge peoples opinions.

• Support block this has gone on long enough. Jeni ^(talk) 01:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - That block log is ridiculous. How did he survive this long? Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He was indeffed a couple times in the past, and it was tried to keep him in areas where he can edit productively. Also, a few folks decided that any indef block would be quickly socked around, as he did previously (look at the Troubles ArbCom for details of the 15-20 socks he ran through when indeffed last time).. so at least they could keep an eye on him under the VK account. SirFozzie (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, how do you know he isn't socking even now? HalfShadow (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I did not know about the 15-20 socks, now I am sure I don't want him around. Chillum 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

VK, In response to the e-mail you just sent me I am not supporting your indef block because you used 15-20 socks in the past. I am supporting it because you are still abusing our trust even after all of this time. You will note I supported your block before I even knew about your past sock puppetry. This is not about your past, it is about an ongoing pattern of disruption that has no end in sight. Chillum 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

VK Please stop sending me emails. I don't need to hear about how much I disgust you. Chillum 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Fear of socking is not a reason to keep unblocked. Otherwise, let's unblock User:General Tojo. Wknight94 ^talk 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he is socking now! I'd be very surprised if he wasn't! Jeni ^(talk) 01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To Halfshadow: If the Checkuser policy allowed preemptive checkusers, he would be one that I would request to be periodically monitored (especially since his socks multi-voted in an ArbCom election, for example).. unfortunately (or fortunately), the policy prohibits that type of activity, and I haven't seen anything in my return to the area that would make me think he was, so I have to assume that he's not, per AGF. And to the folks wondering how VK's lasted this long, I say this. He's been Houdini in his abilities to come back time and time again. By the way, I ask whatever administrator who will be lucky (unlucky?) enough to handle this.. please do not rush to judgement or close it early/snow, etcetera. Let's do this by the book, and not give any loopholes for folks to claim a rush to judgment or settling of scores, for example. If we're going to do it, do it properly. SirFozzie (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be allowed to run its course. We should do this right and not stop the discussion before the Earth has even spun once. Chillum 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - enough is enough. Rockpocket 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not a net benefit to the project. --John (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support 'Useful' to Wikipedia or not, when it gets to the point that he's literally taunting people about his block log, he's had far too much leeway. HalfShadow (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support He's long since used up any leeway his constructive editing gave him. Time for him to take an extended break from the project. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Patience exhausted, how long has this been going on? Chillum 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support His block log is massive and the numerous unblocks per ANI discussions shows the community has tried numerous times to give him a second chance and he's failed miserably.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support This editor's inability to play nicely and get along with others has been a frequently recurring theme here - he is most certainly not a net benefit to the project. 31 blocks clearly exhausts any inclination to give benefit of the doubt. Icing on the cake is the clear pride he seems to have in his block log, as demonstrated on his user page. Clearly has not learned from the past (other than how to game the system), ban long overdue. --Xdamr^talk 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Like most here, I have had my share of run ins with Vintagekits in the past, but when it was discussed 18 months ago whether or not to remove his permanent ban he sent me a very polite email faithfully promising to change his behaviour and only edit sporting articles in a calm manner. On the strength of this I supported his return to editing. As the saying goes, fool me once . . --Jackyd101 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support with regrets. 15 or more socks and a history of indefinite blocks, as indicated above, is sufficient grounds, unfortunately. (They were at least matching socks, weren't they? I'm hoping it was an even number of socks too.) John Carter (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Vintagekits and Domer48 have both had multiple "last" chances. Time to end this waste of effort. Support indef'ing both. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per this diff. Anyone who can say that after 30-odd blocks has no interest in staying around.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  Make that strong support, as I just received email informing me he was not at all surprised to see me "join the sharks".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  This is why I only use my email address for identification purposes. HalfShadow 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support ensuring his "retirement" is permanent. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose reopen While I understand the sentiment, I oppose the close, it's more wasted time. See my talk page for more. Block is already done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to close this period. Just let it fade away with the countless other ANI threads. Chillum 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm absolutely torn on this one. My logical brain wants to support a ban, but I also know that when VK is good and puts his head down and works on boxing articles diligently, he can do well and is a great benefit to the project. I've known him for years and years on here now & on a personal note, don't want him to reach the end of the road. He's got a foul mouth and a wicked temper betimes and I've blocked him myself enough times (once leading to one of the biggest ArbCom cases evar!) but I know I don't want to see him go. *sigh* - this is a worthless non-ban rationale, I'm sure, but I really need to say it. As it is, the ban is pretty-much unanimous :( - Alison ^❤ 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alison, in all due respect, come on. Just how many last chances does he get? He's been given more than one. Time to stop wasting everyone's time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I know. I'm just making a last stand here because I like the guy and because we've all been through the mill for years on here. I used to be his mentor at one time. I've been shouted and cursed at and accused of all sorts of bias, etc, but I'm still sorry to see him go. He's got a really good side when he keeps away from his hot-button articles (all Troubles ones, for example). He's not getting out of this one - I know this - but I just want to put in my word so he doesn't go down in flames as an unmitigated bad-lad, because he's not, y'know? - Alison ^❤ 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm another former-mentor of his. We don't particularly dislike him as a person, per se ... just not as an editor of Wikipedia. (Considering the fact that he's sending emails to at least three people blaming all and sundry for his block at the time frame it is across the pond, I would believe that VK is once again editing under the influence).. *sighs*. It's a necessary action, however. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When two of his mentors admit he's finally done himself in, it should be obvious to all that he's bit the hand once too many times. Admit it folks, it's over for VK. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(←)Wouldn't re-establish some sort of edit limitation for articles discussing The Troubles be more sensitive? I'm not familiar with his work or behavior in those articles, but when it comes to boxing his work has been first-class. Without him, the boxing project will lose one of a handful full-time users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's been tried and failed, several times. Take a look at his block log and other edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef of Vintagekits, who is an obvious detriment to Wikipedia; enough of nasty edits like this. I also support Elonka's topic ban of Domer48, if not a full indef of Domer48. Dreadstar ☥ 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Enough was enough 25 blocks ago.--Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support since there are apparently calls for more nails in this coffin. He's sent me several emails loudly proclaiming his innocence in all this and blaming everything on "British sympathizing editors" which is something I don't believe I've ever been accused of before, being half Irish myself. Honestly, after 31 blocks what are the chances he'll suddenly stop being disruptive when he denies he's ever been disruptive in the first place? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I oppose the indefinite ban. reading this it seems that a lot of people are putting personal feelings of dislike in to this. VK is a good editor with a long record on the site. people will get into heading arguements about stuff they are passion it about. A lot of editors are overly sensitive and power hungry imoMbr1983 (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• A similar section to this should be opened up for Domer48 - I could've/would've done it myself, but I'd rather someone else (who's more familiar with the troubles on "the Troubles") decide on exactly how they want to frame the sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I oppose the indefinite ban. I get the feeling there is a bit of a witch hunt going on by people VK has rubbed up the wrong way with a number of bad faith comments. As for the socking I wonder how many of them are actually him as I have been accused of being a sock of his before. The main area where I come into contact with VK is on boxing articles in which he is both a knowledgable and useful editor. As a Brit of Irish extraction I understand that issues relating to the troubles can be highly emmotive and I think issues arising from such topics should be dealt with by topic restrictions rather than outright bans. --LiamE (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not bad faith comments, its persistent and unrepentent personal attacks, both on and off wikipedia. I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate getting foul-mouthed, abusive, threatening emails. Would you like me to forward some of Vk's correspondance to you? How would a topic ban address this? As for the socking, there is no need to wonder, they were all confirmed by checkuser. Finally, why don't you check how many of his last 5 blocks would have been prevented by such a topic restriction? So do you have another solution that would actually address the issue? If not, why oppose a solution that clearly will. Rockpocket 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think many of the comments above particularly with regards to people being sure he is currently socking look like expressions of bad faith to me. --LiamE (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here with a question of procedure as well as a couple of opinions worth a twopence. My apologies if I'm intruding.

Is this case an example of WP:BAN, section 2, bullet points 2 and/or 3? If so it would seem that VK's user and talk pages ought to have the template of ((banned)) instead of just ((indefblocked)), plus a listing on WP:list_of_banned_users. It's my opinion that an official ban would most succinctly summarize the near unanimous consensus here.

Additionally, IMHO, such a long history of misconduct and sockpuppetry would warrant action per WP:ABUSE. Has anyone considered this? WP:ABUSE would seem to be an effective way of dealing with this, particularly after what appears to be rampant usage of sockpuppetry to evade blocks. Also, ditto on the above paragraph wrt. the sockpuppet template.

Anyway, there's my two cents on the matter, just from watching the debris. Again, apologies if my response here is considered intrusive. I just saw the whole thing blow up and got curious.Shentino (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban as thoroughly uninvolved. Fellows behavior on my review is borderline sociopathic over a period of years, exactly the sort of person that drives editors away from the project who are more willing to play be the rules. Don't need to see any emails, long history of appaling behavior here was quite enough.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support from uninvolved. The latest outburst a few days ago, their laundry-list of blocks, and having a 'retired' note up on their page while continuing to edit all seem to point to a seriously dysfunctional personality. The 'uhh they might sock if we ban them' point is a nonissue: thats like saying 'well we better not fire Bob because he has a gun and might come shoot the place up'. Regardless of positive contributions in the past / ongoing, if a brand new editor walked in the door and displayed the fits of temper that Vintagekits have displayed over trivial trivial trivial things (a boxer's nickname?) we'd have shown them the door long before. Syrthiss (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose shenanigans. I don't personally have much of a concept of the Troubles conflicts, but I must protest at the timing and the impatience here. Just over an hour after a ban was proposed, Rlevse banned Vintagekits indefinitely. [38] Seven hours later, a ban template went up on Vintagekits' talkpage. [39] Editors in most timezones had no chance to weigh in on the ban at all. Come on, do we need to have a formal ANI rule that a minimum of 24 hours have to pass before a ban or block discussion is closed and implemented? Or can we go by common sense here, please? Bishonen | talk 13:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

I am going to stick my head over the parapet now and say what I strongly suspect. Looking at the voting patern I suspect canvassing has been going on. Far too many votes in a short period and all of a like mind, and I hazard a guess all with prior with VK. After that point voting appears to be what one would normally expect in such a discussion. Now dont get me wrong those editors are entitled to their opinions on VK but canvassing on a ban discussion and trying to rush it through in the early hours is just not on. I propose that all votes made up to the point of Rlevse premature attempt at discussion closure be discounted and those editors take a step back from this for 24 hours whether or not they were themselves involved in canvassing. Now I know VK does himself no favours with continued breaches of WP:Civil but it seems to me that some people are now actually trying to read WP:Civil breaches as personal attacks in some cases an an attempt to make a minor incident taht could be difused with good humour into a bannable offense. Now I know this is going to go down like a lead balloon and tehre will be claims that no canvassing went on and proof will be asked for which i obviously cant provide but as it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I will call it a duck, proof or not. --LiamE (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No canvassing here -- I have Domer's talk page watchlisted, so I saw VK's "stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac", followed after a bit by Fozzie's comment that he had brought it up on ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassed or otherwise contacted about this, by anybody. Have never had any on or offline contact about this -- with anybody. Have AN/I watchlisted. Aside from starting the article on John Ging I don't think i've edited any ireland related article at all. For what it's worth, I'm an Irish American and am generally sympathetic to the Irish side of the troubles. My opinion is solely about behavior.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done for taking that quote out of context and turning a WP:Civil breach into what looks like a WP:NPA brach to prove my above point. --LiamE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Looks like"? You don't get to make personal attacks by claiming "oh, what he really meant to say was...".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In its original context the quote you gave above is certainly not a personal attack to my mind. Its not something I would write as it could so easily be taken out of context as you have proven, but there it is. If I were to write "You are an idiot if you think the world is flat" that would probably be a breach of WP:civil but it isnt a personal attack, if however you then just quote me as saying "You are an idiot" it would then look like a personal attack. You should be very careful about taking a quote out of context as you did above to suit your own ends. Yes it looks very bad out of context and it doesnt look great IN context but it does look better, it must be said. In context it doesnt read as a direct personnal attack to me.--LiamE (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I suppose it comes down to how Elonka read it -- was it a gratuitous personal attack coatracking on Domer's comment, or a humorous explanation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka clarified on her talk that she did consider this a personal attack, as the actual meaning of Domer's expression was more like "get a grip on yourself".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• How on earth can anybody think being told to get a grip of themself or a situation is a personal attack? and a personal attack that warrents al this fuss. This spage gets dafter by the moment.  Giano  17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody thinks that "being told to get a grip of themself" is a personal attack. Many think that being told to "stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac" is a personal attack. You know this, Giano. I, more than anyone, know how much you have invested in keeping Vk around because you believe he is a rough diamond and you know there was plenty of editors on the "other side" who were as much of a problem, if not worse. But those editors have all been banned now. And the attacks from Vk are now coming in the business of editing sporting articles, and in drive-by comments on other disputes. When we were discussing the the repeal of his last ban, I distinctly remember you saying to me (perhaps by email, or maybe even onsite) that this was the absolute last chance and that you told him yourself: next time he launches that sort of bile at someone unprovoked you would be the first to support his banning. He was not provoked in this instance, he chose to comment on something that had nothing to do with him whatsoever. You are a man of your word, so please stop these desperate attempts to deflect attention from Vk, its below you. Rockpocket 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@LiamE: This is silly. It's ANI. Most or all admins have ANI watchlisted (unless they value their sanity). That's paranoid. Wknight94 ^talk 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly it may be - but I can hear the quacking. --LiamE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Who would watchlist WP:AN/I? It would always be at the top of one's list; they just read it on a regular basis. (If anything, I suspect most or all Admins are looking for ways to minimize their presence at this venue!) -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• support ...and that's about enough of that. Tan | 39 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Indefinite block/ban Arbitrators or Community need to ammend Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles to throw out all the chaff.Support extended ban for arsehole comment Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If you're going to unban prolific sockmasters who are just as, if not far more, abusive to other editors than Vintagekits has ever been such as Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then an indef block of VK is a travesty of justice. Restrict him from commenting on disputes he's not involved in or something and keep him on a tight leash. 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs)
• Support, after consideration. Could have been handled better though. As to VK's editing, the bad outweighs the good. And that ratio has increased since he "retired". Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support- Enormous Block log, enough is enough.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

...and it's Good Morning Europe

• I am thinking long and hard about this; before coming to an opinion, I would like to see the emails he has sent you Rockpocket and Chillum and anyone else for that matter who has received one, before I make my mind up - we hear so much of his threats and abuse, I would like to see some of this "secret" emailed abuse (seeing as Rockpocket is offering to forward them). I don't doubt Rockpocket's word, but those with long memories will remember the plots and Arbcom case to get him banned a couple of years ago when the famous "death threat" email was found not to exist (as VK had protested) and the editor to who it was supposed to have been sent dissapeared off the face of the earth. One thing I have learnt from my dealings with VK is that he is as much a victim as those that fall foul of him - I do though find it rather concerning that Rlevse wanted to close the discussion and inefinate block inplace after only an hour and whilst most Europeans were in bed, is there a reason for this?  Giano  10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban; not sure if I should be voting here but no time to find out. It seems Vk has been blocked for explaining a phrase as he was asked to do! Sarah777 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. I disgree with the banning of an editor who has put a lot of time and hard work into this project when newbies are often allowed a free hand in creating havoc here. Once again, I strongly oppose the ban.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NPA is a policy that everyone on Wikipedia should be following bar none, and putting in some good work on boxing articles (including one featured article) doesn't give us a licence to abuse anyone who happens to disagree with us. If he has indeed been sending out abusive emails, this is very serious, as are his frequent accusations of bad faith against pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. Just as others have stated above, enough is enough. Bettia (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The emails Vintagekits has sent me (claiming to be the oness sent) contain no abuse, I would like to compare them with those received.  Giano  10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Badgering opposers is generally considered uncivil, whether it's on or off Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban For giving an explanation come on, this stinks and we have an email situation again, what are the emails? BigDunc 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• One of the most important issues here is that an American Arb tried to rush this through while Europe was asleep, especially as this concerns a very contravertial European editor (known to be closely associated with a very European subject) perhaps Rlevse thinks he is Hilary Clinton or Edward Kennedy - who knows?, but I do know he has behave deplorably in this unseemly haste to dispose of a popular European editor while Europe is asleep. This must NEVER happen again.  Giano  12:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Look below↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓; he was not the only European editor they were after last night. Sarah777 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:

"To RLevse: The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.

Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.

You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.! From Vintagekits

Posted here by  Giano  12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• European support for this ban, on the basis that my limited administrative interactions with Vintagekits have always involved, on his part, nationalist editwarring, or general unpleasantness, or both.  Sandstein  13:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The above editor makes a point of following my edits and disagreeing.  Giano  13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, the world doesn't always revolve around you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban (pending ArbCom Request) This is not a Macedonia/Balkans nationalist matter; it is a matter regarding English speaking cultural differences - and whereas almost all of those involved in ethnic based article editing in non English speaking related articles can quickly be determined as being on one side or another, the bias' and interests of English speaking editors relating to conflicts in respect of anything regarding Ireland need to be carefully sifted and examined before decisions are made. No permanent ban or restriction should be emplaced unless there is a full Arbitration on the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the so called "abusive" emails on which this banning rests, I agree with you entirely. Arbcom should be the court to decode if VK's alledged crimes deserve a life sentence, not a group acting under cover of darkness.  Giano  13:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The ban doesn't rest on email, the ban rests on a 31 ("and counting")-block log. There doesn't need to be an arbitration to community-ban an editor who has a history of disruption and incivility. Given the current 21-5 (or thereabouts) support for a ban, there's no need for Arbcom to resolve things.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Feel free to sift through my history looking for bias. You won't find any. And never mind e-mails. If I have to page-down and hit a "next" button to see someone's entire block log, then the e-mail issue is just a distracting sideshow. Even his mentors above can't vouch for him - that's telling. Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh come on.. seriously! I can't believe people are actually suggesting that he isn't worthy of a ban, he is one of the most disruptive editors currently on Wikipedia (if not *the* most disruptive editor). He gets chance after chance after chance, and he always ends up back here. Its just his friends now coming here to ensure he doesn't get blocked. Hopefully whoever implements the final block will see common sense and ignore his mob. Jeni ^(talk) 15:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• comment Giano's 'Good Morning Europe' header above was placed at H4 on an equal par with the indef section, which has resulted in opinions on the block continuing in both sections in parallel. I've switched it to H5 to make it clearer they are part of the same proposal, but I don't dare move the opinions into chronological order for fear of reprisals. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per my second above. I don't care if he is a controversial editor: when I look at his user page (which is what most people assume is how a user wants to present her/himself to the rest of Wikipedia), I see a "Retired" template & a count of how many times VK has been blocked. If an editor is retired, then the editor is gone. And if not gone completely, at least not hanging around Wikipedia doing things which lead to being blocked. Lastly, one thing a constructive editor learns early on at Wikipedia is to stay away from the topics which are hot-button issues -- which is why I don't edit articles on contemporary US politics. So there is no reason to tolerate him any longer. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This matter was handled very poorly handled by Elonka and others. Their refusal to get consensus is particularly troubling. This isn't the Wild West and we don't need rampaging admins engaging in unilateral enforcements in dark corners of the project. The lack of diffs is also distressing. A combination of Robocop and mob justice at work here. Hopefully the disruption it's causing will be a lesson to those acting improperly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any evidence of Vk committing vandalism on articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well this isn't about vandalism, so your oppose is invalid. Jeni ^(talk) 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)I am pretty sure that vandalism is not the reason for the proposal, so if you don't want this opinion ignored, please adress the rather more obvious issues that people have with him. As a reminder, Jeni's rationale was: Enough is enough, this user is never going to behave civilly. Usually at any hint of an indef block, he goes into retirement, then comes back as soon as the coast is clear, so lets have this discussion regardless. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, IMHO an editor who doesn't vandalize a page, shouldn't be indef banned. Thus my 'vote' is valid. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a really great idea for an official policy proposal...not MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban. This is precisely what happens when we give disruptive editors second, third, fourth, etc. chances—they become vested editors who feel entitled to continue to participate in this project despite their disruptive behaviour. For some reason we continue to forgive these editors, even when their disruption causes more effort to resolve compared to the positive work they do. The end result is still a net negative to this project! I would also dispute the suggestion that his boxing-related edits are beyond reproach. He doesn't seem to understand BLP policy well enough to stay out of trouble on boxer biographical articles (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive72#Audley Harrison, where his comments were none too civil either). During his previous ban a year ago, his Gueracuco (talk · contribs) sock made a cut&paste move (which any long-term editor ought to understand is incorrect), leading to this lovely exchange with an editor who reverted him. Vintagekits is an editor who thrives on disruption and actively seeks conflict. He is proud of his block log. Near the end of his last probation, he taunted his talkpage watchers with a countdown ("be VERY scared"), and hours after the probation ended immediately started rapidly renaming baronet articles, without prior collaborative discussion. Quite simply, he doesn't seem to understand how to work cooperatively with other people, no matter how much coaching and advice he gets. Do not be distracted by the FUD being thrown around, that this is an Anglo-Irish dispute or conspiracy. This is nothing more than a perpetually tendentious editor with whom the community has finally(?) lost all patience. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, and deal with the socks as and when they appear. Vintagekits has made some good contributions, but these just aren't worth the price of the ongoing drama. I'm sure the void left by their absence will be filled soon enough by others who can hopefully function better in a collaborative environment; in fact, I'd argue that Vintagekits' departure will improve the atmosphere and positively encourage new contributors. EyeSerene^talk 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. Given that we're still here after everything that has been tried, I have very little confidence that there is any chance that his behaviour will improve. A ban at this stage should not be a surprise. How many absolutely final no-going-back last chances has he had? Five? Ten? Fifteen? VK has a history of disruption and all prior experience has shown that he will continue to disrupt unless prevented from doing so. As I say, enough is enough. Pfainuk talk 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - he's had his last chance. Multiple times, if I read the block log correctly.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support Indef ban. Disruptive displeasant user with a serious chip on his shoulder that he's not able to take off when logging in to Wikipedia. A review of the block history indicates serious personal issues, violent in text attacks, editing whilst "under the influence" (read: pissed out of his head), random abuse, derogatory remarks through possibly stalking talk pages, POV pushing, edit warring et. al.. Bluntly not welcome. The internet is big - I suggest he takes his deep rooted personal issues elsewhere. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support a ban. I find no merit in the lurid accusations of timing and what not. I'm not pleased that some late discussions about bans have come from contents of emails (come on, how many times does this have to happen?), but there have been more than enough second chances, block reviews, topic bans, etc. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban - Easy call. AlexiusHoratius 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban - After seeing his disruptions be called into question over and over, I would support finally instituting a permanent ban. And no, I wasn't canvassed. -- Atama頭 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

24 hours later

• ... and it's the early hours of Friday the 13th here in Europe. a.k.a. The placeholder header. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• 'Comment He goes a lot of good work. Like others in the topic area, he gets into a lot of trouble. We have he unfortunate situation where it seems one side of the POV war is also consistently the losing side of the Don't Break the Rules war. What we need, far more than deciding whether or not to ban Vintagekits or anyone else, is a strong infusion of fresh editors into the topic area. I have, like Alison and Fozzie above, a certain amount of affection for this lot, and a frustration with the situation at large. I have at this point, no recommendations, no inclinations, just my thoughts and my exhaustion. This isn't worth the energy and the suspicion that I see invested by the editors above this comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Now that there is clear consensus for the indef block, is there an administrator out there willing to act on it? Jeni ^(talk) 04:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • VK is already blocked indef, so it's status quo for the moment, let's see how the discussion goes. SirFozzie (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought it had been restored to the 48 hours! No worries then! Jeni ^(talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I too thought Vk wasn't indef-blocked until the community decided. I thought he was blocked for 48hrs. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• it appears my original comment has disappeared, but I oppose continuing with an indefinite ban. for the reasons a stated previously. VK is an otherwise good editor, but things can get heated with regard to the troubles. seems harsh and unfairMbr1983 (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Your oppose hasn't gone anywhere, its still up there, so I've struck your duplicate vote. MickMacNee (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what seems unfair is that his being 'an otherwise good editor' constantly lets him back in the pool when practically anyone else anywhere would have long since been shown the door. I don't care if this guy is Jesus; fair is fair and enough is enough. HalfShadow 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Woah. Hold on. Lets just take this line of reasoning and point out exactly whats wrong with it shall we? Wikipedia is not an exercise in equity or in so called fairness where we make sure that no one "gets away" with supposedly better treatment than others. Its dreadfully ironic you've invoked Jesus here, as he had some choice words on the subject. This is not about "fairness" where we ensure that somehow, everyone gets the exact same amount of mercy, accommodation or favor. We should not recoil in horror that somewhere, someone else is getting a so called undeserved advantage over us. I have little time for such impulses, and so should you. Vintagekits is either worth keeping around (and you can make a deterrence argument, but thats not about fairness either), or he isn't. That is the only line of analysis is truly topical.--Tznkai (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

While we have eyes on this ANI thread, I wanted to bring up something else for discussion, the subject of authorizing administrator discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. These sanctions are now routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom didn't start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[40] and October-November 2009.[41] Now, I'd like to propose one more amendment, as follows (this is mostly copy/paste from other discretionary sanction cases):

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to the Troubles ArbCom case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Thoughts? --Elonka 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Wording of proposal slightly tweaked per comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Discretionary sanctions have worked well in other contentious areas. It should work fine in this one too. NW (Talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Could we drop the "or normal editorial process" part? It's a problematic (and cloudy) expression. The most recently closed case adopted a "or decorum" provision instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. I have no objection. --Elonka 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support formally now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Rockpocket 06:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A necessary tool for intractable disputes.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support we need something without any question. However we have people gaming the 1RR system by making multiple different POV changes to different parts of an article that should be reverted, but given the 1RR restriction on an article as a whole any editor taking action risks sanction. We also have editors such as Irvine22 who are regularly banned for varying periods and then simply come back and start again, but move over many articles to do with the Troubles making POV edits, interspersed with reasonable or marginal ones. Any uninvolved admin, unaware of the total pattern of edits might interpret action against such editors on a single article as disruptive. We've also seen confusion over what is or is not a good faith edit with consequent issues over if reversion is legitimate, or if the edit should be amended for a compromise. Sorry to go on a bit, but for something to really work here the "uninvolved" admins are going to have to do some detective work rather than just react to an individual article and the need for that is not clear in the above draft. --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Totally oppose - this merely extends the arbitrary powers of Admins who overwhelmingly come from one side of this "cultural" dispute. The wording is so vague it is a charter for the multitude of editors conditioned by Anglo-pov to impose their perspective even further on Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the other disputes mentioned there is a much greater likelihood that Anglosphere Admins won't be conditioned to a particular perspective. That is manifestly NOT the case in Irish v. Britain issues - across a swathe of subjects, not all "troubles-related". This is proven beyond argument, over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah-Nothing else has worked, that is why this is being proposed. If the editors involved in The Trouble would behave in an appropriate manner things like this would not get proposed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: why has this outrageous proposal that will affect dozens of Irish editors not been notified to the people it will affect? Were it not for Vk's latest flip I'd have missed this entirely. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support and proposal. The method used in WP:ARBMAC2 worked really well. Macedonia is also a hotbed of ethnic warring. Ethnic wars are one of if not wiki's biggest problems. The time for stronger measures is long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem here is the complete absence of a neutral police force. The current situation is way more preferable from a WP:NPOV than the blanket imposition of Anglo-perspective on all Irish articles. The failure to define what a "troubles-related" article is guarantees that we will end up with all Irish-related articles classed as troubles related. You folk simply aren't thinking. This will be no Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So - who will notify the Irish editors who will be victims of this regime? And when? After the deed is done? Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, given how the same group "debating" on my page ended up here so quickly (though there was no notification) can I assume that Vk wasn't the only one writing emails last night? Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose for now. Additional powers (including initial page bans rising to topic bans) are needed, but deciding them here and now is rash. Firstly, the editors involved in the problem should be given the chance to be part of the solution. As Sarah says, no one has been notified. I'm not saying there should be a vote on the content or a three month long discussion on it, as we need the situation to improve now. But at least give editors the chance to comment and make suggestions. Also, as per Snowded I see no specific solution to the slow edit warring issue. I also have issue with these sanctions being left to "uninvolved" admins. We need input from involved admins who are familiar with the editing of VK, Domer, Irvine, Mooretwin, myself or any other editor involved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We should only support extra arbitrary powers for Admins if we are convinced the net result will be good for WP:NPOV. I'd suggest we'd get a better result in the end with yourself and Domer warring than we'd get from some of the Admins seeking god-like powers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support A necessary tool for an intractable dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh...which "intractable dispute" do you refer to? The proposers don't make that at all clear? Off2 - Do you regard Kilmichael as part of the troubles that occurred 50 years later? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dislike all of the nationalistic issues that attract opposing sides and constant editing disputes. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, this is a rush job and involved editors have not received any notification, have to strongly disagree with Stu on the issue of involved admins, some are an integral part of the problem. BigDunc 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending proper and timely debate Things seem to be moving here with obscene and seemingly planned haste.  Giano  12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question - what exactly is the problem which this remedy is supposed to be addressing? We need a clear understanding and definition of what the problem is, before we can decide what the solution is. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• No surprise to see some of the usual suspects opposed here. Will Domer48 be along in a day or two to add his disapprobation to the list? Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. Support of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would wish to amend working in the area of conflict to working in the area of conflict or the attempted bullying of those that do I personally have been bullied by both sides at differents stages in my Wikicareer. Bullying is a catch all term and we should all know it when we see it. Maybe a Wikilawyer will show VK was not directly insulting Elonka; maybe Elonka is a strong enough Character or has amassed sufficient mates to brush off attempts at bullying such as this, but many others (including myself) are not in this position. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with the suggestion that any appeals of such sanctions should be handled as proposed in Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is an unacceptable "solution" given the events that are responsible for its proposal and continuing support vary in their placement by many in the timeline of history. Cloudy definitions and reactionary sympathetic (or is it systematic) endorsements abound here. Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia are all well outside the normal personal involvement of major chunks of the sysop corps. The Troubles are much "closer to home" and can't be handled in the same way. I endorse Sarah777's view in her "Totally oppose" statement. Statements from sysops such as "Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas" are inappropriate, inflammatory and unhelpful to say the very least. Sswonk (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous rationale. This is not a matter to be decided on a discretionary basis; the facts must be teased out from the rhetoric, prejudices and bias' disregarded, and only decisions made as dispassionately as is possible - with the widest consenus available - enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain this rationale in a bit more depth for someone otherwise uninvolved like myself? My understanding of this is seems to be quite a bit different. The first time I commented on anything related to troubles was a few days ago at an AE request and I noticed there were some flaws not just in some established users own understanding of the sanction scheme, but in the very nature of the sanction (which only specified blocks). Other than the problem of editors repeatedly engaging in problematic conduct in that area, what was also clear was that there was a woeful amount of input from the community (which negates the possibility of having a widest possible consensus). On that basis, I supported giving admins the discretion to let editors be subject to page or topic bans rather than outright blocks for the conduct issues in this area. Why should editors from either non-English or English speaking backgrounds be considered differently on this basic conduct issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My rationale is that this is not a matter where the discretion of an individual admin is going to be accepted by all or even a large majority of the English speaking editing community. Ever. The issues relating to anything relating to Ireland and its culture for the last 400 years is steeped in cultural, religious and political perceptions of the rights and wrongs of events within that history. Any discretionary (for which, read "unilateral") action by any admin is going to be lauded by certain interests and decried by others, depending on what "faction" is being sanctioned. The few truly independent admins will soon be reluctant to act, when their efforts will be viewed and commented upon within the microcosm of (anti)Irish nationalist sentiment. It is, regrettably, an area of such potential disharmony that only truly consensual decision making is going to provide the basis by which resolution will be of any effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that the issue here is not comparable to Armenia/Azerbaijan or other ethno-religious conflicts. First, the Troubles are thankfully over and receding into history. Second, as Less Heard van U points out, this is a controversy between Anglophone editors for whom Freud might have coined the phrase "the narcisscissm of minor difference". I think the first thing that needs to de done here is to clearly define what is meant on Wikipedia by the Troubles and articles related to the Troubles. I would suggest that the Wikipedia article on the Troubles, which dates them from (if memory serves) 1969 to 1997 would be a good place to start. I would also suggest that every article that is determined as being related to the Troubles be tagged with the handy template Rd232 came out with a wee while ago. He's full of helpful ideas that fella. So he is.Irvine22 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • • The problem is that both sides of The Troubles have proven themselves incapable of solving the problem themselves, which is why we're here again. Any admin trying to help in The Troubles is viciously attacked by the "wronged" side, so most avoid The Troubles like the plaque. So it continually descends deeper into the abyss. Since they won't solve it themselves, and this applies to both sides, those few hardy enough to venture into The Troubles are about the only hope we have. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rlevse; utterly fed up with the endless conflict in this area (generally from a very predictable set of editors). That they have taken this long to finally exhaust everyone else's patience is a credit to the tolerance of their peers, but it's long overdue that we do something to salvage this area and open it up to editors who can contribute without bringing along their baggage. To quote Antandrus's perceptive essay, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The ethnic/culture (pick your term of choice) wars are wiki's biggest long term problem. The Troubles is a prime example of that. Editors on both sides push their POV convinced that they are right due to centuries of ethnic/cultural conflict. Massive time and effort by many editors has not helped much in The Troubles. Business as usual will not help. Editors continuing the old conflict in the same old way will not help. Until editors on both sides of any of these disputes finally decide to change, nothing good will be accomplished. Until that time, stronger measures are needed to maintain an atmosphere on en wiki where editors can collaborate productively to improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly bickering at the other side and wasting other users' time and and effort in trying to solve intractable disputes because the editors on both sides of these disputes can't learn to get along and produce quality articles because they're more worried about their view not being "twisted". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose due to involved admins wording. We've already seen a grudge bearing admin issue a ban he had not authority to issue then abusively block the editor based on this non-existent ban, then he has the audacity to troll this noticeboard during this discussion. The idea that admins like that can issue draconian sanctions in future disputes on their own initiative is ridiculous. There's other involved admins who claim to be all neutral and above board and pretend to be guardians of neutrality and BLP, a laughable suggestion if ever I heard one. Would a guardian of neutrality and BLP claim someone who was in custody awaiting extradition is unemployed? Using that edit as a measuring stick, I presume Nelson Mandela was also "unemployed" for 27 years? There's too many admins who are way too involved with various editors in the underlying disputes, the idea that they have free rein to start using the knives they've been sharpening for a long time is a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of reliable sources, and mud slinging? Rockpocket 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have you? Like the reliable source already cited in the article saying he was in custody awaiting extradition when you edited it to "sling mud" at a living person? Your edit speaks for itself, as do the actions of others mentioned. I note that you haven't attempted to do the impossible and defend your edit, and neither have you made any comment about "mud slinging" in reply to the comment made by Angus, which I posted a diff to so it's unlikely you can have missed it. Funny that isn't it? While the overwhelming majority of admins are trustworthy and neutral, there are select admins involved in the dispute who have significant history with certain editors, and the idea that those admins have access to such draconian and far reaching powers that can be employed against editors they clearly don't like isn't right. It's easy to see even right now that certain editors are being singled out while others get away with blue murder, or the admins singling out certain editors are not the ones taking actions against the others when needed. Take the editor you offered to advise (an offer which was accepted) for example. After that offer, he needlessly violated WP:BLP here (for those unfamiliar with the term see ambulance chaser, and it is in fact the third time BLP was violated) on an article you have been dealing with, and what was said? And amongst Irvine22's many POV edits, there's this one yet again on an article you've been dealing with, strange how you've said so little about it isn't it?

Just in case anyone thinks that is an Irish editor moaning about admins being biased against Irish editors, think again. I'm English and play it straight down the middle, and in fact was just responsible for the sockpuppet of an Irish editor being blocked and the currently outstanding request for Arbitration Enforcement against Irish editor Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs). Certain admins, by their actions of lack of them, are unfit to be issuing these draconian sanctions against certain editors on nothing more than their own initiative, it's that simple. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm English and play it straight down the middle. That is funny. Take the advice of your comrades and "cop on to yourself." If you have a problem with my editing, you know where to go, if you have a problem with my administrative work, then moaning about it here is pointless because its an utter straw man. You know how to sleuth for diffs (when they suit your agenda, of course), so why don't you check when the last time I did any admin work in this area? Address the issue at hand, instead of slinging mud in any and every other direction. Rockpocket 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Please use dispute resolution like the rest of us and stop calling for martial law. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - provided enforcement will be enacted in the same way as other cases, specifically, at WP:AE. Dispute resolution has been tried for years, with little really effective results. Having said that, I would like this thread to remain open for at least some days, to allow the greatest range of opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Such "discretionary" decisions can have a great impact on the direction of content. An editor comes in, doesn't like the content, an edit war ensues, the editor get "removed" and the content stays the same. The "discretionary" action resulted in the appearance of consensus and everyone editing the article is happy but the underlying content issue is not resolved. The problem is people's approach to editing (entrenched positions, suspicion, etc.) but we are here to write and encyclopedia that is balanced and informative. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Too many Irish-related articles have become POV battlefields and thier quality has suffered greviously as a result. It's simply not possible to develop an article when any changes contrary to a POV are immediately deleted by ideologically motivated users. The only way to deal with this is to let Admin's have some discretion as to what is good faith editing (attempting at least to be NPOV) and what is genuibne POV pushing. Let me further add, as an Irish editor that I have nver experienced anti-Irish bias from an Admin. In fact, one of the problems in this whole area is a lack nowadays of Irish Admins on WP. Jdorney (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I wonder why JD?! If they like what you say why would they be biased against you! Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading of it is that the Admns have supported NPOV over partisanship. Users may check this if they want verification. Jdorney (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per current standard practice in other similar cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Good rationale by LHvU. This dispute is in too many people's DNA - unless we can get some admins from Mars, it's never going to have the appearance of unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 23:25, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
• Support The alternative is relying on an outdated reference to WP:Probation. If WP:AE is going to be forced to do his, we need as many tools as possible. You don't like it? Give us some community support.--Tznkai (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's probably the bottom line; if we as admins are expected to deal with this crap (and I accept that it is part of the job description), we want to know that we have the support and means to do so. I further think that some commenters are perhaps worrying far too much about the bias issue; more admin eyes on the situation will act to counter rather than reinforce bias, and we all know that no matter what happens and how much process we follow for the sake of propriety, we're still going to hear accusations of bias. It's just par for the course, but saying so doesn't make it so. Don't let's miss this opportunity because of analysis paralysis. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'll be posting a report later. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa!

It seems some ban-supporting editors here don't realise that there isn't a even a "Wiki" consensus to impose any ban. Excluding warring editors who have been in dispute with Vk the vote is 50:50 by my count. The original block was a typical Fozzie bad block (I got one once, so I know). There is no consensus for the block, never mind a ban. Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Discounting those who always come to VK's aid when he's in trouble it's about 90% in favor of a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, don't you think you've done enough damage to the reputation of Arbcom already, without adding flippancy to the rap sheet? Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You took the words out of my mouth, but no doubt he will have me oversighted for saying it.  Giano  23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The "bad block" Sarah refers to was an indefinite block when she decided she didn't like a AFD result and went undoing the merge results for year articles, endorsed by the community when I brought it up at ANI at the time link to the archived discussion , and it was only lifted when you promised that she wouldn't do anything like that. So let's not pretend like Sarah didn't quite EARN that block due to her behavior. Besides, Sarah, what Rlevse is saying is absolutely true. SirFozzie (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait... if you exclude editors that have been in dispute with VK, there isn't anyone left on WP to gather consensus from! Jeni ^(talk) 23:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Due process?

At 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) in response to a warning by Elonka on my page claiming the Kilmichael Ambush was "troubles related" I asked her to explain how. No reply. But at 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) this outrageous proposal pops up here without anyone being notified. It would, coincidentally, allow Elonka, Rock and John (all already involved in the dispute) to have unquestionable power to impose their perspective without any need to explain anything! Sarah777 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And whatever about Vk posting under the influence and letting his true feeling hang out - we got an angry graphic display of where Rock is coming from when the calm surface is scratched. Not neutral, not even close. Sarah777 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you provided links so we can all see what you are talking about. I would also be interested in seeing evidence (specifically diffs) backing your claim that these administrators support either side of this debate over the other.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bit of work there. In the meantime you could check my talkpage for a "debate" I had with Rock last night and tell me how the Kilmichael Ambush is a "troubles related" article. Anyone like to try? Sarah777 (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Yet again, there appears to be a disconnect between reality and your version of it. Nowhere during our "debate" did I claim that Kilmichael Ambush is a "troubles related" article (and if you think otherwise, a diff would be nice). Having recently edited the article, I would not be eligible to use this so-called administrative "unquestionable power" for that purpose (and, had you bothered to check before accusing, you would notice since I began editing related articles many months ago, I have not used any administrative tools for any purpose even remotely related to The Troubles). In fact, the discussion about "troubles related" articles to which you refer occurred between yourself and other editors in two different sections. I contributed to neither. But, you know, if you mention may name often enough, eventually - if only by sheer dumb luck - you may accuse me of something I actually did. Rockpocket 03:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I received a ban for unwittingly breaching 1RR on Easter Rising which it was claimed is Troubles-related, even though it happened over 50 years before the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Under this proposal you could get a block for making a comment relating to the last Ice Age if some random Admin declares it "troubles related". No explanation need be supplied. Sarah777 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That has always been the case, as I found out at Easter Rising. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that all I saw on your talk page was you gloating over an ambush that killed 17 people 90 odd years ago. I think the part of the Request for arbitration you want is the section that reads "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator." (emphasis mine). It seems to suggest that the uninvolved administrator is able to decide which articles are considered related to this topic, although the wording does provide loopholes if one chooses to see them. --Jackyd101 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If that was all you saw then I doubt your contribution here is going to be very helpful. Tends to reinforce my point about the problem with Angloshhere editors in this area. Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This and this speak for themselves. It's never a question of whether the article concerns the Troubles but only whether the dispute does. Diarmait na nGall could be a Troubles article, if edited the right (wrong) way, so too could Edward Bruce, Henry II of England, cruthin, Togail Bruidne Dá Derga or Cath Maige Tuired to name but a few. I suppose we should be grateful that the Troubles disputes on Wikipedia haven't (yet) plumbed the depths that some others have reached. But "not as bad as the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute" is not much to crow about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

All I see there is Rock edit-warring (apparently with impunity on articles that Elonka says are 1RR). But then I guess on Armenia-Azerbaijan we didn't have 95% of the Wiki editors Armenians. And 95% of the Admins policing the dispute also Armenians. Unlike Ireland which is dictated by British or American editors with a skewed view of history. As proven, again, by Rock's comments last night and Jackyd inability to see half the text. Slam-dunk. Sarah777 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking unfair comment about Rock edit warring; leaving what I believe are accurate comments about the partial reading of the exchange by Jack. And Jack, you are a wee bit confused; this part isn't about Vk and his language; this is about giving random Admins excessive power. You really should read stuff more carefully. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, but nationality still has nothing to do with it - its about creating a stable platform for everyone to edit, which currently doesn't exist in this area of the encyclopedia. The discussion about the talk page is really irrelevant to the main issue here, although I do find your attitude there regarding good guys and bad guys reprehensible from someone who claims to be such an ardent supporter of NPOV.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Slam dunk nothing. This is not about race or nationality, it is about showing basic civility to fellow editors whoever they are, something Vintagekits has failed to demonstrate ad nauseum.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have posted links to the Discretionary Sanctions discussion from the talkpage of the Troubles case, WT:RFAR, and in one of the Troubles-related threads at WP:AE. --Elonka 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, are they not all troubles-related threads at WP:AE???? Sarah777 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No ban in effect at this time

• There is a strong appearance of selection bias in the initial comments on this thread. Before we assume canvassing, it is possible that the editors who were first to comment were those who had certain user talk pages on their watchlists. I recommend taking this matter to arbitration immediately. There is no ban in effect; I removed the improper template. Multiple administrators have opposed. The block remains as set, though I do not understand why the user is not allowed to email or edit their own talk page. This thread once again highlights the need for a better venue to decide community bans. They should be done thoughtfully with sufficient time given to accept representative comments. This would avoid the pile on by supporters of one particular view. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind talk pages ---- most admins - like myself - have ANI on their watchlist. Canvassing is an absurd accusation. Wknight94 ^talk 14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also keep in mind several of the opposers are Irish. Sarah even questions herself voting here. two of his mentors even support the ban or seriously question him staying on. 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

• What impertinent rubbish you talk RLevse, I for one don't have the lightest drop of Irish blood.  Giano  15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit Irish, and I don't remember Lessheard vanU ever making trouble with The Troubles either. WP:BAN says a community ban happens when no administrator objects. If we count Bishonen too, who probably isn't Irish, and Alison, who is definitely Irish-sounding and -appearing, that makes four administrators opposed to the ban. I think we need to have a discussion about what to do with Vintagekits. But I think if we are going to do that we also need to look at the people in conflict with Vintagekits. It's hard to have a fight unless there are at least two parties. It is not fair to ban one side for bad behavior and not look at the behavior of the other side too. I think we should at least listen to Vintagekits side of the story. (Full disclosure, two of my boys are red heads.) Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Read what I said, I said several, not all, are Irish, and that is fact. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem very interested in race, RLevse?  Giano  16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, Jehochman.

The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions upon editors who have exhausted the community's patience:

• If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard so that the user may be site banned, topic banned, or subject to an editing restriction upon a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments.

The part you're referring to says that if no admin overturns an indef block, it's a de facto community ban. If the community at large specifically imposes it, it's valid, even if some admins oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman, all that is required for a community ban is a community consensus as with any other restriction - what you talk about is a de-facto community ban, and unfortunately, it is not the same thing. I have no view on Vintagekits conduct in particular which is why I haven't voted on that discussion, but the reason I'm noting this is so that both types are not confused as one and the same; experienced admin should take greater care to avoid misrepresenting both policy and practice as it currently exists. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion is ongoing. There is no statement by a closing administrator yet, so there is no ban. If no administrator had objected and this were a quiet discussion, theoretically, a ban would be effective. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, but when making a section like this, care must be taken to ensure that emphasis is on the de facto bit because that is the only outcome that is certain. Users may misinterpret this as indirectly closing that proposal off as no community consensus and starting off with the other one below, rather than as one that suggests the discussion is still ongoing. Of course, in contrast, a comment on the user's talk page could be misconstrued as the community consensus as already being enacted, even though discussion is actually ongoing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying there "is no ban" is a bit like looking at a zebra and saying "there is no such animal". The current consensus is in favor of the ban and he is blocked indef with a ban template on his page. Perhaps consensus will change later, but until/if it happens then yes, there is a ban. ^Chillum 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no ban, Chillum because what we had was a group of mostly Americans ganging up on anm Irishman while most of Europe was asleep. Maybe VK should be banned, maybe not, I have yet to exppress an opinion. However this bullying was highly suspicious, that so many arrived so quickly with no dissent. That Rlevse was so quick to impose a ban proves him at best unfit to be an Arb, he should have at least srealise how things would appear when Europe, no to mention Ireland, woke up. We expect "Randy from Boisse" may act in a small minded way like this - an Arb should not.  Giano  15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard! "a group of mostly Americans ganging up on an Irishman while most of Europe was asleep" If you look at the userpages of the first few people that made comments, there is a good mixture, including England, Scotland, Canada and very few Americans. Then again, anyone that dares oppose anything Irish is automatically accused of having bias etc! Heard it all before and not interested! Check your facts Giano. Jeni ^(talk) 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do apologise, when I was at school Canada was part of North America, I had no idea it had drifted off into the ocean. Many other editors had Category: USA or USA citizen or whatever on their user pages, I asumed that meant they were proud to be American - never mind an easy mistake.  Giano  17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that nationalities are automatically invoked when discussing these issues (typically in a kneejerk manner, based on prejudice rather than a firm understanding of the nationalities of the people involved)? Also, you found this discussion pretty quickly this morning. Its funny how only those who support Vk's ban are accused of canvassing, while the rest obviously just spotted it on their watchlist. Rockpocket 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian = American is about as accurate as Irish = English, Gio. Not that any of this is relevant to anyone but those with a severe persecution complex ongoing. Resolute 01:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've no idea why Rlevse decided to call it a ban rather than an indef block, (any dissenting admins please feel free to overturn it on the basis of being a block not a ban, but on current evidence that move would only end up in one place anyway), but for Jehochman to claim they saw no reason why VK's talk page was protected and email disabled, is odd to say the least. Suffice to say the evidence for why was in the permanent record of the talk page's history. Nobody should ever trust the 'as is' version of VK's page to determine what actually happened, especially not when, as now, he has had his talk page privelages restored, and is free to refactor it as he likes, which he does often. Also, suggesting the measures taken to remove his privelages meant he had no way to defend himself, after two already declined unblock requests no less, is utter nonsense, per the appeals policy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's been undone, so the point is moot. What I meant was quite simply, after preventing a user from editing their talk page, it makes sense to summarize the reason there. Otherwise, it is odd to hold a discussion about somebody and not give them a chance to respond (such as by posting a statement to their own talk page). "There's no need to heard from the defendant because they are guilty as sin" is not how we should approach things. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • So your only justification for all of these comments is that nobody had bothered to outline for you here why his talk page and email were disabled, and you couldn't be bothered to take the few minutes to investigate for yourself? That's pretty weak tbh. As already pointed out, he had his chances to respond using the privelages of talk page access and email, and after their protection, he still has an avenue open to him to post an appeal. Your characterisation of what actually happened regarding his 'right to a defence' (and since when was ANI a courtroom btw?) is not accurate at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

How about Vintagekits is explicitly allowed to edit boxing-related articles, but is otherwise topic banned from The Troubles for some period of time. That would allow them to do what is most helpful to Wikipedia, while hopefully keeping them away from further Troubles trouble. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Its just another way for him to worm his way back in. The indef block is for the best. And consensus is pretty clear in the ban section above that a ban is what the community wants. Jeni ^(talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(@ Jehochman) Yes, because he conducts himself so much better when he is discussing boxing articles. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Was he causing trouble, or was he being hounded by traditional content opponents? I am not able to tell by looking at that thread. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about nicknames in boxing articles is just that, a discusion. It has been opened up to get the views on people from a WP:BLP perspective as well as the boxing perspective. As far as I know there has been exactly zero bad behaviour in that discusion. The fact is Audley Harrison does indeed have some negative nicknames which are well used by press and public alike and some editors object to the article/infobox including negative nicknames while others think they should be included so as to maintain a NPOV. As I have said before I know VK gets in to plenty of WP:Civil scrapes some of which are blown up to become WP:NPA breaches and perhaps some where actual WP:NPA breaches but the fact remains where I have come into contact with him.... on boxing articles in the main... he is very knowledgable and useful editor. --LiamE (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• A lot of users have noted that they supported a site ban due to the block log - why would they consider this proposal better? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Echo chamber. "He's been blocked before, so he must have done wrong" is a poor argument. We need to look at the conduct and see why he has been blocked so many times. Has he been damaging articles? Has there ever been an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vintagekits, to document the evidence of wrongdoing? Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not a poor argument at all. It's called interminable disruption. If you'd like to build a case against a ban, go ahead, but you're not offering anything to refute the ridiculous block log other than hypotheses of baiting and so forth. Clearly there has been no RFC because his "disputes" are so blatant as to get him immediately blocked. There is no Wikipedia:Requests for comment/General Tojo either. Wknight94 ^talk 15:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • • • • [Redacted] LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (Actually, it was an excellent example of how real world history and WP invested viewpoints can cause problems. Anyhoo, personal apology winging its way to Wknight94 - thank you for the quick responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC))
              • Oh. No, no, no - I was referring to long-banned vandal General Tojo (talk · contribs) with his hundreds of socks. Sorry for the confusion. Wknight94 ^talk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/General Tojo. I am sure no reference to the historical General Tojo was intended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Correct. The point being that RFC's are often for people on the borderline. People over the borderline - who are simply blocked because they are so clearly in the wrong - don't get RFCs. They just get shown the door. Wknight94 ^talk 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm still on the fence technically so the above answer is more definitive than the possibilities I was going to provide:

1. A block log consisting of over 50 entries that demonstrates repeated conduct problems over the duration of 3 years (particularly relating to being uncivil and disruptive editing) may be the documentation of wrongdoing such users are using?
2. Perhaps those users also think that it is a timesink to go through all that if his contributions are not helping the editing environment to the point he is being blocked for the same conduct over and over, despite knowing it is inappropriate?
3. Going back to an RfC/U may appear as a mockery to dispute resolution, given that attempts were made to deal with some part of the conduct via arbitration - the final resort?
4. People don't tend to want to go backwards? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When a single user has behaved badly, an RFC is a logical step. I'm not sure why that was not done before. There is an appearance of intense lobbying by content opponents for blocks, rather than actual good faith dispute resolution. That makes me uneasy about enacting a ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• This proposal reminds me of the time VK edit warred on a boxers' article over his nationality, using as a supporting reference, the colour of shorts he wears. You don't heve to be Einstein to guess what the colours were, or the words he used to describe the people opposing him in the 'dispute'. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman's proposal.  Giano  15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Its been tried before: User:Vintagekits/terms.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jackyd. Tried before and failed. VK has been given multiple chances and there is nothing to show he truly wants to reform. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Until Rlevse's suspicious behaviour has been investigated he should be recused (or banned) from all comment on VK and The Troubles.  Giano  15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're being sarcastic. Rlevse is not corrupt. He does, however, have a green signature, as do you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. While the support of his friends is admirable, they would be better off working with VK to reform his own attitude than to try and invent ways for him to weasel out of a ban that he is on the edge of bringing upon himself. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Would have been a good suggestion 2 years ago. At this stage there is no confidence here that such a measure would alleviate Vintagekits' deep-seated behavioral and attitudinal unsuitability for this project. --John (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a point that things may have been allowed to go on too long without remedy. There should have been an RFC at an earlier stage, and perhaps better protection from baiting. I am uneasy about this discussion because we aren't even giving Vintagekits a chance to defend themselves. That does not seem fair. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Then unblock him temporarily, per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks. Rd232 ^talk 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, silencing VK from defending himself was decided by a roup of mostly Americans and Rlevse during the night.  Giano  16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that was the intention of Rlevse, though it was the practical effect. We should let Vintagekits post a response to their talk page which can be copied into the section below. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the classic persecution complex defence... Resolute 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's been tried before without success. The problem is not VK's politics. It's that his default mentality, upon encountering dispute, is to edit war. Ban away: after umpteen million last chances, it's clear we're wasting our time. Moreschi (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi! Aren't you the chap who wrote an essay calling for the banning of anyone who opposes Anglo-American nationalism? Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really a response to that, is there? Such a closed mindset is clearly not open to rationality of any type. It's rather sad and all too common. Moreschi (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Okay, but can we give the guy a chance to post a response? Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Didn't work last time, why would it work this time? Moreover, the last 5+ blocks wold not have been prevented by such proposal, so how would it solve the problem? Rockpocket 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Óppose' as the phrasing leaves the matter of potentially troubles-related boxing articles in limbo. I don't know if there are any myself, but I would expect a partisant to find some if they exist. Would not have objections to allowing the editor to construct such boxing articles in userspace and have someone else, preferably an admin but possibly a respected longtime editor, move the new content from them into mainspace if they are found to be without problems. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is a "troubles-related" boxing article? This is getting bizarre. Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, with your own comments, such as the one in which you accuse Moreschi of wanting to ban anyone who disagrees with him, it may even be crossing the line into unacceptable. I urge you to confine your comments to the relevant subject, and refrain from unsubstantiated allegations and insinuations regarding others. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read his paean of praise for Anglo-American pov? Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair cop. Neutrality, rationality, and the culture of sanity that I have always urged must all be clearly exclusive to Anglo-American culture I am so eager to push the POV of. What can I say? Guilty as charged. Moreschi (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Jehochmans proposal. Allow Vk to edit boxing related articles, and be robust in sanctioning any displays of temper or intemperate language - these are not "cool down" blocks but the removal of disruption from content disputes. Vk may or may not learn to curb the excesses, and thereby his continued participation in content building. I would only be happy to allow Vk to participate in Ireland related articles once there is an indication that he is able to participate non disruptively in other article space (and even then there may be consideration given to participation in Troubles related article space), and as such would not provide a specific time limit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What I think is interesting, LessHeard vanU, is that your proposal was almost exactly the terms under which we agreed he returns from his last indef block. What happened then? He skirted the boundaries of what might be considered "Ireland related" (for example, participating in disputes over British/Irish boxer's nationalities and flags, and being typically incivil and aggressive), but more or less kept his nose clean enough. Once the terms of the ban got close to expiration, he began counting down (literally) the days until the restriction was lifted with threats of disruption. The day the ban was lifted, he immediately got stuck into exactly the same problematic editing that the ban was intended to prevent. My question is, when a very lengthy topic ban and civility parole is not sufficient for an editor to appreciate what is and is not acceptable behaviour, and instead positively anticipate the minute he can return to the same behaviour, why should we bother? Its clear any temporary restriction on topic or civility will simply be tolerated until it expires, the answer is surely that we stop it from expiring. Rockpocket 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, I was very concerned about the countdown and the immediate resumption of previous inappropriate editing stances - I think I supported sanctions then in the discussion. So, it seemed that the ban worked reasonably enough and thus my suggestion that any expiry of a fresh ban would depend on Vk maintaining a respectful dialogue with other editors may indeed be the way to keep a good editor of boxing/sport articles who creates disruption within certain national/political areas contributing usefully (if that is agreeable to all concerned). This is why I am a great fan of the indefinite tariff - it is so flexible in its effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring the fact that even in boxing and football topic areas, in the last few months he has been as abusive and combative as he has ever been in Troubles topics. He practically told the entire football project to go fuck themselves, as they were all in it together as one giant anti-Irish cabal. And as ever, he skipped and hopped through all the subsequent warnings and blocks with aplomb. I think he maybe apologised once. Its laughable he tries to brush off his behaviour as just some quirk of cultural upbringing, that people should just ignore. Not that it should even be contemplated this far down road, but if we are to go down the 'lets see if VK can be a good contributor' route, I would suggest the only feasible starting point would be to topic ban him for at least 6 months from anything even remotely Irish related, and see how he got on with other people. I somehow think he would just leave, but as ever, anybody who wants to take on the job of watching him everyday as mentor under those conditions, go for it. Are you up for the job LHvU?. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Proposal has been tried before. Civility and temper issues have persisted over three years. That's not going to change. VK's latest escapades were involving a British boxer (and a derogatory nickname which was given to him) which spawned three or four ani sections and a bunch of ill-will. As I said, an indefinite (as in permanent) block is not a step that I personally LIKE to see, but it is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fozzie, it should be obvious, even to you at this stage, that there is almost no support for your vindictive position from uninvolved editors. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding personal attacks, all I will say is that you must be reading a different conversation on a site other then Wikipedia, because other then the usual partisans (and some other folks, like LHvU), there is not much support for anything short of a full indefblock/"Coommunity ban" SirFozzie (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I'm reading this right here. Glad to see you are avoiding personal attacks. Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All editors: please consider moving your comments from the discussion above to the appropriate area below depending on whether you are involved or uninvolved in The Troubles content disputes. That will make it a lot easier for the closing admin to draw a conclusion to this discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Support per LessHeard vanU. BigDunc 13:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per LessHeard vanU.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Oppose this proposal, per my statement above supporting a permanent ban. We've already tried this tactic before, and we end up right back where we started. Participation in this project is voluntary, and as such, we have a culture that fosters and encourages collaborative work. We should not have to go to extraordinary measures in order to accomodate editors who have consistently demonstrated an inability to work within those community standards. I'm ok with the idea of a second chance, but we're long past that point. Vintagekits has used up the last of his nine lives on this project. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• For god sake! Stop trying to skew the vote. Its plainly obvious that there is no consensus for this, yet there is consensus for the indef block. Perhaps its time this was all now marked as resolved and we move on, with one less trouble maker in our ranks. Jeni ^(talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Response from Vintagekits (awaited)

I request that this discussion not be closed until Vintagekits is given the chance to post a statement in response to the concerns raised in this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He is already able to edit his talk page again, and has already made numerous comments. If you want a specific statement recorded here, can you please expedite it? As above, I stongly suggest you do not allow a simple tranclusion of his talk page, due to his penchant for refactoring it. Either he can post by proxy, or be temp unblocked, or some other method I don't know about yet, but as it is, this section is just hanging at the moment - thus I've added 'awaited' to the header in the mean time. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, could you post an official statement, and we'll copy it here for you? Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I support VK making a statement and it being included here for discussion prior to closing. There's no reason for excessive haste, with the current block there's no damage being done at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• If someone created a "proxy editing for banned users" essay, which allowed trusted known editors to add content (and not add personal attacks) from community banned editors it seems you'd have very many fewer of these revolving door ANI discussions. 87.114.7.38 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You mean like a page where banned users could (anonymously, perhaps) post proposals for content edits, and if a few people agreed they were good ideas, they could be used? Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Very Bad Idea. Users who are actually banned have been told by the community that their input is not wanted. They've been shown the door and told not to come back. Giving them a "back door" to circumvent that decision would only encourage more disruptive behavior. See Template:Bannedmeansbanned, that puts it very nicely. Pardon my bluntness, but one wonders about the intentions of an ip user whose only edits are to ANI, and who wishes better advocacy for banned users. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Review a block?

User_talk:Thewtfchronicles#CS_Independance_of_the_Seas_.28sic.29. Please note that the user has removed my blocking template (I did add one).[42] Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fully endorse - User was previously warned on his talk page by Abecedare that a block could used if he did not desist his inappropriate CSD tagging. That warning came after several of us had advised the user his taggings were problematic. He continued. This behaviour is disruptive and off-putting for newby editors. LadyofShalott 21:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, unblock request declined. LadyofShalott said all that needs to be said. Chillum 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) I am familiar with the users inappropriate CSD taggings and I, and many other users have advised/warned him about it. Given that the user has largely ignored the advice, I completely support the block. My only cavil is that perhaps the block should have been indefinite - with the provision to unblock immediately if the user commits to refrain from CSD tagging for say a month - till he is more familiar with the norms. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Enough people tried explaining it first, without success.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - 4 or 5 warnings plus an extended (ultimately failed) attempt at explaining it to him didn't work.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While a new account, this is evidently very far from a new user. The account was created on the 7th, and within a few dozen edits was welcoming new users, quick-fire undoing, using (and substing) the appropriate vandalism and csd templates, correctly navigating the process of nominating for AfD, and quoting policy on AIV. The reasonable assumption of good faith we afford new users clearly does not apply; this person is not new. Their facility with our procedures and policies shows they're quite familiar with the CSD policy and the rest of deletion - they're so obviously flaunting them because they want to, not because they don't know better. Blocked twice in four days, with a torrent of warnings, I think this shows the person intends disruption. I'd suggest an indef block on the basis of repeated and evidently wilful disruption. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - Constantly calls Truth or Square an "extended SpongeBob episode" while many people (including me) tell him/her to read the noblility guidlines. See Talk:SpongeBob's Truth or Square. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  What does WP:PEERAGE have to do with SpongeBob?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse and echo what Abecedare stated about the length of the block. I attempted to engage this user in conversation about their CSD nominations, and the fact that their rapid editing was maybe not giving the articles the attention they deserve, but despite my (and several others') best efforts, this user entirely refused to engage in conversation and basically takes a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach whenever someone tries to work with them. Frmatt (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block and would endorse longer term restrictions on CSD activity. Also - agree with Finlay McWalter - this is definitely not a _^new^ user.  7  02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

7, did you mean a "NEW" user? or just a user? I did ask that question on their talk page and they replied that they had edited a few years ago but forgot their password. I took that at face value and didn't take it any further at the time. Maybe it is worth pursuing with the user at this point? Frmatt (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - sorry "new" user - corrected above. I don't think there's enough to take it any further at this point - but worth keeping an eye on.  7  03:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This user has come off of their block, and their first edit was to wipe their talk page and immediately perform the redirect that had gotten them blocked earlier [43] along with a fairly rude comment [44] about the other users on the page who opposed the redirect. I don't think they got the message. Sarek of Vulcan has reverted their redirect, but I think this user is going to end up causing more problems shortly. Frmatt (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is no longer applicable on the ToS talk page. I'm having to repeat myself over and over and I'm just getting uber-fans not paying attention to it. Clearly, civility wasn't going to get me anywhere. There's a certain point where that just isn't doable anymore and you've got to get a little aggressive with people to get them to wake up. I'm not the one causing the problems, it's the uber-Spongebob fans clinging onto an extended episode (it's not a TV movie, get over it). I've shown them that other shows of the same notability as Spongebob have had extended episode that are redirects, they just stare blankly and come up with some BS excuse. Also, talk page wiping is perfectly allowed. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is not the issue, your understanding of how consensus works and why that redirect didn't meet consensus because it was deemed notable. You brought it to the talk page and the consensus was against you there. Your choice now is not to redirect unilaterally, but instead to take it to another forum, such as WP:AFD that would allow a larger community conversation about whether this article is appropriate or not. WP works on a consensus model, and unilateral actions go against that model. There are times when consensus works against each of us, and when that is the case, we have to say that even though we disagree, we defer to the wider community. If this bothers you so much, why not just take it to AFD and let the larger community talk about it?

Also, I was simply commenting on wiping your talk page. You are absolutely right that your talk page is yours to do with as you wish (within the guidelines). That being said, wiping your talk page implies that you are trying to hide your past actions. If you appeared to be making a clean start, then I see no problem, but when you immediately go back to places where you have had conflicts before, it looks more like you are trying to hide your past, than trying to make a clean start. So, yes, you are within your rights to wipe your talk page, but it certainly doesn't look very good. Frmatt (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Thewtfchronicles:

• Blanking your user talk page is fine.
• Civility is not optional.
• Blanking the SpongeBob's Truth or Square repeatedly is not acceptable. If you do it anymore, you will be blocked again. Take the article to WP:AFD if you think it is not-notable

In general, your editing and conduct on wikipedia has been problematic. Please take some time and review our content and conduct policies, for if you continue in this vein you are heading to an indef. block. Hopefully, you will reconsider before that stage is reached. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is no longer an option when it becomes clear that isn't getting anything done. It's like if you get a stain on something, you don't continue to use methods that don't work, you find new solutions. It became clear to me that getting bitchy would be the only way to possibly get the point across.

AFD is not applicable as I'm not proposing a deletion, but a redirect. Consenus is hard do reach when the only other participants are Spongebon fanboys crying and whining and giving BS excuses for why it should stay. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD is an most certainly option if you wish to measure consensus for changing an article to a redirect. AFDs are often closed as merge or redir - not just delete or keep. Civility is the only option we all have, regardless of whether it gets things done.  7  06:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Additional info: Browsing around, I came across iCarly and evidence of an edit-war with a familiar name involved. I've reblocked Thewtfchronicles, who was still edit-warring on the heels of Abecedare's warning above (72 hours this time), along with a couple of other editors also involved in the edit war (Aoi (talk · contribs) and Ophois (talk · contribs)). EyeSerene^talk 10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've already left you a notice at User talk:Aoi and only now noticed that this originated here: I think the blocks of Aoi and Ophois were an overreaction. Warnings would have certainly been sufficient, and the situation at iCarly in particular appears to have been stable for several hours with both editors talking on the talk page. You should, in my opinion, lift those blocks. Amalthea 11:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Oops, didn't see this sooner. I've posted something to your talkpage - more detail there, but in a nutshell, I agree re Aoi (now unblocked), but not re Ophois. EyeSerene^talk 11:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks, I hadn't looked beyond the history of iCarly and the contributions of Aoi when I asked the above. --Amalthea 12:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 stalking my talk page and wikihounding me

Unresolved

 – Awaiting uninvolved input

I brought Hippo43 here before for his constant watching over me and interfering and disruption to places I contribute. Now I caught him basically admitting that he watches my talk page and that he came to a place I contribute to because of he found it on my talk page. For quite awhile Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines I have been working on changing the guideline to reflect that bold and italics are not shouting and do have good purpose if used correctly; I felt the original wording to be overkill (and regardless of everyone making it about capitals I never had an opinion on that, I cared about bold and italics). From day one I was clear the reason I wanted the change was that I had recently been told that using bold and italics was "shouting", something I do feel is tweenish and teenagerish (as do alot of internet users my age). During a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means I had the caps lock on during typing for work, came back to the internet and wrote my edit summary, accidently having my edit summary in caps; not intentionally to make a point. A non-involved person "warned" me about it on my talk page. Less than five minutes later Hippo43 showed up at that policy talk page for the first time at the guideline talk page and started supporting the "status quo" side, then showed up at the "talk page guidelines" guideline and stated that I wanted to change it only because I was just warned about using caps as yelling; which he probably didnt notice that I'd started that discussion long before, when I was accused elsewhere of "yelling" when using an occasional word in bold, which is my style. This shows that he's been watching my talk page and goes around to different locations that I'm involved with for the express purpose of frustrating me; this is the very definition of hounding and is unacceptable; he had never been active in either discussion and then suddenly shows up only after noticing something on my talk page!

Now to make it clear to everone I am not talking about just this one incident! There was confusion last time I brought Hippo here. Last time I took Hippo here my case was thrown out as most of you looked only at that one case, and declared in his favor due to the circumstances and threw in as support for his side the fact that Albany, New York had a "may be too long" template. I did some editing to that article, and looked into the policy/guidelines about that issue, removed the template per Village Pump discussion in which the only two who responded agreed that the template wasnt required for Albany. Hippo of course reverted my removal. Luckily an admin and at least two or three other editors on the talk page were able to revert Hippo and give me a consensus on keeping it off.

This all started with Siena College and a dispute over whether it is in Loudonville or Newtonville (consensus of editors has always been that it is not clear and both may be mentioned. Hippo dissented saying "only consensus of sources matter, not editors") from there because many editors pointed out Loudonville is a hamlet not a town as he tried to write into the Siena College artricle he attempted at the Loudonville, New York page to say "it is a town unless you can show a source that specifically states it is not a town. Again consensus of editors told him NO. Then he moved on to Administrative divisions of New York, where he has continued to harrass my contributions. Anything that puts his "viewpoints" in past arguments in jeopardy and make me look right automatically brings him. Now any discussion I am in that in "his opinion" Im doing something wrong he shows up. I will not be wikistalked, and dont need to be "watched" by anyone, especially not him.

I know this is long, but this has been going on for over a year, I'm fed up with it; he's won arguments simply based on people not wanting to "fight" him again. I hate to bring them into this and hope they arent upset by it, but asking the following users about the issue at Siena College/Loudonville/Newtonville might be helpful in this- User:UpstateNYer, User:Juliancolton, User:Doncram, and User:Daniel Case; for the Albany too long template case- User:ZooFari, User:AFriedman, and UpstateNYer. I request that we each be banned from contact with each other. I have worked hard on working and IMPROVING and constructive edits at Capital District related articles within Capital District Wikiproject where as Hippo's only "contributions" to those articles have been to disrupt and attack mine. I have lots of flaws, I'm agressive and abrassive; but that shouldnt allow Hippo to think he has a right to "supervise" me and frustrate anything I work on that he doesnt agree with.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the relevant policy I bring this under is WP:HOUND which states- "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I believe it is clear that this is what Hippo's intentions are.Camelbinky (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd that Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has only edited Hippo43 (talk · contribs)'s talk page to inform him/her of this discussion. That seems like the place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction - since Since April. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand Toddst1, you want me to continue to have a dialogue with someone who has failed to listen everytime I have asked him to stop this? Have you bothered you to read his archives on his talk page or the history, or the talk page discussions at the articles I listed? I'm confused as to what you wanted me to do regarding his talk page. I've asked him not to edit the articles I work on, he accuses me then of "ownership". I've asked him to stop what he does. He wont. This isnt the first time I've asked him. This has been over a year this is going on. I've been in discussions with him. Contact some of the users I mentioned. Could you clarify what I did wrong. I want this resolved but if I'm doing something wrong please tell me. Your post was a bit cryptic for me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed plenty of discussion in Hippo's talk page archives. I'm sure Toddst1 just overlooked that. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I've done some cursory checking and found that stalking is a possibility here, but I'll leave it up to better and more diligent people than I to make a determination; I'd also like to hear from Hippo43 before saying anything definitive. On Camelbinky's request that the user's be "banned from contact with each other", I'm not sure how that would work, unless you were both topic-banned from the pages where these disputes have arisen, and I don't see that happening. All I can see coming of this is a stern warning and administrative scrutiny over Hippo's future contributions, if it is determined that there was a violation. That's not say we shouldn't discuss it here -- I do think we should -- but the resolution you've suggested doesn't seem feasible. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start with this garbage. Camelbinky's sense of time, in particular, is a little out. His claims of "over a year" and "less than five minutes later" are both wildly inaccurate. His talk page is on my watchlist because of previous (disagreeable) conversations, and I noticed someone claim that there had been a personal attack (User:A8UDI), so I looked into it, followed some links and made a comment on a project talk page. I'm not sure what I'm being accused of - making a legitimate comment on a page Camelbinky was involved at? I come across the same editors all the time. Was I uncivil? Did I make a personal attack? Was I disruptive? No, no and no. If I wanted to stalk him and "disrupt his enjoyment of editing", I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, only a tiny percentage of my edits are in any way related to Camelbinky's interests. Likewise, the vast majority of his edits have not attracted any attention from me. If I had any intention to stalk or hound him (I'm not sure of the difference) I could easily take a much more active interest in topics he is active in - New York's Capital District, for example - and pick fights all the time. Again, I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, could you post a list of the pages where you believe Hippo43 has "followed" you to? It's a little confusing to dig through all of those histories and contribs. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:48, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The "warning" posted on my talk page was at 22:38 and then at 22:46 Hippo43, which is 8 minutes and for the first time, goes to Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and comments in opposition to me; then the next day goes to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines and posts in opposition to me again this time stating that the reason I am there is because I was just warned about capitals being shouting (which was the day before, but I started the thread on the guideline page weeks prior, so his accusation was completely unfounded). As I stated his involvement with me started at Siena College, moved to Loudonville, New York, and Newtonville, New York, which caused him to start watching my edits at Administrative divisions of New York, and then when I brought him here last time he went to Albany, New York to disrupt my attempts to improve that article and remove a template that he felt supported him in our past AN/I dispute but was wrongly stuck on there so when I removed it I'm sure he felt that I was doing it for the wrong reason, but as others pointed out the tag should never have been in there in the first place. Watching my talk page and deciding to "investigate" or go to places because I had a discussion somewhere or because I got warned is clearly a type of wikihounding, in my opinion Hippo43 pretty much admitted to doing it and as to why when he said "I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written"; which I find uncivil and a personal attack and would like to have that added to the things he has said and done. At Siena College he blatantly stated he did not recognize a consensus of editors, just the consensus of the sources; this was not civil behaviour and was warned by the three admins (four as one was promoted soon after) that were on "my side". Saying that I write "all kinds of crap" is his motive for following me. I ask all who read this to look at Capital District, List of incorporated places in New York's Capital District, Tech Valley, Port of Albany-Rensselaer (GA status) all articles I created or completely rewrote; all four are 90% me (with much gratitude to those that helped, I am not denigrating them, I thank them every day for their help), check my user page for others that I have done that arent "crap". He can say what he wants about my opinions, but my editing contributions by calling them "crap" is over the line and typical of his opinion about me, his problem is that he thinks I personally need to be watched.Camelbinky (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to Hippo's comment "I could watch his Capital District articles", he does! That's where Siena College, Loudonville, Newtonville, and Albany are all in! That's where it started, so his idea that he doesnt get into what I work on is ridiculous; he has never added anything meaningful to any article in that entire wikiproject (as the cofounder and one of the three most active members I should know, since almost every article with that wikiproject tag is on my watchlist). Capital District articles are the only ones I work on! So, yes if I see Hippo at an article it is going to be a CD article, which I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them, and has only gone to any of those articles after our first dispute at Siena College, any time he has shown up at any Cap District article it has only been in opposition to me, he has never gone to one otherwise. As for Siena College, it was 8 months ago. So yes I was wrong about 5 minutes and 1 year in time spans; it was 8 minutes and 8 months. Does that make this any less legitimate that he's been hounding me for over 8 months instead of 1 year, or that it took him 8 minutes after finding something on my talk page to going to where a discussion I'm involved in is located? Camelbinky (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying Camelbinky has written 'crap' was not a personal attack, but justified criticism of some of his writing. If I thought Camelbinky needed to be watched, I would watch him - I don't. His sentence "I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them" just shows his arrogance and sense of ownership of this material. --hippo43 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky wrote above "so his accusation was completely unfounded." There was no accusation - this is some very skewed thinking on Camelbinky's part. I made a legitimate and inoffensive comment on that page, to explain what I felt Camelbinky's view was about. --hippo43 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a "legitimate" comment as you were commenting on my motives, which you couldnt have known and showed your ignorance about by claiming it was because I was just warned about using CAPITALS and that it was shouting, and therefore I wanted to change the policy. By mentioning the capitals=warning problem (which occured the day before) you showed you had not even read or looked at when the thread was begun, by referring to Rd232's proposal in a way that seemed like I was opposing it you further showed no knowledge of what was going on because Rd232's proposal was in fact a compromise effort on his part to get the policy to address my concerns but still keep the essense of it. At every instance you show your contempt for my editing, I would put my best four articles up against yours any day to a judgement on who is the better editor if your problem is that you think I write "crap"; if you have no interest in CD articles, why show up at them at all? It's not ownership I'm showing, its concern for things I care about being ruined by someone who has ulterior motives. Why get involved with the Albany, NY article's "too long" template when I removed it? I can give you the benefit of the doubt and good faith that you thought I was removing it because of our dispute, but when AFriedman, UpstateNYer, and ZooFari (people who actually work on CD articles) told you "no" you pressed it; your problem I believe is that you dont give me good faith on my editing, perhaps if you take my talk page off your watchlist and stick to articles you know about and can add constructive things to instead of worrying about "Camelbinky sticking in crap" to CD articles you wouldnt ever see me. Your job isnt to worry about if I'm putting in crap and then to stop me. All of my articles are within a very active wikiproject and all my new articles are posted clearly for them to look at, all big rewrites are undertaken with their OK, I have them helping me as I help them; no one need you "watching" me. Which is what you have done at multiple locations, if I put in "crap" someone else can take care of it. (your response now I'm sure will state "Camelbinky doesnt know what I am interested in or not or what knowledge I have", if you had knowledge about the CD area then you sure havent shown it the numerous times I've asked you to contribute any meaningful help)Camelbinky (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, do you think you could respond regarding the specific pages Camelbinky listed, and tell us how you ended up on those pages, if it wasn't due to camelbinky's involvement? PS If someone called my writing "crap" I'd take that as a rather personal attack, albeit on the lower end of the spectrum. It's uncivil at the very least. Equazcion (talk) 00:45, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right - although it wasn't a personal attack, that phrase wasn't civil, and I shouldn't have let this entirely uncivil complaint get to me like that.

I came across Siena College (about 8 months ago) because I wanted to find out some info on the college, then noticed some strange wording in the article, cleaned it up and found myself involved in an extremely lame, long-winded and unpleasant edit war/discussion. This involved me reading, and editing, the Loudonville, Newtonville and Administrative Divisions articles as they were related to that issue. It also apparently led to Camelbinky taking a dislike to me and developing a kind of paranoia that I'm out to disrupt his work. Out of my interest in these articles (I presume - I really can't remember) I made an edit to Albany, New York in July this year, adding a tag to an unreferenced section - this was two weeks and four intervening edits removed from Camelbinky's previous edit there, and attracted no comment from him, but meant the article was now on my watchlist. Then last month, Camelbinky took exception to another legitimate edit I made there, reverting his addition of trivial information about library storage. He made a complaint here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Help_again_please- - which was unanimously dismissed as unfounded, as my edit was obviously beneficial to the article.

So none of my edits to these articles were motivated by Camelbinky's involvement. I believe he sees 'Hippo43' on an edit summary or discussion page and assumes I'm out to get him, and doesn't give the slightest thought to whether my edits are valid. His long rants directed against me suggest to me that he is not thinking about these rationally. He has failed to take into account the many times that edits of his show up on my watchlist, but that I agree with, so don't revert or get involved with. Again, if I wanted to pick fights with him, I'd watch his contributions and get involved at any of the many articles he edits. Indeed, I've often avoided taking part in discussions where he is involved, particularly at content policy noticeboards. He and I generally find ourselves on opposite sides of arguments about reliable sources, verifiability, original research etc, and I have generally chosen to avoid getting drawn into this kind of argument with him, as he has tended to take disagreements with me rather personally. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, complete misrepresentation of events. He has a habit of doing that, as he has been repeatedly called out on doing, lately by User:ZooFari at the latest debate at Albany, New York where ZooFari pointed out Hippo was misrepresenting what the guidelines actually said and stating things that werent there. His edits at Loudonville, Newtonville, et al were all in opposition to my edits which came first, I've been at each article before him and he has never never never just gone to a CD article and contributed, only to remove or "clarify" my edits. He, very late in the discussion at Siena College brought up this "I was looking for information on the college" argument for his reason there when several of us asked why he was there, we all had good reason and actual knowledge regarding the college and its location; when pressed "what information were you looking for?" his response was "it wasnt in the article", and then when asked "why didnt you add it?" his response- "its not notable"; our response was "then why were you looking in Wikipedia in the first place?" no response. He has not contributed any new information to any of these articles despite pleas to be helpful. If he had been helpful there would be no animosity; User:Doncram and I had gotten into an argument and then became good collaborators because we added information and helped each other (and bonded in our opposition to Hippo); this idea that I'm paranoid after one argument is his excuse and only something he started bringing up after I mentioned in an argument that I have a form of autism and other issues, ever since then he has this "its in Camelbinky's head" and thinly disguised it as an attack on my psychological emotional stability. He claims that the "too long" template was perfectly fine, if it was why did several other editors all agree with me that it wasnt? Why did he go to the Albany article in the first place (one I have long worked on) to put that template in and not to add any information? He doesnt contribute, he weakens and finds faults in others. As for noticeboards, he has never contributed to them except maybe twice (again in opposition to me and only on ones that directly related to our arguments and would weaken his viewpoint if it went in my favor) so the idea that wants to comment and intentionally stays away is bogus (I generally tend to be on the majority side at RS and OR noticeboards, and I dont know of any V noticeboard; so is he admitting that his views are the minority? I even got to incorporate into WP:V a new subsection based on my views I put into the RS/N). There are lots of threads at each noticeboard and VP that I dont get involved with, why dont we see him comment at any of them? I want him to stay away from any Capital District article, that is what I want. He has nothing to contribute, he has only edited to hurt my contributions or remove them.Camelbinky (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out he pretty much admitted to "watching" me as he states he sees my edits and has seen ones he agrees with...why is watching articles he doesnt contribute to? Because he does not contribute to any of the articles I have created or contribute to... so why are they on his watchlist? Most of my edits are to articles I create from scratch, I'm a bit scared that he may be watching me through the user contributions button and looking at everything I do, that's how it sounds from what he wrote; I'm just going by what he himself said and to me it sounds creepy. I'd like a topic ban keeping him from CD articles, I see no problem with that as he hasnt added a shred of information to any of those types of articles and I am one of the heaviest contributors to them; that would keep us pretty much 100% apart. I dont think that is unreasonable, and could easily be enforced as if he shows up at one I just could let an admin know to enforce the topic ban. Perhaps Hippo43 would be kind enough to voluntarily state that he would stay off any CD article?Camelbinky (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) addendum To clarify since I stuck my statements above that of Equazcion's earlier statements- Equazcion's question is directed to Hippo43, and is not in response to my question to Hippo about a voluntary ban.

What about Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? Equazcion (talk) 02:16, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I explained above how I arrived there. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it looks like Hippo43 went to those discussions to comment just after Camelbinky.

I visit this ANI discussion after noticing this rather insulting edit by Hippo43 at Camelbinky's page, and figured that meant trouble. It is similar to Hippo calling Camelbinky's edits "crap", which they are not. Camelbinky above accurately notes that Camelbinky and i somewhat bonded in response to what we both found to be obstinate edit warring by Hippo on the Siena College article. I haven't studied it, but my general impression is with Camelbinky that Hippo has not contributed meaningfully in Capital District articles and any continued participation by Hippo in anything there would appear to be more to bait Camelbinky than for any other purpose. Bottomline, I don't see why Hippo should be following Camelbinky's talk page and following Camelbinky around. Hippo, why not just agree to drop Camelbinky's talk page from your watchlist and agree to stop following Camelbinky around? It is indeed an aggravation for Camelbinky and there is no useful point to your being the one to disagree in some way with Camelbinky in conversations involving other editors who will come to reasonable decisions. Hippo should just stop it, IMHO. doncram (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if Camelbinky could explain in detail what I'm supposed to have done wrong. I simply don't have time to trawl through the badly-written rants above and try to make sense of, and answer, every point. If there is a case against me, it needs to be presented in a clear and orderly way - can you please provide a list of specific complaints, each with diffs and each quoting the area of policy I'm slleged to have infringed?

I certainly won't agree to "stop following Camelbinky around", as I've been doing no such thing. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From my own recent experience I think Camelbinky could do with some overseeing, and so could sympathise if someone was looking at what Camelbinky did. Camelbinky as far as I can see seems to divide the world into us and them and try and recruit people to fight against them with no holds barred. I think one warning on the user page would have been in order before bringing this charge. I don't believe that any apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor has been established. I think this whole business should just be thrown out and counted as a warning to hippo43 to try and avoid anything that might be construed as hounding and to be light on the edits. It seems a bit like restricting a person from doing what's right to me but one has to do that to a certain extent to get along with others in wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't see the grounds. I guess the administrators must have some better tools for checking something like this out. Dmcq (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

← Hippo43, you said you've explained how you arrived at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, but I don't see that explanation here. I could have overlooked it, but either way.

Those two pages are what concern me the most in relation to the stalking claim, because aside from the verifiability policy, you've never commented on or edited any other policy until you decided to dispute something Camelbinky said/did at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, nor did you participate in any essays at all, until the same occurred at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means.

I'm not all that concerned about the Albany articles. If Hippo followed Camelbinky to those, I think that could reasonably be explained as covering all related issues on related articles. There's nothing wrong, as far as I'm concerned, with addressing the same point on multiple articles, even if you're only doing it due to the involvement of one other person. If someone introduced information I thought to be false in Star Wars, let's say, and I got into a dispute with him there, I might then go check Empire Strikes Back to see if the same user was "stirring up trouble" there too, and the dispute would then carry over there if he was. I'd see it as my duty to make sure my opponent in the dispute wasn't laughing and editing away on other articles with the "false info" while I sat stupidly watching a single article.

There's nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as the articles are indeed related. It's the articles that are not related that are the concern. If it's likely that an unrelated page was sought out specifically for a user's involvement in them, that's a hounding concern, and I'm seeing that at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines.

Granted this doesn't constitute something long-term or worthy of a block, however I would say it is worthy of a stern warning. Since I've not been completely uninvolved with Camelbinky I don't think it would be appropriate for me to deliver the warning, nor even decide definitively if one is deserved, so I'll again defer to other uninvolveds, if any ever do actually show up in this discussion. Equazcion (talk) 19:51, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, I explained above that I saw a reference to a personal attack in an edit summary on Camelbinky's talk page. This led me to these two pages, where I made a couple of edits that were neither offensive or disruptive, as I have every right to do. (Incidentally, that is essentially the same route that led Doncram to this discussion.) Contrary to your statement above, I have contributed to policy discussions - certainly WT:V if not others - as well as policy noticeboards. In any case, this makes no difference to my freedom to edit at any particular page or topic.

According to my reading of the policy, none of the edits highlighted by Camelbinky fit the definition of wikihounding at all. If you believe that they do (or if anyone else does) can you please explain why, with reference to the policy?

I simply can't be bothered to reply in detail to all of Camelbinky's nonsense above - it is full of lies, misunderstandings and distortions. He has made numerous unpleasant allegations about me, but has not provided a shred of evidence. In particular, I have never made a "thinly disguised...attack on [his] psychological emotional stability". I have criticised the quality of his writing, his poor editorial judgment, his dishonesty (in particular his hiding behind an IP address and pretending to be another editor), his flawed understanding of issues and policies, and his irrational and uncivil rants, but none of this has ever been intended as any kind of smear on his autism. That claim is itself an example of his inability to debate with a cool head and avoid making things personal. My experience of disagreeing with him tells me that a detailed reply would be a waste of time, and would just elicit another garbled tirade. If Camelbinky can explain his complaint clearly and comprehensibly, with reference to particular points of policy and supplying diffs, I can answer it point by point. --hippo43 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked your contribs, filtering by Wikipedia talk: and Wikipedia: space edits; aside from WP:V, there are no other policy or guideline edits, nor any essays at all.

"Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Granted, you say you arrived at those pages due to edit summaries rather than the contribs list; but lawyering aside, in whatever technical manner it occurred in, you arrived on those pages due to Camelbinky's involvement, and the pages were unrelated to anything else you were already involved in. And, whether or not the letter of the law was broken (which doesn't matter), it came darn close in my opinion, and I would say you're edging dangerously close to the line. Which again is worthy of at least telling you to be more careful about this in the future than you have been until now. I've felt the urge to enter disputes before merely because it would give me an opportunity to argue with someone I disliked, though at the time I would've denied any such motivation; It's an easy thing to get sucked into. Please be careful, perhaps even make a conscious effort to keep a safe distance, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety. That's all. Equazcion (talk) 17:20, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I find Hippo43's comments about Camelbinky above to be offensive and unjustified. In one comment further above he sort of apologizes for the incivility of his calling Camelbinky's edits "crap", but then further above and just now he is going on with making generalizations that I find to be incivil. Also, he called for, above and just now again, for Camelbinky to provide more detailed diffs because he doesn't want to read what Camelbinky wrote before. I expect that Hippo43 would scoff at whatever new diffs C or anyone else provided as not proving to a perfect legalistic degree that H was wrong in some legal way. Again, I have been involved in one long and frustrating discussion with Hippo43 before, where in my view Hippo was obstinate in rejecting a reasonable consensus that was otherwise established. "My experience of disagreeing with him tells me that a detailed reply would be a waste of time" is what H said about C; that is pretty much my experience with H rather than with C.

About the Albany, New York article, I reviewed all of Hippo43's edits there and find most of them to be in direct response to Camelbinky's editing there. Besides a small amount of copyediting which was okay or positive, Hippo43's contributions have been mainly to add 2 different negative tags to the article, and to revert back and forth with Camelbinky about keeping one of those in the article. At the Talk page, Camelbinky opened sensible discussions, and the consensus established was the negative tags are not needed, but Hippo43 more or less only contributes to the Talk to dispute that (rather than likewise attempting to open real discussion about anything). Also Hippo43 directly edited down Camelbinky's adding material about a library topic, with a somewhat harsh and dismissive edit summary, within minutes of Camelbinky's edit. On that library material, it was perhaps a bit long but IMHO perfectly within range of editorial discretion. Discussion about that and other editors involvement led to some but not all of the material being retained. So my view is that the article is an example of Hippo43 contributing only negatively to an article where Camelbinky has contributed positively for a longer time, both in the article and the supporting Talk page. No one, including Camelbinky, "owns" that article, but the editing pattern there is evidence in support of Camelbinky's comments about Hippo43 above.

I don't know if Hippo's behavior rises to the level of being "wikihounding", but I definitely don't understand why Hippo would not simply agree to recognize some negative impacts of his editing style upon others and to back off. In particular, it would be easy for Hippo to agree not to watchlist Camelbinky's Talk page, not to follow C's contributins, and not to directly edit Camelbinky's recent contributions (allowing other editors involved in articles like Albany to discuss and edit anything that might seem a bit long). It's a big Wikipedia. doncram (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Equazcion, I have a fair history of involvement and interest in community pages such as policies and policy noticeboards, as my contributions history shows - WT:V, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, for example. Besides editing there, I also regularly pass by without editing. It is not strange at all that I would take an interest in these two pages, and not strange at all that I would disagree with Camelbinky, because we have clearly opposite views on some of these subjects. Moreover, is anyone seriously suggesting that editors can't get involved in areas they haven't previously taken part in?

In this case, I ended up at these pages because of an accusation of a personal attack, which is explicitly "proper" according to the policy ("fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy"). The insinuation that I arrived there by monitoring Camelbinky's contributions list is without basis, and in any case, that would be permissible under this policy.

I realise this may all come across as lawyering, but I make no apology for fighting my case against this attack. Can you let me know if there is a policy that prevents users from simply arriving at an article as a result of another editor's involvement? I don't believe there is, and I don't believe there should be. Given that none of these edits were disruptive or offensive at all, neither the spirit or letter of the policy have been broken. You seem to disagree, so I may be missing something - if so, can you explain specifically which part of this policy you think I have broken?

I'm more than happy to count to ten and think twice before engaging in debate with Camelbinky - I appreciate the undoubtedly good advice from you and Dmcq on this. However, this is quite different from your earlier suggestion that I should receive "a stern warning" - I deserve no such warning as I have done nothing wrong. I disagree with Camelbinky on many things, and allegations like this only encourage animosity, but I have no desire to bait him for my amusement. For the avoidance of doubt, I won't give an undertaking to avoid Camelbinky altogether, or avoid subjects that might interest him. --hippo43 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Doncram's version of his previous disagreement with me doesn't ring true to me, but there's not much point getting into that fight again. He may see some of my edits as 'negative', but so what? We could argue all day about how whether tagging articles or deleting badly-written trivia is 'constructive' or 'positive', but that isn't what this "incident" is about, and such discussion fudges the issue.

If an editor thinks I'm annoying, or doesn't like some of my edits or my style, and we don't exactly get along, that is one thing. Camelbinky, however, didn't politely raise this issue on my talk page - he came here and claimed that I am stalking him, citing a specific policy - a claim which is, frankly, horseshit, and against which I have every right to defend myself. --hippo43 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor adding unusual section to Fascism

Resolved

 – User blocked by Golbez for disruption, talk page privileges revoked by Mjroots. Should he continue after the block, report to Golbez, Mjroots or to me for indef.  Sandstein  13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not resolved. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Franklinbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Franklinbe continues to insert a section into the Fascism article that is an incoherent conpiracy theory claiming the US government is "Fascist Government #1 Worldwide".[45][46] He has set up an RfC[47] and has applied for mediation[48] despite no support for his section. None of this is constructive. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That indeed might not be 50% proven, so not ready for an encyclopedia. If anyone should've told me it was this little detail, I would've let it out.
Beeing raised katholic, with a US Nuke in my backyard and secret forces operating after Hitler Shot himself, I like some Truth. And since it's out here it's time to make some links as Our Wiki Founders wished for. End of the World in 2012? Good or Bad? Belgium is not the one who started talking about Change. --Franklinbe (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the user's contribution log shows that his sole activity thus far has to constantly insert that one section into Fascism. Additionally, the comment above clearly shows his thought processes, for better or worse. --HubHikari (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[49]. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I believe you are slowing me down in life. Check the IP adress before you make idiot comments and vandalising someone elses work.--Franklinbe (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Asserting yourself will not make you thin, nor pretty. --Franklinbe (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyne else feel that the editor needs a reminder about no personal attacks for these comments, and others on his talk page? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Author (Franklinbe) is picking the wrong article. Suggest he takes his efforts to the article on Neo-fascism. Problem solved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If Nazism belongs to the article (fascism subgroups), I believe this sub-category belongs there (Fascism) to. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. It must have occurred to you by now that you are very alone with this belief... no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you're prob 'In' with America. The next Fascist Cunt that deletes an article (stub) on a system that is besad on equal liberties, could get shot in a lot of countries. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can't say that, what is the use of America anyway? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see your basic misconception. Wikipedia is not America. In America , you certainly have the freedom to "not give a fuck" as you so eloquently put it on your talkpage. On wikipedia, we do give a fuck, and that fuck is called "consensus." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that the 'talk' about fascism and the right to have a 'non-brainwashed' brain from birth, is in fact a discussion that has been going on for over 2009 years.
Some indeed have problems with the fact that most people are wise enough to take the right decissions. But as a former Belgian Politician once said; "Enough is Enough". --Franklinbe (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please put a little efford into life and look at Gladio. That will shut you up for a year or 100. I hope. Otherwise, I'm always in for an interesting conversation. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Restating the point: Should you decide to re-insert material to this or any other article without consensus, your edits will be reverted. If you revert more than 3 times in a 24-period, you will be blocked. Issue resolved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. That's why I will only check this page once in 'a while'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wich means every day for the next couple of days, 'cause I'm having Fun here @ Wikipedia. Keeping an eye on the Timer though. ;) --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Did any of you seen 'InGlorius Basterds' by Quentin Tarantino? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did, yesterday. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This Song Is Not A Rebel Song This Song Is Called 'Sunday Bloody Sunday'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the 'Resolved Part' about? Am I still in highschool? Not aloud to critique or ask 'difficult' Questions? Why do we Vote? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is 85% of the World Laughing AND (Googelisious) all of the Birds Signing (Fascist) Louder Than Ever (bit of Philosophical Wisdom and Poëtic Creativity') before? --Franklinbe (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that every edit you make is noted (or to be found). --Franklinbe (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. That's why I will only check this page once in 'a while'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wich means every day for the next couple of days, 'cause I'm having Fun here @ Wikipedia. Keeping an eye on the Timer though. ;) --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Those that believe to have the right to ask for Respect, should think about the Responcibility that comes with it. Thereby I give all of you 14 Days to come Up with a Good Explenation why my part of the article should be Deleted. If you believe that this is not acceptable, Please get in touch through my Talk Page or file a complaint with WikiMedia. 10Q --Franklinbe (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Every Second I Think about this, is a Second on your Account. That is what I Believe. --Franklinbe (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided in this section, his contributions as well as this diatribe following his recent 48 hrs block, was it not about time to consider if this user should get an indef? Even with the best of faiths I have a hard time imagining this user being able to contribute anything worthwhile to this encyclopedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agree with Saddhiyama. He has no concept of neutrality or of what material is encyclopedic. He seems to add incoherent content in the most inappropriate places. He doesn't listen. He doesn't learn. He doesn't take advice. He misinterprets advice as oppression. He gets angry and abusive. Whether or not he is being intentionally disruptive, it is clear that he is highly disruptive to an important and sensitive article (one that has a genuinely important RfC ongoing which we should be giving our attention to, not dealing with this nonsense). I didn't report him myself because he seemed to have moved from adding inappropriate content to articles to arguing on various talk and project pages. This seemed to show some respect, if not understanding, of our policies and processes. My hope was that this was a prelude to him either gaining understanding or else getting bored and going away. I am dismayed to see that he then went back to adding blatantly inappropriate article content and also seriously ramped up the incivility. Once he got blocked he just continued ranting on his talk page. All he wants from us is a place to rant. We are not here to provide him with a free soapbox. There are plenty of other places he can go for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've revoked his talk page editing privilege. Let's see what happens when the block expires. Support an indef block if he doesn't learn from this. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems more than fair. Do you think we should clean up the mess he has made on the various talk pages and project pages, or just leave it as it is? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave user talk pages to the user concerned, they are free to remove of leave the comments as they see fit. Leave project pages to project members to deal with. Offensive comment tend to say more about the commentor than others. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Apt time to point to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I upped the block to indef, but he'll be able to edit his talk page in a couple days. There's no reason to let him back before he commits to actually doing something constructive. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef sounds entirely appropriate, Wikipedia is not a substitute for therapy. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

This is continuation of "Admin help needed" above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_needed

User Breein1007 who opened his account today have once again deleted the Jubata Ez-Zeit article. At the Neve Ativ talkpage he says: "as usual you are " [50]

First of all the source is accessible and reliable "Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan and co-authored by Declan Gannon, legal researcher Al- Marsad, and Dr. Ray Murphy, senior lecture Irish Center for Human Rights." If he didnt feel it was reliable or wanted to removed the article he should have asked at the talkpage.

The fact that a new account does something like this says something. I am now asking, how do I revert it so the article Jubata Ez-Zeit‎ re appears? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way I reverted Breein1007's Jubata Ez-Zeit redirect to Neve Ativ. That seemed way to bold. The source looks fine and the pdf loads. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is over there. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

lol supreme deliciousness you must be a lonely guy to spend so much time spreading your rubbish about me. It makes me feel special though :)Breein1007 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by Rndxcl

Resolved

 – Blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rndxcl (talk · contribs)

Constant uncivil behavior by Rndxcl [51] [52] [53] [54] PRODUCER (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified of thread. No attempt at discussion of this behavior appears to have been made on user's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned by User:Dougweller.  Frank  |  talk  13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rndxcl is a single purpose account that, as of this comment's posting, has made 35 edits since June 2007. Rndxcl is a very aggressively political contributor whose contributions are more intended to engage in soapboxing and real-world political debates rather than attempting to improve the encyclopedia. His edits are at times very inflammatory and directed against Muslim people of former Yugoslavia. Either way, they're not helpful. Here's some examples:

• [55] - "wikipedia is the most antiserb tool out there", "were it not for the media markale square massacre would be painted in its true light, being the selfinflicted PR wound that got the serbs bombed to hell", "you think the fucking media is worth sourcing?"
• [56] - "muslims are capable of slaughtering their own fucking people"
• [57] - "This article is in dire need of deislamofication"
• [58] - "You practise beheadings, just like Your child raping prophet", "whiny little protoserbs"
• [59] - "but clearly you are right and the Serbs are the root of all ills in that Bosnian hellhole"
• [60] - "Lol well, you must be very careful of what you say when muslims are around"
• [61], [62] - "Calling this a massacre of 8000 men and boys makes it sound as if the muslims were using child soldiers, which they probably were"
• [63] - "You idiots"
• [64] - "you piece of shit muslim revisionist", "Won't separate the women from the mujahideen. Nuh huh. We'll kill them too! even the kids!", "Srebrenica was amazing by the way"

The project is not helped by letting this editor continue spreading his polemicism in articles of already volatile nature. It's not even an issue of civility, this is an issue that needs to be remedied by employing a decision reached at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. The arbitration case decision for single purpose accounts states:

• "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

Therefore, this user should be given a specific ARBMAC2 warning that further disruption will result in a topic ban from all ex-Yu related articles with a subsequent project ban if the topic ban is violated. There should be no tolerance for people using Wikipedia as their political or religious battleground which is all this user has done in the last 2 years. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that WP:AGF is being stretched pretty thin here, but a review of the entire history of the user's talk page shows exactly five edits, and two of them were today. The first of today's edits was an "only warning" regarding personal attacks. Given the diffs, that may be appropriate, but...how is a user (new or otherwise) supposed to understand the community's expectations if no effort is made to explain them? I don't think it's unreasonable to explain what we expect before blocking or banning a user for not meeting those expectations. What will it take, another 3 or 4 edits and a day or two?  Frank  |  talk  16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The "you piece of shit muslim revisionist" insult occurred four days ago. An only warning is appropriate here. A smidgeon of useful contribution is not an excuse for bigoted abuse that blatant. One doesn't assume good faith in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. Durova³⁶² 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it didn't appear I was suggesting that it was not appropriate to warn about that edit. What I mean is that if all these diffs exist, why is it that they weren't previously brought up with the user at his talk page rather than here as a venue of first resort? I agree AGF can only go so far, but we do have a process and if everyone assumes someone else has explained it to the user and in fact nobody has...we're not preventing or even reducing disruption. I daresay that it is the very rare edit indeed on this page that has ever done so.  Frank  |  talk  16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has to explain to anyone that this behavior is inappropriate. We are not required to teach users to not say "you piece of shit muslim". Had I arrived on this scene prior to this thread, I would have indefblocked without any process. Tan | 39 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of tendentious editing in the area of ex-Yu topics is severe enough to have warranted two arbitration cases in two years. It is waaaaaay beyond the scope of AGF to assume that someone who refers to other editors as "you piece of shit muslim revisionist" and promising to kill children (however sarcastic the comment may have been, it's highly inflammatory) may not know that what he's doing is hot helpful. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of editors of different political affiliations editing ex-Yu articles on a daily basis. Minor skirmishes are impossible to avoid but major disruptions have proven to be cripling to article development as well as being extremely detrimental in advancing a level of civility between the editors of conflicting opinions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of indef-blocking anyone and everyone who may remotely be in violation of civility and NPA policies. But the ARBCOM cases have brought forth decisions that allowing openly extreme violators to operate under the guise of AGF while we go through the beaurocratic process of incremental template warnings can create irreperable damage and renewed hostilities between opposing editors. It is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to keep assuming good faith when it's difficult to find a helpful contribution among the many racist examples of inflammatory polemics. It is left to the discretion of any uninvolved administrator to issue warnings and remedies but it's not unheard of to indef-block someone who's here clearly to stir the pot rather than to help us build an encyclopedia. Hankz1982 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked as a disruptive SPA account with only three prior edits to his talk page. Mihalis (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked as a POV pusher after seven edits to his talk page in a period of three years. Further disruption from Rndxcl should not be tolerated as a simple civiliy issue to be dealt with in the form of incrementally lengthened blocks. A clear warning pointing him to WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 needs to be issued. Additionally to those warnings, if anyone feels up to the task of educating this editor in the policies and guidelines of our project, by all means feel free to do so. But further disruption from him should most certainly not be treated the same as someone like yourself, Frank, losing your temper (hypothetically speaking, of course, I can't say I've ever witnessed this) and telling someone to "f off". You are an asset to this project and such infractions need to be addressed but they are not serious. Someone who spends most of his time on this project spouting off unveiled racist comments is not an asset to the project and his prolonged exposure to the topics at hand can easily jeopardize the relative peace and quiet that exists at the moment. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a silly debate. This user has made more than one edit that should result an instant ban on all editing. These are outlined by PRODUCER at the start of this thread. Then follows a limp discussion about warning notices. This level of abuse and racial hatred should face zero tollerence. We are not talking about a few swear words and some name calling. Polargeo (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been warned and I fully support immediate indef block if any remotely similar edit comes from the user. I will not object if another admin feels such a block is already warranted. I understand the alternate points of view but further discussion (if anyone cares) is best conducted elsewhere, such as my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please as Frank mentions can another admin consider blocking this user indef. We should not tollerate this thankyou Polargeo (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked, racist trolling and abusing other editors with few constructive contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou

This editor is reverting, across a range of articles, any references to the work of popular science writer Stephen Oppenheimer, on the basis that Oppenheimer is "wrong", "unqualified", or "out of date" - [65]. This is debatable, but he seems unwilling to engage in discussion and relies on assertion that his own views are correct. Because this issue applies across a range of articles, centred on Genetic history of the British Isles (an article title which itself has connotations, which may be related to this dispute), it would be useful if an eye or several could be kept on these articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Chaotic situation going on now - articles being redirected all over. I suggest a block is needed, to allow reverts to the status quo ante, and some sensible discussion to take place after a cooling off period. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please inform this user about this thread, per ANI instructions. Thanks! Tan | 39 16:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you not just do it, in future, maybe? I'll do so now. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Tan | 39 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An example of Wikipedia administrators at their finest! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was joking with the "no". Call me lazy. Thanks for taking care of this. Tan | 39 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been me. :-( Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war, and you're surely one of the two, so doesn't everything you say about DinDraithou apply equally to you? If you can't agree between the two of you, and it seems unlikely that you would, try a third opinion or a request for comments. I'm not going to waste anyone's time by commenting as I have prejudged the dispute. (A large degree of genetic continuity is plausible enough, but Oppenheimer's book is laughably bad. I mean that quite literally as I laughed out loud at one point while reading it. That got me funny looks on the underground.) Do we really need Sykes and Oppenheimer fangirls (or boys) adding their opinions, dumbed through the filters of newspapers and magazines, to every possible article, especially when there is no effort to add academic sources or dissenting views? Probably not. But edit-warring won't solve anything. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No one used the term "edit warring" above. The issue is redirecting without consensus (in fact, there seems to be consensus against it, although I am not positive about that). The process is be bold, revert, discuss, not be bold, revert, re-revert, erase attempts to discuss at talk page. I don't see where Ghmyrtle has even come close to edit warring. Tan | 39 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would here do? BRBR is not quite the same as BRD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. I acknowledge your point here. But again, it was Din that broke the BRD cycle. Tan | 39 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ghmyrtle is omitting that there has been considerable discussion, for example in Talk:History of Wales. Stephen Oppenheimer is a pediatrician, not a geneticist. DinDraithou (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash) Also see this warning (16:41 hours) posted to the talk page of User:DinDraithou which User:DinDraithou deleted (16:42) one minute later, without any form of acknowledgement or discussion. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to acknowledge something on your talkpage before deleting it: the deletion is taken as acknowledgment that you've read it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A point I have already made to User:DinDraithou on User talk:DinDraithou which was also deleted. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)On the other hand his books are bestsellers and seem to be taken at least somewhat seriously. He may be wrong, but he is not a crackpot. That someone is originally trained in a different field is not sufficient grounds to dismiss them completely. You need better arguments. Hans Adler 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This in fact started when I was followed around the place by a persistent POV ghost possessing otherwise fine users to revert my actions, which I had explained. DinDraithou (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this excuses your moving articles without discussion -- putting 'political concept' in the edit summary is not sufficient, and in light of the other disagreements looks confrontational. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An "explanation" in a talk page of one article some time ago - agreed by some editors, and not by others - does not, in my view, go very far towards justifying today's actions. But moving on... There are two issues here. One is the title of the core article, which was called Genetic history of the British Isles and is now (?) called Genetic history of Britain (even though it contains text on Ireland). In my view this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force, which exists to try and resolve these issues. The second issue is over how Oppenheimer's writings should be dealt with. My view (expressed at Talk:History of Wales#Population genetics) is that "that should be discussed at the Genetic history of X article, and whatever is ultimately decided there be rolled out for consistency across other articles including this one. This is clearly a contentious issue and it makes no sense to me for editors on one article to take a different view on that controversy to editors on any other. My own opinion is that Oppenheimer should be referenced, and those with counter-arguments should be referenced - readers should be given sufficient information to make up their own minds." And I didn't edit war. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the arguments you've made in talk pages on these issues aren't terribly good, supporting of bad articles and bad science, and thus you are difficult to communicate with, like a parent defending a child who has committed an adult criminal act. I feel like I'm the arresting officer. DinDraithou (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash) The point is not whether the article Genetic history of the British Isles is or is not hog-wash. That should be resolved talk:Genetic history of the British Isles. This is a question of your DinDraithou behaviour in deleting links to the article Genetic history of the British Isles and then re-deleting them when they are restored over a number of articles, and coming close to breaching 3RR on Historical immigration to Great Britain.

without any attempt at consensus (using WP:RM) you have made a controversial move "Genetic history of the British Isles" to "Genetic history of Britain" and then repeated if when it was reversed (After my warning on your talk page). [66]

• 16:43, 12 November 2009 DinDraithou (talk | contribs | block) (40 bytes) (moved Genetic history of the British Isles to Genetic history of Britain over redirect: political concept)
• 16:44, 12 November 2009 Ghmyrtle (rv undiscussed changes) (undo)
• 16:47, 12 November 2009 DinDraithou (moved Genetic history of the British Isles to Genetic history of Great Britain: see talk history where already discussed) (rollback | undo)

--PBS (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I give up, since the list of ferocious defenders has now grown to three.

But be aware that User:DinDraithou/Genetic history of Ireland will eventually appear and force some critical changes. DinDraithou (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no-one reverted DinDraithou's moves in defence of Oppenheimer's theories. The moves were reverted because they were made without consensus. If DinDraithou has any WP:RSs refuting Oppenheimer's theories, it would help the case immeasurably. Many editors are sympathetic to DinDraithou's viewpoint, myself included, but he needs to cite references. Daicaregos (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The battle here is against "celebrity" being where it shouldn't. "Celebrity" is unfortunately not refutable, and so will simply have to be replaced with the right material, which is a fantastically laborious process. Population genetics 2001-2007 was all about celebrity, and then came Karafet et al in 2008 with properly done dating. I will discuss it in the upcoming article. Some users here I believe are a little bit into celebrity pop genetics, and that influences their editing decisions. DinDraithou (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "battle" - the fact that you think there is may help explain your behaviour. Hopefully you'll be able to provide refs that justify what you think the articles should say, which is fine. But it won't be "your" article (WP:OWN), you won't be able to "force some critical changes" (WP:CIVIL), and you should try not commenting on the motives of other editors (WP:NPA). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou, This ANI is about the behaviour of one editor, you. I endorse everything that Daicaregos. I find it strange that you should wish to repeatedly remove links to an article which you disprove of instead of fixing the article. You would do far better to discuss if there should be two articles (one for Great Britain and another for Ireland) before you go writing an Irish article. That decision should depend on the science not the internal politics of Wikipedia editors. If most scientific papers treat the population of the islands as separate research entities, then it is probably worth having two articles providing there is enough information for two none stubby articles; or perhaps if there is not both should be paragraphs in the article Genetic history of Europe. However these decisions should be made by seeking a consensus at talk:Genetic history of the British Isles rather than edit warring about it or creating new pages to make a point. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki doesn't work

Interwiki in all articles is completely broken! What has happened? Kubek15^{T CS} 18:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but all interlanguage and interwiki links are broken across the entire project.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, it works now.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! See [67] for example! Kubek15^{T CS} 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Purge the page cache and bypass your browser's cache.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it works fine now. Kubek15^{T CS} 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlink

So, under the edit box there's a redlink for Foundation:Terms of Use with the text "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." Someone should correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See section immediately above this one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced content issue

Currently I have an issue, no idea where to put this seeing as I'm not chummy with any admins around so here it can go. On Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes someone seems hellbent on making sure a unsourced DVD release date remains in the articles even though it's most likely false given it's been removed several times since June. For a while it's been that an unsourced date was on both articles then replaced by an equally unsourced one, recently they were removed due to lack of sourcing. According to the person who routinely readds the offending content their argument is that "Wikipedia has stated months ago that Season 3 will be released at this date" hence why recently a different date was readded from an edit in May. Basically it comes down to someone who figures they're working in the article's best interest by thinking that Wikipedia is completely factual and accurate and old edits are as good as any other source. Now, why I brought it here is because it also involves more factual inaccuracies which doesn't help as it becomes a mini-editwar and talkpage discussion has been attempted but has failed so far so I'm thinking either protection or rangeblocking as this IP editor is useless to warn as they hop onto a new address if any warnings land on the IP's talkpage. A check suggests that they're on a /19 range so it seems doable but not a good idea just yet whilst a semi-prot for the articles concerned seems to be good but I worry the editor will be back immediately after the prot expires and if I had gone to WP:RFPP I'd have been declined so any suggestions or actions to take?

Tl:dr version: anon editor is intent on adding bad release dates to two articles, reverting is becoming too much hassle as it becomes a small scale editwar between anyone who's involved, came here to see what can be done. treelo _radda 19:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the IP 75.125.xxx.xx? Well seeing as he's been warned here against his disruption, I'd suggest going to WP:RFPP and get the two articles semiprotected for a time; reason, continual unsourced edits and editwarring by shifting IP editor. Easier to do that than finding a range to block. Auntie E. 18:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

UMD vandal strikes again

The UMD vandal has struck again, this time at 129.2.112.111. I've attempted to extend the rangeblock that we placed on 128.8.x.x to the 129.2.x.x range (since it seems that they can and will strike again), but I'm not sure if it worked. Here's the log entry: [68]. Did that block go through, or did I spectacularly fail? (And if I failed, could someone fix it?) SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Best I can tell, it worked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kusamanic and sock puppetry

Resolved

 – As there is already an SPI ongoing, there is no need for this cross-posting. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Kusamanic is always removing the contributions of other users from articles about Chile: [69];[70];[71];[72];[73].

This user is trying to sell the idea that White people are a majority in Chile. When somebody posts a sourced information claiming the opposite, or post pictures of non-White Chileans, he removes the informations and pictures and accuses other users of vandalism, etc. 190.208.87.126 is probably his sock puppet, that he often uses to remove the informations from other users as well. This IP number is currently blocked for edit-warring. I opened a sock poppet investigation here and I hope some administrator can conffirm the sock poppetry from this user. Opinoso (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Kusamanic of this thread. GiantSnowman 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, With this user have been starting had many problems that does not respect the sources (see below) and his obsession with Chile. For this and other similar reasons has been often block also being warned by his constant personal attacks on other users, as we see here[74] [75] aside has been responsible for a "public trial" against me, as we see here. [76] [77] [78] It is why I call it sabotage to my image. Also, I am accused by User:Opinoso the use of puppet accounts, apparently without knowledge of the policies of Wikipedia, which refers to "Sockpuppet", who are the users who have multiple accounts registered to engage in vandalism or to avoid Blocks. This is obviously not my case, I have never been blocked in more than 1 year working for the Wikipedia.

• Disagree: In addition, all started after a consensus achieved by the User: Likeminas and I, which after a few days the User:Opinoso again changed the information that was reversed by the User:190.46.53.155 to a previous edition of consensus. Then the User:Opinoso again changed the main information of the article Chilean people, and adding information without giving the exact page that you can confirm the information. [79]

• Answers burlesque by User:Opinoso: Therefore I leave a message asking the exact source to verify the information you have inserted the articleChilean people and Demographics of Chile [80], User:Opinoso I answered this: ← Pages 334-335 from the book. You have the book at home, since you're asking me to cite the pages. Since you have the book and pages may differ, just go to the part that talks about Chile, the informations are on the first two pages. Didn't you read it yet?! Have a nice reading![81]→ With your answer laughs at me and the political of Wikipedia the verifiability of sources.

• Brief argument about their lack of neutrality: User:Opinoso doesn't act in good faith in each case. It imposes his personal opinion for on the mentioned sources and he has an appreciation preconceived on the population from Chile according to his point of view like we can observe here. ←Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else→[82] Without respecting the sources where they write of a white majority in Chile that varies from 52,7% and 90% to the population´s. [83][84] [85][86] finally remarking that Chile is amerindian-mestizo like he writes here in one of its summaries of editions saying this without any source to back it up.Chile is mostly Amerindian-mestizo.--Kusamanic (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for block review

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at NathanielDawson (talk · contribs)? I support the block due to the edit warring, and pointy disruptive editing, but would appreciate it if the block were reviewed by non-involved admins. The blocking admin was Spinningspark (talk · contribs), who was involved in an editing dispute with the user at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Submarine cables. The blocking admin did invite a review of the block [87], and is being completely open about the issue ... but I still feel that an uninvolved admin's input on the situation would be beneficial. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both NathanielDawson and Spinningspark about this thread. GiantSnowman 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also include a review of the block of user:CasesBased (an admitted sock) user:83.170.113.97 and range block on 83.170.112.0/21 (block evasion). SpinningSpark 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the blocked NathanielDawson is evading the block with numerous socks, so I've protected this page. I'll go on record as saying Spinningspark should have let someone else make this block as s/he is a highly involved admin. I haven't figured out whether the block is warranted. There's a lot to sort through. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You might start with the history of Submarine communications cable, where there is a 3RR violation, even if you ignore the IP/sock edits. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like NathanielDawson deserved blocking for a variety of reasons, just not by an involved admin. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right that there was a little bit of knee-jerk involved but in my defence, I had refrained from reverting NathanielDawson again from the moment he began communicating several days ago (at first he would not) and allowed his edits to stand while the they were debated. I only intervened when he began edit warring with other editors, so in no sense was I involved in an edit war with him when I took admin action. The case seemed clear-cut and per WP:SNOW there seemed little point in allowing him another round while a report was constructed. SpinningSpark 22:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oversight enquiry

Resolved

 – No harm done, but many pixels wasted. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If DerHexer wanst to comment here, he is welcome to but until that time there is nothing more that needs said here. The mistake has been undone, so I'm closing this to (hopefully) allow everyone to move on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)|A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

If DerHexer wanst to comment here, he is welcome to but until that time there is nothing more that needs said here. The mistake has been undone, so I'm closing this to (hopefully) allow everyone to move on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You can close it 1,000,000 times and I will unclose it until the Arbcom confess to what has happened here.  Giano  17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DON'T PANIC

---

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

—Lore Sjöberg, from "The Wikipedia FAQK"

I am well aware that Wikipedia loves cencorship, but why are half my edits to this page now oversighted? Explain withing 5 minutes whoever did this and explain it here. I would not bother posting here VK they will only blooduy oversight it and hope you don't notice. Giano  21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That confused me, too. You were claimed to have made an edit revealing personal information: after it was removed, the diffs between the addition and removal were oversighted. All the content after your first edit is still there, we just can't look at the intervening diffs. (My apologies for stating that as a fact in my initial edit.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

what personal information, I have revealed no personal information on anyone, there is more to this, and I want to know what Giano  21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Beats me, I can't see it either. Whatever you said was replaced by "[removed personal information]" in line 1484 or so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How dare you lie like this to hide the truth of what you lot have done,I have revealed no personal information you bloody appologise at once.  Giano  21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How dare they lie loike this, I want to know who has oversighted this? who and why  Giano  21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Which edit is missing I demand t know.  Giano  21:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on finding out what I can about this situation. Please, everyone, let's take a couple steps back while this is getting worked on... SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit before it was oversighted. Someone was under the impression that the person named in your contribution (as a clearly hypothetical example of a stupid person) was a real person whose privacy you were outing. He is, of course, the same "person" whose name and origin from the capital of the state of Idaho is mentioned in the quotation in italics at the top of your talk page, so of course for consistency the entire history of your various talk pages must now be oversighted. As must this edit. What an over-reaction. The name was removed by DerHexer, but I don't know who oversighted the edits. Bencherlite^Talk 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no full edit is actually missing -- it was just one phrase that was replaced in the first diff.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whio are they lying and say I out who who these are all lies I demand to know  Giano  21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're becoming incoherent. Please calm down. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not resolved, I want to know who oversighted my edits and why, I don't even know whjere fucking Idaho is.Randy from Boise has been on my page for a year,so why decide to oversight him now .  Giano  21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you require more information, please e-mail arbcom-audit-enlists.wikimedia.org with a description of the page involved and when the edits were made, as detailed in Wikipedia:AUSC#Procedure. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Too late for your secret emails nowm, you should have emailed me when you were hiding whater it is that so offended you.  Giano  21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're worried you said something to offend me? Please put your mind at rest, I pay you very little attention. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You lot are something elese entirely, I have never in all my years here come across such crass stupidity in all my life, who has oversighted this and why - [88] and it had better be good, very good, I am not dropping this that I promise you.  Giano  21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Very curious, indeed! There seem to have been 30 consecutive edits oversighted, from a whole range of editors. They are consecutive, and the time shown when I access the Revision History was between 11:43 and 12:50. Did someone make an error? Bielle (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You copuild say that, and they are all too cowardly to admit it, assuming it was an error, which I strongly doubt.  Giano  21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked DerHexter on his talk page to justify his use of the oversight tool shown by Giano above [89]. I agree with Giano that this is very disturbing, and seems, on the face, exteremly over zealous (at best). Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a total abuse of tools in effort to make me look bad as though I out people (or worse) who knows? They hoped I would not notice - well I did, and now I want some answers. I have outed nobody!  Giano  21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano - This seems to clearly have been a mistake, based on what people are saying was removed, but a mistake and not some sort of intentional abuse of you. I have not seen DerHexer in conflict with you previously, and a misunderstanding about the content is the most obvious explanation. If you believe DerHexer had some sort of conflict of interest or malign intent please take that up with Arbcom. But not everything that happens to you is an intentional abuse or attempt to bully you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the other 19 editors who were oversighted think? Sarek, Durova, jehochman and Tanthalus are but 4 more of them, Bielle (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The thread was not going the way some people wanted it too clearly, so any excuse and discredit me, well I am not discredited, I have been told the reason, and it is so laughable that were I not so angry I would be rolling on the floor, they insult my intelligence, no one could be stupid enough to beleibe what they are saying.  Giano  21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a mistake by DexHexer, with 34 consecutive edits from 21 different editors across 4 or 5 main discussion threads, removed in one broad stroke. I doubt that it is some sort of censorship conspiracy against GiacomoReturned. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So why are they telling me I tried to out somebody when I did not?  Giano  22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, it was a mistake, will you calm down? Protonk (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familar with you and Wikipedia would think that oversighting a bunch of your contributions on ANI could possibly contain what you feel about a particular situation, as you have in the past prolifically followed up on mailing lists and other venues when you felt censored on-wiki.

Either DerHexer is completely ignorant of that - and mind-blowingly clumsy - or this was an error.

Again, if he was someone who had been in regular conflict with you there would be more cause for alarm. But the only explanation which makes sense here is a misunderstanding and mistake.

If he's been in conflict with you a lot somewhere that I didn't notice, let me know, but I don't recall any. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(multi ec) A mistake is a generous use of words. Can I suggest incompetence? Has anyone with a meta account asked DerHexter to sort this out? This gross misuse (or abuse .... but I AGF) of sensitive tools needs speedy resolution. I agree Giano often percieves actions to be aginst him when they are not in fact against him at all, but this kind of inempt action certainly adds no credence to the functionaries of this, and all, wikimedia projects. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(multiec) I agree that this appears to be a mistake, one that the Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards was designed to prevent from happening. I suggest that someone fix the mistake posthaste, before Randy from Boise unleashes his hordes of Greek Skeletons on us, and then we can proceed to solving the problem going forward. Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There were two apparent mistakes - one, that there was personal info needing oversight, and two, the wide swath of stuff deleted. I am not familiar with the oversight UI - I haven't got the tool here on en.wp and haven't run it on private mediawiki wikis I have run. So I don't know what might explain the specifics for the latter. The former seems to just be a misunderstanding, based on not knowing the origin of Lore's quote etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So why are they telling me I tried to out somebody when I did not - with no explanation and no apology? They hoped I would not notice.  Giano  22:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because "they" are asleep and less than fluent in engrish. No one informed and reasonable currently thinks you violated anyones privacy. Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano - who has accused you of trying to "out" someone, and where? GiantSnowman 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familiar with en.wp and you could possibly have any expectation that you would not notice, Giano. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This may all be a mistake. If DerHexer believed that there was personal information leaked, then every edit in between the posting of that information and his removal would have to be suppressed, as otherwise, someone could look at an individual revision and still see the personal information. If there was no personal information leaked, which I do not know, then DerHexer made a mistake that is easy to fix. Calling his actions clumsy and inept adds nothing to the resolution of the situation and merely criticizes a hard-working steward and local oversighter as of the last February 2009 election. Can we all take a step back please? NW (Talk) 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Giano - chill. This is, I feel, a cock-up by DerHexer. A grave one, and an issue we need to take to meta I agree, ideally to remove incompetence like this - however not something aimed at you as an editor by any means. I feel reasonably confident in that. Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From where I sit this is a series of misunderstandings that have been made worse at every turn by inflated rhetoric, assumptions of bad faith, accusations of incompetence, and otherwise insulting commentary. --Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how screwing up use of oversight is anything less than incompetence? Or perhaps you think it's a competent use of the tool Tznkai? Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're begging the question, but the simple answer is that this may well turn out to be a mistake that anyone, and by anyone, I mean you and everyone else here, also would have made.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, let's wait and see what DerHexer has to say first. Given the time difference, he may well be asleep now. Waiting a few hours for a reply isn't going to hurt anyone. The issue has been raised and will be given due consideration in time. Wikipedia is 24/7/365 but people aren't. There is no rush here. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, since my comment was possibly misunderstood, I mean the following:

1. I know, more or less for a fact that this was a series of misunderstandings

2. I know, more or less for a fact that it has been repeatedly made worse because of anger, confusion, and nasty words, and is likley to again worse if the peanut gallery here continues to level charges of malice or incompetence in any direction.

3. I am not talking to or about any one editor in particular. If you have any doubt, assume I am talking about you too.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• So let us get this straight. An important editor thinks I have outed him, an oversighter agrees and oversights - right so far? Now what normally happens in that situation? I will tell you - the "outing" editor (me) gets banned for ever (coincidentally just like Vintagekits). Except in this case, I am told I have "outed" only after I notice my edits are oversighted - no one bans me, no one warns me or even emails me before. When I shout, only then am I grudgingly (almost in code, I still cannot beleive I have understood correctly, but am told by an Arb Clerk I have) told my crime - a crime so ludicrous and beyond the realms of possibility, that if I took this to Wikipedia Review (I'm not going to) they would keep me there in free champagne for ever as they laughed without stopping. Co-incidentally the oversighted edits (20odd is it?) concern my views on a very suspicious and dodgy banning by an important editor - then you all say calm down Giano, it was just a silly mistake, they knew you would notice. Not very convincing is it? Perhaps, they were hoping to try me for this outing and have me banned during the night, lock down my talk page and be done with me before I and Europe woke up tomorrow. Unlikely? Well it happened last night to Vintagekits. Giano  22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, who has accused you of trying to "out" someone, and where? GiantSnowman 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since everything else follows agreeing with the question "An important editor thinks I have outed him, an oversighter agrees and oversights - right so far?" this is an easy answer: No, that's not what happened. It's simply not, Giano. I don't know you from Adam, we've never interacted, and I have no interest in your political history here, nor the current politics you may be involved in. The oversight was done unrelated to the specific request of the subject. That's just the fact. The issue was being discussed at the time, and it happened completely unrelated to that discussion. Giano, in this specific case, this is not a witch hunt against you. It's really not. This thread needs to die, everything that happened was a perfect storm of circumstance. Whether or not what you posted was "outing" is immaterial for how all this is turning out in far too brief of a timespan.

To reiterate: You were not being targeted in an effort to get rid of you. You are doing far more harm than good to yourself by running here with rampant speculation of abuse. Everyone please take a step back and get back to work, as someone "in the know" all I can do is say that this is a horrible non-issue that went very badly. Keegan (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. It is in the diffs of this section some where but so coded you can be forgiven for not spotting it, and far more precisely on some frantic emails I am now receiving. I promise you if this ever sees the light of day no-one will be posting because they will be laughing too hard to type, that's assuming unlike me they can beleive it. If I say more than that, I probably will be banned.  Giano  22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these attempts to stamp on European editors in the middle of the night is very dangerous and might lead to a disastrous trans-Atlantic rift. The fait accompli that confronted Vk is an appalling example of abuse of power. I feel I should become more involved in these issues. So, could someone please give me a link that would explain what "oversighting" is? Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight should help. Basically when an edit is deleted forever. GiantSnowman 22:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, DerHexer is a European editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That Derhexer had not read the diffs is obvious, the question is who instructed him and why?  Giano  23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, to be fair, I reopened the Vintagekits topic precisely because I felt it hadn't gotten enough attention, and I'm not even an admin. HalfShadow 22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, this has nothing to do with VK. Nothing at all. This was not abuse, this was entirely coincidence from every single person involved. Your link request is here, but once again a fault of circumstance. Please, people, we already have enough conspiracy theories on Wikipedia to remember. Keegan (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Keegan - I can see it is not connected to Vk. (I'm still not happy with the block-becomes-ban technique; but I accept I'm conflating unrelated things here). Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did the 'oversight' take place, which page? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit history. GiantSnowman 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• If it helps anything to note this, the action was obviously problematic. Diff access to this board got disabled for every post that occurred by anyone over a time frame of more than an hour. I noticed that shortly after it occurred and contacted the subcommittee with the full copy/paste list of posters and time stamps that had been affected. One of them was a post of my own to a totally different thread, and I dislike the impression that gives in my edit history that could lead people to suppose I had posted something inappropriate. Dozens of diffs were affected; far more people than just myself and Giano now have this problem. They're looking into it. So let's be patient. I do have one further complaint to make, though. Several months ago I asked Risker to recuse herself from anything having to do with me. It was Risker who emailed acknowledgement of my request. Risker also posted to my user talk yesterday. She has never attempted to resolve the problems that led to that request for recusal, and the request has never been withdrawn. I consider that inappropriate. Durova³⁶³ 23:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova, let's get a few things straight here. You posted, quite appropriately, to the AUSC mailing list. As you are aware, the AUSC is in flux right now as we complete the changeover of members. As such, at the time you posted, the only two list admins were John Vandenberg (sound asleep in Australia), and myself. (Dominic has now been added as a listadmin.) I managed to get online to moderate your email, read the gist of it, and agreed with your concerns. I responded to you so that you would know that your message had been received. I immediately emailed the Oversight mailing list and also the Arbitration Committee mailing list pointing out the concern you had identified. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to log into Wikipedia and revert the suppressions; John Vandenberg managed to do that just shortly before I managed to get online. The message on your talk page was a bot-distributed message to all 450 or so editors who participated in the AUSC elections or either of two RFCs related to the use of SecurePoll; it would never occur to me (or the person who created the list or distributed the messages) to deliberately exclude you from a widely distributed message. Risker (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And if it had been merely a mass message no complaint would have occurred, but within less than a day you also took it upon yourself (among all the members of that Subcommittee) to email that response. It would have been better if you had at least acknowledged that the request for recusal had been submitted. It hardly inspires confidence in a watchdog group to see its own members behave in such an in-your-face manner regarding ethical matters. Durova³⁶⁴ 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As a point of order, with any suppression or oversight, if an edit introduces some content that later needs to be suppressed, and that content remains on the page for 1, or 5, or 50 subsequent edits before it is removed, then 1, or 5 or 50 edits have to be suppressed. The database records the complete contents of every page, not merely the differences. By way of illustration, if someone wanted to suppress the photograph currently on my user talk page, one would have to make an edit removing it, and then suppress all 12 or so intervening edits, including 2 complete conversations. This is why, especially on a high traffic page, edits that may need to be oversighted should be reverted as soon as possible, before even notifying oversight-L. The suppression of 34 edits to this page was in no way a result of error or incompetence, assuming that the decision to suppress the first edit at issue was correct. Of course, it appears that the decision may not have been correct--my point is that having made the decision to suppress a particular edit, the suppression of a further 30+ edits was the simple consequence of the fact that the edit was on a high traffic page for a relatively long time. If in the future you ever see an edit that needs to be suppressed, revert it immediately, then email the oversight list. Thatcher 02:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt particularly cautious, when a large number of intermediate diffs are involved, but I have to agree: suppressing something "halfway" makes little sense in practice, since the information will still be readily available in numerous other revisions; in a case like this one, especially, you can be sure someone will take five seconds to use an external diff tool. My early impression is that suppression was probably unnecessary and ineffective, here, and of course the steward angle bears looking into, but if I don't think the action was intended maliciously. User privacy is a serious concern for everyone. Thatcher's advice is sound. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Randy's revenge. Karmarific. MickMacNee (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MickMack - you have a point? Or are you just doing (another) a bit of trolling? Sarah777 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

90% of your posts here a trolling Sarah. I notice yet again this was another situation where you formed an opinion first and went off half cocked with your accusations, and then asked for assistance as to how to figure out what had happened. MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have undone the suppression as the rationale for it was found wanting. The audit subcom will continue to review this. Durova, take your unrelated complaints elsewhere; thank you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I support that - clearly an inappropriate use of oversight. I would like to know who performed the oversight. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• This whole thing really could have done with less hyperventilating, on all sides. I'm happy to see cooler heads starting to prevail, as time moves forward. It's getting really aggravating to see so many people throwing circular accusations of abuse and priviledge, when you all might actually get something done by talking to each other like adults. If your first thought is to try to figure out who I'm talking about, don't bother: it's everyone. We really act like toddlers, sometimes. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Defending DerHexer

Right, I'm not an admin or anyone important or anything, but I feel people have been too quick to judge DerHexer over the Oversight issue above. The poor guy hasn't been allowed to defend himself against accusations of abuse of tools or gross incompetence etc. etc. - it's 00:30 here in the UK, which means it's 01:30 (AM!) over in Berlin. The poor guy's probably tucked up in bed, absolutely unaware of the mountain that has been made out of his molehill. So everyone calm down, and please wait for DerHexer's response. That is all. Thanks, GiantSnowman 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neither am I an admin or anyone important which is why it's not a molehill, if it was you wrongly accused of outing people you woul be angry, Admins can defend themselves, the unimportant cannot.  Giano  00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• But despite what your e-mail said, there hasn't been any explicit "Giacomo outed X" accusation from any editor, as far as I can see...GiantSnowman 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair, Giano, I think that everyone that's posted since who's understood what went on has pointed out that it was almost certainly a genuine mistake. When they stopped laughing, of course. Black Kite 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd edit of this section (above) "You were claimed to have made an edit revealing personal information" So how come a almost-non-En-Wikipedian knew what we now all know?  Giano  00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to ask SarekOfVulcan why he said that. But do you not think that if you had been deemed to have 'outed' someone, there would have been repercussions? A warning, sanctions, a ban? GiantSnowman 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Stewards should not take action on individual wikis that have their own personnel to manage problems, unless it is an emergency. DerHexer seems to have thought, incorrectly, that this was an emergency and that no enwiki oversighters were available. Fortunately, suppression is reviewable and reversible, and if this had not involved Giano (with all the attendant theatrics) this would have been a 3 entry thread that was closed after review and reversal. I have no reason to think this was anything other than a good faith mistake on DerHexer's part, and it is my understanding that the Audit Subcommittee is reviewing the situation. Thatcher 02:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast Thatcher, wise cracks about the "theatrics" are all very clever, but if all has been restored, where is the "Randy from Boise edit" that I am suposed to have made outing, I don't see it? Are you saying Randy from Boisse is not an Admin, or that the many who told me he was were lying - a simple question? Where is the edit?  Giano  07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's been restored; I see 34 edits suppressed and 34 edits restored. I'll email you a link to the particular diff I think you're referring to. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Luna, that was helpful, but if you compare the link you sent me, to what is actually way up there above us, the two are not the same - it still says "personal information removed" as though - I am outing someone - I am not, now I am starting to get really angry about this - what the hell is going on? - we keep being told what is has been done, being done and the matter is resolved - it is not! I am still wrongly accused of outing on this very page by "personal information removed"  Giano  09:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that; probably just nobody thought to restore that particular bit, so I've gone ahead and done so. I'll be off to bed in a bit, most likely, but will check back on this tomorrow. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit/conflict)I dont see where this page says "personal information removed". Could you or Luna (or anyone else?) please fill me in, privately if appropriate. The suppression has been undone, and I have explained that the original suppression was not justified because you did not out anyone. Please tell me what more needs to be done to resolve this? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At some point or another, a bit of text got replaced with that string. Restoring the suppressed edits puts them back in history, but the displayed text was still mangled by the redaction, which I undid just now. Should be one of my top few contribs, if you're inclined to peek. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but Luna has now sorted it [90]. Now, finally, after so much trouble Wikipedia can see what constitutes outing somebody. Like me others may want to know why a checkuse we have never heard of drives by and oversights it, it is even in inverted commas, so there is no excuse. I want to know who told that Oversighter to oversight and I want to know why that oversighter did so, and I want to know why I have had to fight so hard and long to prove I was outing nobody. Then and only then will this thread be archived. Is that quite clear?  Giano  09:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually its not. This is not an appropriate venue for accusations of oversight abuse, there is a committee to handle complaints like that. Frankly though you are unlikely to get the closure you want, because for almost everyone else here it would appear that this is a mistake - poorly handled sure, but still a mistake. Not everyone is out to get you Giano. (myself included) Viridae^Talk 11:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, it was not a simple mistake, and I have proof and emails to prove it from some people whose names may surprise you. Yesterday, afternoon, the whole matter was a figment of my imagination, now slowly like drawing teeth fact after fact is being prsented to me. This is very involved matter indeed, and for the good of the project it's needs to be in the open. I am giving those concerned a few hours to come forward and go quietly. For the record FerHexer was just a naive tool and for tht alone certain people should be ashamed of themselves.  Giano  11:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have proof of a plot to disrupt, I suggest arbcom the relevant emails or diffs - either wa, this is the most drama filled place you could try to resolve the problem. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a suprem irony in your advice.  Giano  11:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the use of oversight, I was surprised that DerHexer didn't think it necessary to leave a warning on Giano's talk page to chastise him for "revealing" personal information on ANI. Had he done so, of course, he would have seen the quotation at the top of Giano's talk page and immediately realised his mistake, one would hope. Bencherlite^Talk 11:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have some sympathy for DerHexer (albeit limited) he was used, make no mistake about that, he was used. A young and very naive Oversighter, not one of the regulars misplaced his trust unquestioningly. Simple as that in this case. Someone shopped long and had to find him.  Giano  11:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god! How many times does Giano want to edit war with admins over the closing of this thread? A mistake was made, the mistake was fixed, there is no longer a problem, so why do you continue to create drama?! It is disruptive, annoying and may lead to a block if you annoy the wrong admin (for which I wouldn't blame anyone for blocking you) Jeni ^(talk) 13:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• "closing" noticeboard threads is a bit of largely irrelevant bookkeeping. People will eventually stop talking about this as a current matter, and it will scroll off the page naturally. In due course I expect the audit subcommittee will make a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports. Thatcher 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not resolved. I will say when it is resolved and that will be when one particular Arbitrator has the common decency to admit what has gone on, if he does not, then I shall. This is complicated matter and that person had better start explaining.  Giano  17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(Oh this is gonna go well...) HalfShadow 17:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, ya'll make it difficult to comment here. It's closed, it ain't closed, it's closed, etc etc. Now, I forgot what I was gonna post. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise, but we are waiting for DerHexer and a statement from the Arbcom, it will be coming, as they struggle to explain to you what exactly has happenned here, and the longer they leave this and hope it will blow away the harser it becomes and the greater their complicity becomes.  Giano  18:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read that comment. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave this thread 'open'. Give DerHexer a chance to respond. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DerHexer

At first I have to excuse my late response: I've been at university the whole day, had to read the comments first, had written some parts of my response and had to accept that the browser collapsed once and destroyed all of my text. But even more sad are some of these comments which were raised against the person which has done that oversight action without knowledge about what has really happened; I was also astonished that non-public informations from the suppression log were made public without any need, and disappointed that no one told me about that issue [esp. the undone action] except on my enwiki talk page.
Some information about what happened: I was pinged on IRC by an uninvolved user that one user has added a comment to this frequent site which (possibly) outs another user. It was said that the last one had sent a mail to the oversights on enwiki some hours ago and had not gotten a response until then. Unluckily local oversights were not even online [which is quite frustrating since there are about 40 of them; a fact which I noticed in the past too where I as a crosswiki acting steward needed local oversights on enwiki concerning crosswiki vandals which published unpublished or libellous account names and information (I even recently created a crosswiki oversight channel called #wikimedia-oversights for these issues) … you might understand that I cannot mail dozens of oversight mailing lists daily and check if and when which requests have been taken care of and if they were correctly done (it even happened to enwiki oversights that they haven't done so because it's for them like for other non-native speakers difficult to identify which things were libellous, e. g. in German)]. So I as steward which has to take care of all wikis had to decide what should be done now. I decided to replace the (possibly) problematic information with "removed personal information" and remove for the first time during my steward work directly revisions on one wiki with local oversights the because I was firmly convinced that it was correct and needed what I did. According to the oversight policy published private information have to be removed, and in my humble opinion as fast as possible as it cannot be foreseen who might abuse them (to stalk people in real life etc.; things which happened to Wikimedia users). While with the given information I had to judge the addition as outing and noone was available to react I had to think that this was an emergency situation which allowed me act. Just in the aftermath came out that it all was just a misunderstanding and the user never intended to out the other one; I feel very sorry about that later clarification [sorry, Giano!]. While I cannot clarify the whole situation because I would be forced to out one person, I just can say that the possibly outed person, I and others were firmly convinced that it was intended (accidentally or not) to out the person. That in the aftermath came out that it was just a quotation/comparison/whatever is something neither them nor me can be guilty for [just to not have checked if there could be any meanings than those which came (or had to) to our mind; btw. in German law it is not even allowed to publish information in that way that just a few and not all persons can identify another person (e. g.: "DerHexer is Martin" can be identified by all people; "DerHexer's first name is the same as Mazbln's ones" just by a few … both things would not be allowed)]. So under the given premise I neither abused my rights (as I explained above: the oversight policy allowed me to act in the way I acted) nor have I made a mistake when I did the action. It is definitely not true that I haven't added rationale; I have suppressed these revisions (of course all which included the possibly problematic text, which can be quite a lot since all revisions are completely saved in the history and not just the diff [I'm a bit astonished that this was not known to most Wikipedians here] and would have been even more if I not had acted so quickly as I thought I had to act) with a summary which contained explicitly that I removed them because of OS policy #1 and an emergency situation. I would never had blocked or accused the user which has added the possibly problematic information because I did these actions as steward and not as enwiki user [so enwiki might even be the wrong place to discuss it]; my only goal was to get this possibly outing information be removed as soon as possible to help others to save their privacy. Since neither me nor any other person could be able to verify if that "outing" was done accidentally or not, I would never had blocked that user; if the local ArbCoM members/oversights think they have enough clues to deny an accident they might act to the best of their knowledge and belief; it would not be necessarily according to my will [so I decided to just remove the information and not to do any further action]. If you have any further questions to clarify the situation, do really not hesitate to contact me again [but I won't be all the time at home during the weekend, nor will give any more information about the possibly outing information]. Kind regards and again sorry for all trouble I initiated with no ill intent, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Cmt if i understand, you thought a reference to the en.wiki famous "Randy from Boise," he of the famous sword-wielding skeletons that he believes tipped the balance of the Peloponnesian War, was an actual person who needed some kind of oversight protection? If I've got this right, please refrain from taking any admin/oversight type actions on en.wiki again. Your English skills and local knowledge are insufficient for this task.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair, but I won't say more for now. Perhaps the audit subcommittee with address this. It was not entirely unreasonable to think that the choice of name targeted a specific person. The problem is that the local oversighters had already decided that the link was not a problem, but that the "uninvolved admin" and DerHexer were not subscribed to the oversight list, and so assumed that the lack of action was due to lack of available oversighters, when it was instead due to a decision not to act; compounded by not finding any enwiki oversighters on IRC and assuming that therefore there were no enwiki oversighters available. Thatcher 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He didn't think Randy from Boise was a real person? No real harm is done (this time) but it certainly casts his judgement in a poor light and he should definitely refrain from taking any unilateral action in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, neither the person who made the complaint, the intermediary, nor DerHexer, realized that the comment about "Randy from Boise" was independent of any particular editor. This issue became ten times more dramatic than it had to because Giano made a fuss, and Giano's fuss attracted others who like drama. Most cases of suppression will never be acknowledged publicly, and rightfully so, and the best way to report the suspicion of improper suppression is to email the oversight list or the audit subcommittee. In due course, the suppression was reviewed and reversed. I can point to other cases where edits were suppressed and later restored after review that no one knows or cares about. This is like one of those dead white girl news stories that blows up on CNN when dozens of similar stories go unreported. Thatcher 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I would have jumped to an 'outing' conclusion myself, but I've never heard of 'Randy from Boise' either. 'en.wiki famous' would seem to be quite an overstatement, and english skills and local knowledge have nothing to do with it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you DerHexer, that is most informative and helpful for the next stage of this case. IRC? - well that is a huge surprise isn't it. I am sorry that you have been so maliciously duped and used. The duty admin may now close this thread. This matter is now going elsewhere.  Giano  18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, editors should keep their participation at IRC & Wikipedia 'seperate'. PS: You're forgiven DerHex. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• A problem here is that there were enwiki oversighters awake and active and discussing the issue on the oversight mailing list. They may not have been online on IRC, but that is a very narrow definition of "active." The oversight mailing list discussion had already pointed out that the essay pre-dated current arguments and the name used in the essay was not chosen with special reference to any particular user, which is why it had not been suppressed by the local oversight team. I understand why DerHexer would not want to be subscribed to the enwiki oversight mailing list, but perhaps there should be a discussion somewhere about stewards and local projects and how to better coordinate and communicate across projects. Thatcher 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

we have an Arb who received no satisfaction from his own oversighters, so ran off to IRC (or asked someone else to) and then used a young person with no local knowledge or comprehension here. They then watched the oversight take pace and hoped it would all pass unnoticed. It took 18 hours of battling (by me alone) to have it restored and my name cleared, as all Arbs turned their backs. I'm through with this section and disgusted. You can close it now.  Giano  19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits were restored after 6 hours, but whatever... Thatcher 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No Thatcher, probably longer than 18, I cannot be bothered to count, this edit finally rectified the matter [91].  Giano  19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A quibble about details. The suppressed edits, which only someone with oversight permission could restore, were restored about 6 hours after they were hidden. The redaction of the comment, which any editor or admin could have fixed, was not fixed for 18 hours, mostly I think because no one noticed amidst all the other commentary. Thatcher 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • As a general matter, hundreds of other WMF projects have a serious shortage of administrators, bureaucrats, and other volunteers to deal with necessary functions. That is the principal need for steward intervention. Like it or not, en:wiki is the 800 pound gorilla of WMF. I had another qualm recently regarding DerHexer's intervention regarding an Oversight request, and although he did not specifically use the Oversight tool he stepped into a difficult situation in a manner which made it harder to resolve. I filed no formal complaint and attempted to resolve it with him one on one via email. It was several days (and multiple requests) before he responded to the initial query and he has not replied to the followup. Without getting into every detail of that situation, it is a bit worrisome to see another tetchy situation deteriorate so soon afterward, due to the same person's intervention on a more trafficked page. DerHexer's intentions are undoubtedly well meant and sincere, but en:wiki already has many eyes upon it. Perhaps it would be better to leave direct intervention to the people who know this project well, unless one has time on hand for the followup which could be necessary. Durova³⁶⁴ 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are so many problems with this statement that I started tearing it apart and decided it wasn't even worth my time. I look forward to the full audit comittee report. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Peculiar new user

Moin.nabi (talk · contribs) has been blocked for what appears to be move vandalism - and I totally see why - but I'm not 100% convinced. Can anyone determine what s/he was doing? Perhaps copying his stub article to other names? Weird situation. Wknight94 ^talk 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Moin.nabi aware of this thread. GiantSnowman 22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah. He's blocked anyway and I am guessing is trying to figure out how to contact someone, but a link here doesn't hurt. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the edits make even less sense. Replacing the contents of the one possibly legit article Mehrdad Shahshahani with "Hello World!". I'd almost think someone was using his account and/or computer and performing vandalism in his name. Note: I've nominated even that article for speedy deletion, as I'm not seeing any indication of notability beyond that of your typical university professor. --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the db tag from that article. A full Professor of Mathematics at a notable University is notable and the article seems to make enough of a claim of importance. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice please

I had removed: Proposal for editors to go on strike over the refusal of the Foundation to deal with feedback on "Wikipedia Forever" from the {{Cent}} template as it seemed to be misplaced there. I cited WP:Soapbox but maybe there's some more appropriate way to either word this or remove it altogether. {{Cent}} is intended as a high-profile community-wide brief on subjects usually tied to guidelines and policies but certainly can include other important topics. As a general rule RfC's and discussions attempt to be neutral discussion asking for wider input to make a better decision.

I see two issues here, (i) the "proposal" cited actually seems to simply be a call to strike rather than a NPOV discussion about perceived issues with the campaign, and (ii) the template itself may need to be tweaked in instructions so as to keep the purpose and focus on this template on target from future efforts to seemingly advertise items that likely are best advertised otherwise. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

what this is made out to be

what it actually is

• If it stays removed from CENT, I say just ignore it. I don't think this sort of abuse of CENT happens very often, and now that I've glanced at the "strike" page I think the less attention/drama around it the better. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cent, however should not be used as a soapbox which I believe this is doing. It was created to widely advertise discussions on policies and guidelines and I feel this kind of entry degrades its use and therefore effectiveness. If it is removed I would certainly support it, I posted here as this is one of the most high-profile templates and those wishing to push agendas have venues in which to generally do that with neutral massages. Start an actual NPOV RfC then look if Cent is appropriate. I am not looking for an edit war but more eyes to see if there is some better way to address this besides simply removing it and admonishing an editor. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that {{cent}} should remain neutral. As a number of people do want to discuss the issue, I think it's worthwhile to include it, but I really don't think that RfC has a neutral tone. For lack of a better option, I've slipped in a link to the ongoing Village Pump topic, instead. Various proposals can just as well be mentioned there, rather than advertising one above all others. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I updated the RFC, archiving the clearly unproductive "strike" discussion, and accordingly relinked from Cent. The RFC was always structured with the strike suggestion being just one of the possible ideas, so I really don't get the "neutrality" issues (maybe it was the banner at the top... which OK maybe was a bit much, but it seemed fitting). And BTW as the creator of the RFC in question, shouldn't someone have notified me of this thread? I've only just noticed it, after updating the RFC and Cent. Rd232 ^talk 10:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed {{cquote}} above as unnecessary and somewhat inappropriate formatting (adding drama), and BTW, what part of WP:SOAPBOX has any relevance to this issue? Rd232 ^talk 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The banner,

Is rather childish, and doesn't reflect the view of wikipedia by the community. In fact, it has met strong opposition at the meta page discussing the banners. Since there was no consensus for it's conclusion, why go ahead and do it? As to the matter of placing it here, on this noticeboard, the only way to deal with the banner is with admin privilages, hence the need for admin intervention. That aside, I will be dropping Jimbo a note on his talk page concerning this thread, for various reasons.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs to be completely hidden for those who choose to do so. People will donate if you have a little thing next to "Try Beta". There's no need for a big ad right at the top of the page.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dito. It looks rather ugly to me, and does it have to be so big.--Coldplay Expért  |  ^Talk 02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Would highly recommend against that course of action. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Daedalus969. It is also a bit too big. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  ^Talk 02:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does the Foundation need our permission to use a banner to encourage contributions to support this project, which the Foundation owns and finances? —Finell (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's "the Foundation?" I don't work for them. They don't pay me to do this. Yes, they keep servers going, but if it's truly here to maintain a popular endeavour, presumably it is responsive to constituents, no? Steveozone (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

More comments from editors at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Fundraiser. You might like to add thoughts there. 86.133.51.201 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempted outing

User:H_Debussy-Jones is attempting to "out" User:Sorrywrongnumber in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Yesterday_Was_a_Lie

User:H_Debussy-Jones provides what he believes to be the editor's real life name, and a link to what he believes is the editor's physical address.

Regardless of whether the accusation is true or not, I believe this is grounds for a permablock on User:H_Debussy-Jones 166.205.130.225 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate anyone looking into this reading the entire thread, which deals with the apparent conflict of interest editing of the article about Yesterday Was a Lie, an independent film due for theatrical release in December. Examination of the contributions shows that the major contributors to the article, both named accounts and IPs, are all interconnected, and the probability is that they are connected to the director of the film or a close associate -- and I have suggested exactly as much in that thread. I have also suggested that the problem can be solved without anyone's identity being revealed, if the primary account responsible, User:Sorrywrongnumber, came to the COI board and said "I am connected with the production and I will not edit the articles connected to it anymore." There's no need for anyone to be "outed", and 166's accusation is baseless -- as well as the fifth or sixth major policy violation he or she has accused me of in the course of this discussion. Sach (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Posting or even suggesting what you believe might be an editor's real life name and/or address is absolutely forbidden, no exceptions. Trying to demonstrate COI is not a defense for what you did. Not to mention the fact that posting that link adds nothing to your case - it only demonstrates that Helicon is Kerwin's production company, which is public knowledge and adds nothing to the discussion of whether Sorrywrongnumber has a COI. You crossed the line, greatly.166.205.130.225 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate. I have said that User:Sorrywrongnumber, User:Boxcarwillie, User:Filmsnoir and User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, along with a whole bunch of IPs of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx range, appear to working together, and could be sockpuppets or meatpuppets. User:Sorrywrongnumber is the primary account, since all but 9 of their 140 edits are to Yesterday Was a Lie, <name redacted> (the film's director), Chase Masterson (the film's producer and star) or related articles about the rest of the cast and other subjects connected to director Kerwin. I laid out all the evidence for this in this thread on WP:COIN, and came to the conclusion that the probability is that User:Sorrywrongnumber is director <name redacted> or a close associate.

As part of the discussion, the geolocation of the 69.23x IPs was shown to be Los Angeles, which is consistent with someone involved with films doing the editing, and as part of that discussion, I pointed at that "Helicon Arts Cooperative", the production company behind the film, and the apparent entity behind User:Helicon Arts Cooperative is listed by the IRS as having an address in Los Angeles c/o James P. Kerwin. James P. Kerwin's address in Los Angeles is a matter of public record, since it's in the phone book, and anyone can find it (as I did) in 2 seconds.

Now, I've never at any time said that User:Sorrywrongnumber is <name redacted>, I've said that it seems probable that it is <name redacted> or a close associate, so there's been no "outing" and no revelation of a member's address. That would happen only if User:Sorrywrongnumber were to say "I am <name redacted>" -- but there is no necessity for that to happen, since User:Sorrywrongnumber can simply say "I am connected to the production, andI will not edit these articles" for the COI problem to be cleared up.

I look forward to seeing what other Wikipedia policies 166 finds to accuse me of violating in their peculiarly zealous defense of the conflict of interest editors in question. Sach (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll make this simple for you. Posting the name and address of who you think an editor MIGHT be or PROBABLY is is still a violation of WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY. It does not matter if the address is public record elsewhere. It is DOUBLY a violation because you are linking to the address of the subject of an article. I don't know how much clearer to make this. You are in violation, period. And enough with the "particularly zealous defense" gibberish. You are the one searching tax records for the director's address. That borders on cybersralking and your obsession with these Filmmakers is downright creepy.166.205.130.225 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think taht everyone understands that you believe this to be the case, but it's really other people's opinions that are important now, so there's no need to continue to repeat your accusation, unless you have additional evidence you'd like to present.

Incidentally, for future reference, you're supposed to notify editors when you bring them up on AN/I -- a third party did the honors for you. (And, no, my request that you not post on my talk page doesn't nullify that -- it's quite allowable to post succinct notices on talk pages despite such requests.) On that subject, I have notified User:Sorrywrongnumber, User:Boxcarwillie and User:Filmsnoir that their names have come up here. User:Helicon Arts Cooperative has been blocked as a username violation. Sach (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, your suggestion that I have an "obsession" with these folks is rather bizarre, considering that I had never even heard of them before last night, and that the whole thing could have been nipped in the bud almost immediately with a simple statement from User:Sorrywrongnumber to have not understood Wikipedia policies and pledge not to edit the articles anymore. (Recall that the first step in this whole thing was that I suggested on the talk pages of these four accounts that they familairize themselves with WP:COI, since I AGF that they didn't know they were doing wrong.) But, instead, SWN blanked my notices away, a number of 69.23x IP's attacked the article and the discussion trying the eliminate it through brute force, and you arrived to (apparently) fight the good fight just for the shear principle of defending people you don't know and have no connection to. Sach (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP is right. You aren't allowed to do what you've been doing, please go have a thorough read of WP:OUTING.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have read it, and I disagree -- but if I'm wrong, then why not have someone oversight the mention of the address on WP:COIN. Seems simple enough.

Unless you believe that there was some intent to cause harm, in which case you'd be mistaken. Sach (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, under the interpretation of policy you're advocating, how does one go about dealing with a conflict of interest problem without in any way speculating on the possible identity of the editors involved? Seems like something of a Catch-22. Sach (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You do so by giving facts about a possible affilation. You do not, under any circumstances, post their possible name or address. It is not an interpretation of the policy that I'm advocating, but the policy itself. You are not allowed to post the real, or possible, real-life name and address of a user unless it is posted by them, on their user talk page, or elsewhere. Directly from the policy page, emphasis mine: Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.

The policy is quite clear, I am going to find the diffs in question and request oversight, since such activity is expressly forbidden.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is clear, but your interpretation of it in this case is faulty. "<name redacted> or a close associate" is not a person, "<name redacted> or a close associate" is a class of people.

Good luck with the oversight -- perhaps you might want to contribute to discussion of the underlying problem, the unresolved conflict of interest of the named editors on Yesterday Was a Lie and associated articles? Sach (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Listen to yourself! You can't get around WP:OUTING by naming a person and linking to his address, but then adding "or his associates" as some type of disclaimer! The admins will see right through that. You named a name and linked to an address, and that's forbidden, period.

As for the "unresolved COI"... as Benjiboi has asked you elsewhere: WHAT content is unresolved? The article has been rewritten, and there is consensus that there is no existing COI information in the articles you mention. As you have been told, past possible COI edits do NOT mean that there is a current "unresolved" COI. Either indicate the material that you think is COI that still remains, or drop it. Whining about the identity of editors who previously edited the article(s) is making you look ridiculous. The matter is closed. The discussion now is your egregious violation of WP:OUTING. Stop changing the topic.166.205.130.225 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pace your opinion and that of Daedalus969, who has, in good faith, misunderstood the policy, there was no attempted "outing", but there is an ongoing conflict of interest in that User:Sorrywrongnumber and numerous IPS of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx range are clearly associated in some way with the production company for Yesterday Was a Lie, and they were instrumental in editing and shaping its content, in saving it from being deleted, and in contributing to various articles associated with it. The conflict of interest hasn't disappeared simply because someone -- namely me, over your vehement objections and the disruptive editing of the 69.23x IPs -- cleaned up the article, the conflict continues to exist as long as User:Sorrywrongnumber, User:Boxcarwillie, User:Filmsnoir, and the 69.23x crew are able to edit these articles.

Seems pretty simple to me -- I;m surprised you don't get it. Nothing is "closed", at this point, I don't think. Sach (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As I and others have explained to you ad nauseum, a COI DOES NOT exist simply because someone possibly associated with a film is "able" to edit the article, or has done so in the past. A COI is ONLY considered to exist if there is PRESENTLY biased or nonneutral material in the article which was contributed by those people. What part of that do you not understand?166.205.130.225 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not misunderstood the policy. You posted the possible name and address of the user. That isn't allowed, period. Posting or one of his associates does not change the fact that you posted a name and an address. I posted an excrept from the policy above, that quite clearly states the same thing. There is nothing to misunderstand. You are in violation of the policy, period. You said wait until others comment, well, others comment, and you were proved wrong. What do you do instead of admitting fault? You say they're wrong. So, is this what you're going to do when others post the same response? Discount their opinion too?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. But, since you ask, if sufficient others chime in here to say that I'm wrong in my understanding, I will, of course, bow to consensus. But since I've already suggested that the solution is to oversight the mention of the address, there's no particular reason to get bent out of shape about this. If I'm wrong, them I'm wrong, but pointing at the policy more and more vehemently and insisting that I believe what you say simply because you say it isn't going to an effective method of convincing me. Sach (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sach you are wrong. Outing is outing and saying that adding "or a close associate" means it isn't is just wikilawyering. Frankly you are very lucky not to be blocked for severely violating 3RR and outing. P.S. WP:SPI is the appropriate place for accusation of abusing multiple accounts, not the article talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And I'm afraid you are wrong, Sach. I am not mistaken, as this admin clearly states. I don't have the slightest understanding as to why you think I'm wrong. You posted a possible name and address. The excerpt I posted clearly stated that posting a possible name or address is forbidden. Do I need to post it again? What's so hard to understand about this? But go ahead.. Humor me, how am I wrong? As the admin states, Wikilawyering changes nothing, you are still violating policy. In the mean time, I am going to have such diffs removed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus: Thanks for you comment. Let me note that placing a COI tag (or any tag, for that matter) is not supposed to be a hit-and-run affair. Once is suppposed to start a discussion on the article's talk page concerning the issue that tag addresses. In this case, I posted a COI tag, so I was obliged to post something that justified my placing the tag, so that a discussion could occur. Because of that, I believe you are mistaken about the appropriateness of the thread I started there. (Afterwards, I sought relief in the next logical place, the WP:COIN noticeboard, and then 166 posted this thread here, which is why it's spread in this manner.)

You won't be surpised to know that I'm afraid I don't agree with your interpretation that "<name redacted> or a close associate" is "Wikilawyering". To me, it clearly denominates a class of people who are responsible for the conflict of interest editing, and is therefore a legitimate description, and not a case of "outing". Sach (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, isn't this a surprise. You're doing exactly as I predicted. When another comes in and tells you you are wrong, what do you do? You discount their opinion as well. Anyway, to the point. It does not matter if you think it doesn't violate policy, the cold hard truth is that it does. Now, I'm going to delete the name from your post, and request the diff where you posted it to be deleted, along with this one, as you are wantonly violating policy even when told you are wrong. Any admins looking on this report, I suggest you block the above user, as they have shown they will continue to violate policy even when told that they are violating it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but you see, he is not interested in actually resolving his imagined COI or sockpuppetry. As Benjiboi pointed out, he is more interested in putting a "badge of shame" on the article and its talk page, due to his obvious association with the film and stalkeresque grudge against the filmmakers. 166.205.130.225 (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering you are also very lucky not to be blocked for edit warring, legal threats, and now borderline person attacks, you might want to be quiet now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)I note that, rather than seek the efforts of an Oversighter, as he said he was going to do, Daedalus969 has taken it upon himself to redact the name of the director of the film in question from this discussion. That seems rather pointless, but I'm not going to revert his quite unnecessary changes. The conflict of interest concerns remain in effect. Sach (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have sought OS help, and have sent the first in a series of emails. The redaction I made there is part of the process.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware of that -- thanks for the explanation. I'm interested to see if the Oversighter agrees. Sach (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out your contributions, and you'll find it plainly clear that the Oversighters do agree. Are you going to admit that you were in the wrong now?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Side issue: I think the possibility of Sach being the recreation of a blocked/banned user needs to be seriously looked into. How many truly new users make nearly 500 edits, make a COIN post, and act like they have an intimate understanding of policy within 4 days of joining? Something is very fishy here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus: I explained my status here, but I'm more than happy to repeat it for you, since you are interested.

I am not a new user, and never claimed to be, nor I have not tried to hide my "personality" by changing my method or style of editing. I edited under another name in the past, and, for reasons of my own, I don't wish to specify what that name was. However, I can and will positively affirm that I am not the reincarnation of a banned user, I am not editing with this account to avoid a block, I have never edited with multiple accounts at the same time, and this account has never commented on or !voted on anything connected with the previous account. I have never, to my knowledge, violated the multiple accounts policy in any way. I state these things categorically, and I am more than happy to have a checkuser verify them. Please feel free to file an WP:SPI request if my affirmation is not sufficient for you. Sach (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK then, I'll assume good faith on that issue. Still you need to stop insisting you are right about your interpretation of policy when 3 people have told you that you are wrong. (P.S. Since it hasn't been noted yet, COI editing isn't actually forbidden by policy just strongly discouraged, so you might want to check your zeal a bit.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus, there's no particular "zeal" on my part -- stuff just keep happening, and I'm responding to it. As I said in a comment to User:Wildhartlivie on their my talk page sometime last night, I'm not a vindictive person, I'm not out to "get" someone, I simply would like to see the article free of overt outside influence from people connected with the film. A simple pledge from the conflicted editors not to edit the article could have stopped this at the very beginning. Instead, my edits were reverted en masses (despite the decided improvement to the article they brought), the discussion of COI problems I started was attacked by brute force in an attempt to delete it, and I've been accused of violating practically every policy in the book by someone who is supposedly a neutal party, but certainly doesn't act like it. I didn't drag this to AN/I, I tried to deal with it on the article talk page, on the talk pages of the editors involved, and then on COIN, but ran up against this quite concerted effort not to give any quarter. All of this, fortunately or unfortunately, points quite unerringly to an attempt to maintain control over the film's article by the people connected with the film. Everything they've done just tends to confirm that my COi concerns are legitimate. Sach (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, I agree fully. If a Checkuser is able to look into this issue, that would be greatly appreciated. MuZemike 07:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. My only request is that, unless the checkuser feels it's absolutely necessary to do so, I would prefer my previous account not be named. Sach (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have quickly checked, and not found any obvious sock policy violation by user:H Debussy-Jones. I'll look more later, as I still reviewing the other aspects of this incident. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, thank you, and I look forward to what you have to say. Sach (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Would someone kindly inform 166.205.130.225 that Wikipedia policy prohibits threats of legal action, which is what this appears to be? Of course, it could also be interpreted as a prediction of the future, rather than a threat, but given 166's overly zealous defense of User:Sorrywrongnumber and other COI editors, it becomes increasing hard for me to see him as a neutral third party, as opposed to someone involved. Sach (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This neutral admin sees it as a pretty clear threat. Blocked WP:NLT. Unblock if statement is retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I made no threat. If Sach had slandered me personally, and I had said "I'm going to sue you," that would be a threat. Nothing of the sort happened. Sach was slandering a film company and some filmmaker(s) associated with the company ( saying that these individuals were inserting "viral marketing" promotional material into articles when there is no evidence of this). I suggested that, if he didn't have proof of his outrageous accusations, the individuals he was slandering could sue him. No reasonable person would interpret that as a "legal threat"; it is nonsense. 166.205.130.187 (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

166, one doesn't "insert" viral marketing into an article, the article is viral marketing if it is composed in such a way as to be promotional rather than informational, while having the appearance of neutrality.

Also, you may not be aware that using another IP address to post when one is blocked is prohibited. Sach (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, my previous IP has been unblocked. I cannot control which IP I have because my address is dynamic. In any case, you lecturing me on Wiki violations is really the pot calling the kettle black.

Back to the subject at hand... You have still, after a day, failed to answer me, Benjiboi, or the other admins who keep asking you for SPECIFICS as to WHICH portions of the article were "composed in such as way as to be promotional rather than informational." Since you are still unable to answer this, we have had to come to the conclusion that there was no "viral" marketing ever going on here, and that your bizarre preoccupation with this film (so much so that you look up the director's tax records! LOL) is clearly personally motivated. 166.205.131.52 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well... as the kids say, "Whatever." You have your ideas, and they seem to be unmovable. Of course, they don't jibe with reality, but ultimately that's your problem, and not mine.

I'll continue to monitor the conversation here, but pending the various possible inquiries, by checkuser and oversighter and, for all I know, itinerant preachers, into the nature of my being and behavior, I think I'll withdraw unless someone asks a direct question. In the meantime, of course, over on WP:COIN, we still haven't heard from User:Sorrywrongnumber about their conflicted editing to Yesterday Was a Lie and its related articles. Perhaps SWN sees 166 carrying his water, and feels there is no need to answer the concerns raised, that 166's attacks on my character and behavior will be sufficient distraction to allow the entire thing to blow over – and perhaps he is right, or perhaps there is another reason why SWN has not spoken, and 166 has, with such vehemence and anger, if without much comprehension. Perhaps time will tell; I await checkusers and oversighters and return to the reason I'm here on Wikipedia in the first place: editing.

Adieu. Sach (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Until someone asks a direct question"?!?!?! Sir, your ability to smokescreen knows no bounds. A number of us have asked you the same direct question for over 24 hours now, which you continue to avoid. While I praise your ability to change the topic, I will (for probably the tenth time) ask the direct question again:

WHICH portions of the article SPECIFICALLY do you claim were "composed in such a way as to be promotional rather than informational," per your accusation? You may yammer on endlessly about socks and checkusers all you like; but your repeated inability to answer this is quite telling. 166.205.131.52 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of "yammering" I've already answered your question. Seek, and you shall find, my angry friend. Sach (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To save everyone here of looking through hours of text, just tell us, here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have redacted parts of WP:COIN, suppressed the block of diffs affected, and started a meta discussion at WT:COIN. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Help needed at Australian Vaccination Network

Resolved

 – Edit war ended & a NPOV article is now in place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin care to wander over to Australian Vaccination Network and have a chat with User:124.171.238.230 (who is probably also User:Corruptioninmedicine or just acting as a meatpuppet). The editwarring is getting rather silly. Shot info (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you can provide some WP:DIFFs for the edit warring? Namely, has anyone violated WP:3RR? Basket of Puppies 04:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

History gives Corruptioninmedicine/124.171.238.230 doing over 6 rvv today from a detailed version to this cut down version with some rather agressive unsourced infomation in it. Shot info (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

While the history is a good starting point, providing specific diffs would be very helpful. Basket of Puppies 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks. Yes I know it is the wrong version. But not as wrong as the version that says "The AVN has an extensive internet site selling merchandise and directly advocating distrust of medicine and science, disparaging both as overly influenced by pharmaceutical companies (see conspiracy theory)." What the fuck? "(see conspiracy theory)"?! The article was a POV coatrack and I can hardly blame that IP for repeatedly culling it. Hesperian 04:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, and like most coats here in WP, it attacts attention and then gets edited - discussed and (more than likely) probably deleted (my personal opinion) - you know, what happens with 1000's of new articles per day here in WP. I personally don't really give a stuff about the article and/or it's content but I'm more interested in the behavour of the editor(s). Some support from admins in this regard would've been nice. Shot info (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Worse than I thought. The version Shot info has been defending has as its second sentence

"The AVN is at present being investigated by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission for breaches of the Public Health Act of 1993."

What does that mean? It means that a skeptics organisation has made a complaint, and released a press release about that complaint. The claim is sourced to the press release. There's doesn't appear to be any reliable source available for this, and there is no evidence to suggest that the complaint actually has any merit.

You want "support" for this kind of advocacy? I think not. This is Wikipedia. If you want to be a science warrior, bugger off to RationalWiki. Here, we report the facts, neutrally.

Hesperian 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've been here long enough on WP not to cop a lecture from admins who still seem not to have learned from ArbCom. If you wish to discuss the content of an article you know which way the talkpage is. Shot info (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Corruptioninmedicine (talk · contribs) for 3RR violation and no attempt to discuss the disputed edits at the talk page, or ven provide an explantory edit-summary for deletions. I see that there are at least three editors on the talk page interested in improving the article, and I'd like to unprotect the article, unless User:Hesperian has some objections. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the 3rr block (that's a no brainer), I don't think unprotecting is wise at this point. There might be three editors wanting to work on it, but the version that they (those who've made actual editors so far) actually collectively want to revert back to is very POV pushy. Some discussion (including from Corruption after his block expires) is needed to sort out the issues. The addition of (more) actually neutral editors will, of course, facilitate that discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know User:Basket of Puppies got involved with the article only after seeing this report, and thus would be a "disinterested" editor. Also Shot info seem to be only undoing Corruptioninmedicine and the IP's unexplained blanking, and was not the one who added any of the article content add originally (User:Exazonk seems to have done that). Is there some past history related to User:Shot info or User:Basket of Puppies that I am missing here and that would make them unworthy of WP:AGF, or of being regarded as neutral editors ? Abecedare (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I too think unprotecting is a bad idea. There are plenty of places around here where an acceptable version can be drafted. Meanwhile those who have protected an unacceptably biased article have not indicated their intentions going forward. Hesperian 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

An IP is now at the talk page requesting a restoration of "the referenced version". I don't think unprotecting will be a step in the right direction. Hesperian 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the only edit Shot info made to the article before todays reverts, and this is undoubtedly a correct call per BLP. What am I missing here ? Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Shot info has today repeatedly reverted to an unacceptable version of the article; s/he should know better. Beyond that, I neither know nor care what his/her involvement is. If I have unfairly blamed or demonised Shot info here, I apologise. Unprotecting remains a bad idea right now. Hesperian 05:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Repeatedly reverting to a highly biased version is an implicit endorsement of said version, but that is besides the point... Given the amount of edit warring by multiple parties on both sides temporary protection is warranted. The protection (which can easily be lifted at any time when all parties are ready to co-operate) is the best way to force people to calm down and try to work out their differences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile someone (unsigned) has stated their intent on the talk page: "I believe that given enough time, that we can provide evidence by debunking the information on [the AVN] site. That is by cross checking all the information on AVN against wikipedia." Hesperian 05:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with this reversion of blanking of 10K of sourced content and replacing it with a completely unsourced page, especially since the accompanying edit summary was "Please start discussion on talkpage" (the fact that the version being reverted to was non-ideal would be a concern if there were BLP issues, but that does not seem to be the case). Almost all reverts that I have ever made on wikipedia have taken an article back to an non-ideal state. But since there is genuine opposition to the page being unprotected, I won't do so and let other editors weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You see nothing wrong with the version being reverted to? Hesperian 05:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Hesperian after ec) Of course I do! It, like most articles on wikipedia, can and should be improved. But I see nothing wrong with the reversion of unexplained blanking of sourced content. Compare from, my recent revert to Economy of India - the version I reverted to has several problems (including poor sourcing, POV etc), and my reversion simply indicates that the edits were not an improvement, even though the status quo itself was not ideal either. I am betting that any regular editor here has made similar reverts, and usually been praised for undoing vandalism. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is the more appropriate version? Hesperian 06:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that ArbCom has quite clearly stated where they think Content disputes lie. If you wish to discuss the content rather than the behaviour, then ArbCom has some recommendations of how you should use your tools. I'm only saying this as your arguements not to lift protection are content driven. Shot info (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's three times you've referred to "ArbCom" or "desyssoping". Have you got anything to add here other than vague and toothless threats? Hesperian 06:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep - how about you stop using your admin tools to protect a version of an article you prefer. If you wish to edit the article - edit the article. But don't use your admin powers to force a version that you personally prefer. We have this thing called editing and consensus for that. Shot info (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Shot info wish me to defend myself against this bollocks? Hesperian 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Shot info seems way over the top here. WP:NPA much? I suggest you (Shot) stop these accusations. WP:TE also comes to mind. I also support full protection of this article until either this calms down or consensus (ha) is reached. Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exazonk --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I can summarize this correctly:

• A new editor changes an article from a blatantly POV version to a version which, whilst lacking sources, is obviously superior to what preceded it.
• Shot info edit wars with the new user to restore the bad version on the basis that it has sources. (Hint: WP:V is not the only content policy).
• Shot info, whilst edit-warring the POV version back into place, admonishes the user in edit-summaries for... edit-warring.
• The article is protected on the version that existed at the time of the ANI report.
• The new user, never having been informed of the existence of the 3-revert-rule, is blocked for violating it on a page that he currently cannot edit anyway. Preventing what, exactly?
• Specious references to sanctions are then made against the protecting administrator who made the only correct decision in the list above.

This is frankly too bizarre to contemplate further. I suggest Shot info drops the matter and walks quietly away. The blocked editor should be unblocked. CIreland (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked Corruptioninmedicine (talk · contribs) as the edit war is clearly over - page protected, without implying any judgment on the block. Toddst1 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked on different grounds - the username is an obvious violation of our guidelines. In addition, they came back to add POV padding to a development version of the article. Orderinchaos 17:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I have rewritten the AVN article and the new version can be found here. It is based mainly on three sources: Sydney Morning heral article, ABC News article and AVN's own website (i didn't look for other sources, which, if available can be added later). I (of course!) think that this is a neutral write-up, and if others agree the article can be placed in mainspace (it would be best if I do the update, to avoid CC-BY-SA complications) and the article unprotected. I'll wait for feedback before proceeding, but it would be good to replace the current unsourced and POV version as soon as we can. Abecedare (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't much like the protected version, but every version is "wrong" from someone's viewpoint. Shot info, your contributions to this (and every other) article have always been welcome, but please lay off the accusations against Hesperian, as they're clearly unfounded and don't lend anything toward improving this article. Abecedare, your new version is a vast improvement, and hopefully we can all add to it during the page protection so we've got something to replace the current version when the protection expires.

And with that (and the lifting of the block against Corruptioninmedicine), are we now at a point where this can be declared a content dispute, to be continued only at the AVN talkpage? Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been a bit bold and instated the talk page version over the existing version - both of the original versions of the article had been pretty dreadful, in different directions, and the editing area had become infested with warring SPAs. Abecedare's version, based on actual reliable sources, is a big improvement. Reduced protection to semi as no Wikipedians were involved in the problems (all were in good faith trying to fix the article, but the haze kind of threw everyone I think...) Semi will also ensure that a range of established editors can work on the article so it can reflect consensus. And agreed with Euryalus's comments. Orderinchaos 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pancho Gonzales. anon editor keeps adding unsourced info

This guy User_talk:67.161.160.59 has been warned many times and I don't know what the next step should be. If he added sources I would have no problems but these names could simply be pulled out of a hat. Now he has changed to anonymous user User_talk:71.197.77.124. Maybe a sockpuppet who doesn't want to show his true name? The article is Pancho Gonzales I could use some help. Maybe if it was page protected for a month to verified members only it would discourage the poster. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales disruption

Resolved

 – semi/24h Toddst1 (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo is being disruptive disrupted ;) Someone with a bunch of IPs is loving an edit war over the colour scheme and some formatting nits I fixed. Someone please semi the thing for a bit? Thanks a bunch. I'm bored with the silliness and am off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jack Merridew 08:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"outing" involving personal information.

Resolved

 – promotional pieces deleted, personal info deleted with talk pages, obvious COI editor counceled Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page of andrew storms an editor felt it necessary to attempt to reveal personal information about my username. As stated in your harassment page I merely edited the page to remove the information and state the harassment policy. I am writing this in hopes that the edit can be stricken from the page completely as it is not something that should have been written in the first place. Please let me know what I need to do to be sure that this editor understands the possible severity of their actions.

The same user has posted the same content on the talk page at tk keanini.Rpelton (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks Rpelton (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the article as blatant advertising along with the talk page. Perhaps you should stop writing puff pieces about your bosses. Toddst1 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Islamic influences on Christian art

This article is a bombshell in itself IMHO, in the sense that it appears as yet another attempt to give credit to Islam for everything Western civilization can be proud of. But the real cherry on the cake is a quote by a senior politician masqueraded as a "modern acknowledgement". I have removed the quote twice ([92], [93]) and justified my gesture on the talk page ([94]). Now, i am afraid that this degenerates into 3RR or an edit-war. Could an admin have a close look at how the page evolves? Thank you, RCS (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article, which seems to be quite ok. I don't know what your culture war attitude is all about - even if (some) Muslims would bomb the West completely off the map, that would not change the significant contributions of Islamic civilization during medieval times. The Obama quote is possibly undue weight, but that's an editorial decision. I suggest an RFC. And it might help if you refrain from loaded words like "ridiculous", "career politician" and "pandering to" in talk page discussions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all irrelevant but highly provocative parts from your statement. Please refrain from introducing your personal opinion about people or groups of people when it is certain to only increase the tension instead of solving the problem. A neutral statement increases the chance of you finding a sympathetic ear here. Fram (talk)

It didn't take long to guess from the title of the article who the author was :) Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading through the article and it is indeed a disaster area, as RCS characterised it. It is full of falacies and distortions. Some of its inventions are breathtakingly inaccurate. Best way to face it down would be to fact tag every dubious claim and insist on sources written by proper art historians. Meowy 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:AlfonseLaw LLP

Resolved

 – no legal threat found, username soft block issued Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

AlfonseLaw LLP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not resolved see below.

Could someone have a look at this users contributions? It seems to me that their "Legal firm" name (reported to WP:UAA), in combination with their vaguely threatening edit summaries, could be considered to be a legal threat. They have gone so far as to remove talk page comments containing the allegedly copyrighted material they claim to be protecting On the other hand, they may have a valid complaint, and perhaps should be shown the way to OTRS. Either way, it would take a bit more tact than I have available for lawyers this morning. WuhWuzDat 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The relevant diff is here. The editor removed a few formulas from Stochastic oscillator with the claim The formula for stochastics is protected by US copyright law. Wikipedia does not have permission from the author to publish this information and derivative works are prohibited. I'd think that publishing 2 or three formulas would constitute fair use, but IANAL. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure formulae are copyrightable, but they should be pointed to info-en-cwikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor continues to delete materiel claiming copyright: [95] --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance

Resolved

 – blocked 1 week by Tan and a suspected ip sockpuppet identified and tagged. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance has made some unconstructive and disruptive edits to the 9-12 Project page. The user did not take kindly to my reversion or my warnings. Pdcook (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)