Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 286: Line 286:
**Since there is a history and no evidence he's going to stop, it would be preventative, I'm still waiting for someone to show me the policy where it shows how many good contributions you can trade in to ignore other policies.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
**Since there is a history and no evidence he's going to stop, it would be preventative, I'm still waiting for someone to show me the policy where it shows how many good contributions you can trade in to ignore other policies.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Without discussing CoM's encyclopedic article contributions (I helped out on the vegetarian article [[World Porridge Day]] started by him, but have not yet graduated to bacon articles), it might be an idea to restrict him from intervening in project pages (here. ArbCom cases, AN, WQA, FTN, etc). His interventions there can often be immoderate and are often unsupported by diffs. He also seems to bear personal grudges against various groups of editors and administrators which, when played out on project pages, serve little or no purpose in solving problems. Of course his restriction from editing Obama-related articles stops in a week or two, so further discussion might be more appropriate in a month or two. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 03:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Without discussing CoM's encyclopedic article contributions (I helped out on the vegetarian article [[World Porridge Day]] started by him, but have not yet graduated to bacon articles), it might be an idea to restrict him from intervening in project pages (here. ArbCom cases, AN, WQA, FTN, etc). His interventions there can often be immoderate and are often unsupported by diffs. He also seems to bear personal grudges against various groups of editors and administrators which, when played out on project pages, serve little or no purpose in solving problems. Of course his restriction from editing Obama-related articles stops in a week or two, so further discussion might be more appropriate in a month or two. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 03:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' somewhere in the region of a month. CoM is highly uncivil, and my butting heads with him on the Obama articles left a bad taste in my mouth... but at least he does work. Let's give him another chance. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


===Requested desysop of Cirt, GWH, and John Carter===
===Requested desysop of Cirt, GWH, and John Carter===

Revision as of 20:39, 5 December 2009


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

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

    I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

    A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

    The deletion log entries are as follows:

    The editors involved include:

    One of the variations is already protected from creation:

    Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
    Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

    I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

    Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had nuked another variant (same regex):

    Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:
    I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're back...
    User:Monochrome Scope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    ...and blocked. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though the duration of the lock may be effective enough for now, it will not be as effective hereafter, as when ever the lock is then removed, anyone will be able to recreate the article. An indefinite lock is effective and should be done to prevent any future recreations such as this. If only I had the power to block those responsible for the recreations....--Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 05:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    (section did not archive automatically, so timestamp added. Fram (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Shopping for an appropriate forum

    Hey, the shopping season has officially started, right? I'm looking for the right forum in which to discuss my concerns about a particular editor. There are several issues that touch upon many categories, while not fitting neatly into any single category. Do I shotgun my concerns to the various distinct but applicable noticeboards, or is there an industrious admin with significant free time reading this who can formulate a comprehensive, single course of action? Here's the background information followed by my specific concerns:

    On November 6, User:96.231.137.242 added a paragraph to the Bill Maher BLP article. I removed it because it violated several WP:BLP policy stipulations including sourcing, verifiability and inaccurate contentious material. This was my first interaction with this editor. He repeatedly reinserted the content, so I warned him against edit warring and BLP violations. He was blocked for 31 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Immediately following the block of IP96.xxx, User:DyadTriad appears and continues arguing for the inclusion of that same paragraph, eventually re-adding it. Shortly after that, User:Valerius Tygart picks up the same argument, and starts re-adding the same content. I heard ducks quacking, so I initiated a Sockpuppet Investigation here. Checkuser confirmed 96.231.137.242 = DyadTriad = Valerius Tygart, among others. The editor admits using the many registered and unregistered accounts, but denies using them abusively - contrary to the findings of the SPI case page and the checkuser results. Several of his sock accounts were blocked, and the case archived. Since then, Valerius Tygart has resumed re-inserting the contentious paragraph into the Maher article once per day, each day, for over two weeks now — despite objections from editors on the talk page. In addition, this editor has been attempting to modify his archived Sockpuppet Investigation case page, to the point of getting himself blocked yet again for disruptive editing. Despite (and during) this block, as I type this, he is still maintaining his slow-burn edit war on the Maher article with his Tygart account.

    As for forums, I could post on the WP:BLPN so that other editors can tell Tygart what he already knows: he's trying to insert poorly sourced content into a BLP that intentionally misrepresents the subject's views, against policy. But that doesn't stop the repeated reverts. I could post at the 3RR/Edit Warring noticeboard, but the once-per-day revert war doesn't technically violate 3RR, does it? Perhaps I should go to WP:RFPP and request page protection until the BLP violations are resolved? I could go to the SPI noticeboard and say, "Hey - this confirmed puppeteer is editing with some of his accounts while his other accounts are blocked for disruptive editing - what gives?", but the case is already closed. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here would appear to be the best place. Did the SPI conclude that Valerius Tygart was the sockmaster? If so, a longer block would seem appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you say is true, then this reeks of gaming. I would suggest a longer than usual ban just to beat it into people's heads that no, we aren't idiots, and we can see what you're trying to do. Things like a once per day edit to avoid 1/3rr is clearly an attempt to skirt the rules. Give them a long ban, and keep them on a short leash when they get back. If they can't play nice, then indef-block. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that User:Valerius Tygart be indef-blocked for disruptive editing. Using an IP to tamper with his own sockpuppet report takes the cake. (If you're trying to convince people that you're an incorrigible sockpuppeteer, that's a good way to do it). He should be told that the block could be lifted if he would agree to edit with only a single account, and refrain from editing the Bill Maher article. He could still participate on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the admin who blocked IP 96.231.137.242 for edit-warring at Bill Maher, recommended the filing of the SPI, and then blocked the confirmed sock accounts after confirming that they were being used abusively. At that stage I blocked the sockmaster Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) only for 31 hours in order not to be punitive, and assuming that the socking and disruption would stop. Given that the sockpuppetry has been goind on for over two years and has continued even after the SPI confirmation, I support EdJohnston's suggestion above. Additionally, the Bill Maher article can be semi-protected, if needed to prevent such disruption. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That puts the icing on the SPI cake! Have you blocked the IP already? - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tygart has used at least these 2 IPs since the closure of his SPI case: User:96.231.137.242 and User:140.139.35.250. They appear to be static, not dynamic IPs. Tygart claims to use multiple accounts "legitimately", but I stopped assuming good faith after checkuser J.delanoy confirmed Tygart = 140.139.35.250 = Dogwood123, but Tygart denies ever being deceptive or saying, I am not "Dogwood123". Either Tygart or J.delanoy is lying, and I know where I'd put my money. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone is playing possum. Still unsure of an appropriate forum. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tygart apparently doesn't wish to comment in this matter — it has been a few days. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello all. I'm just back at my desk after a few days & catching up on this.... I have already addressed the "sockpuppetry" allegations in the "Comments by accused parties" at the SP Investigation site (archived) & on my user talk page. I won't repeat that here, except to say again that I have never intentionally committed "sockpuppetry" (& I think intentional deception is part of the definition, right?) Also, I have never been abusive or disruptive on Wikipedia in any way (which is not to say I have never had heated discussions...) It is true that I am often lazy & do not bother to log on (even a couple of times since the SP investigation), but never with intent to be disruptive or deceptive. As to agreeing to edit only as Valerius Tygart, I certainly intend to do that ... and will strive to remember to not edit (accidentally) as an anon... It is a bad habit on my part to neglect to log on...
    As for the supposedly "disruptive" edit I have been inserting into the Bill Maher article: it is a direct quote from Maher's show of 4 March 2005. I can find nothing in Wiki-policy that precludes it. It is authentic, well-sourced, relevant, non-libellous & constructively improves the article. Its source is the broadcast show itself & a periodical quoting & commenting on the remarks by Maher. Additionally, I am now adding a third source: an article from the 19 Sept 2008 Wall Street Journal also quoting the remarks. About three weeks ago I asked for a general discussion about all this on the Bill Maher discussion page. Unfortunately, only the editor who has had me blocked twice now (Xenophrenic) & initiated the (to me) spurious "sockpupperty" investigation has cast a vote on this issue. The stalemate between the two of us was the reason I asked for discussion in the first place and it is too bad that 99% of the discussion there is between he & I. He has reverted me repeatedly & I wonder why I am the one who is said to be "warring" & "reverting" & not he.... Thanks & waiting for additional feedback. Valerius Tygart (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I've taken a second look with checkuser at J.delanoy's request, and the results are very clear that this is  Confirmed sockpuppetry. You were editing from the same computer with User:Valerius Tygart, User:DyadTriad, and User:Dogwood123, alternating between accounts each day for a bit. This appears very deliberate. I haven't looked at behavioral evidence, though, so I can't speak as to the disruptive bit. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tygart doesn't deny using many IPs and registered accounts. He does deny using them abusively, while checkuser evidence clearly contradicts Tygart and indicates abuse. I noted 4 specific examples of sock abuse on the SPI case page, before I stopped looking. As noted above, just one of those examples: checkuser says Dogwood123 = 140.139.35.250 -- yet here 140.139.35.250 says "I am not Dogwood123", when questioned by someone suspecting puppetry during a consensus discussion. Deception is the fundamental form of abuse of alternate accounts. Deliberate abuse.
    @Tygart: I cannot "have you blocked"; I can only point out your behavior and have others review it. I pointed out your edit warring, and someone else blocked you. I pointed out your use of multiple accounts, and someone else sanctioned you. Now you have continued with disruptive editing behavior, so I am once again bringing attention to it so that others may review it and hopefully provide a constructive solution. I cautioned you that I would be raising your conduct here for review, and your response was, "A threat. Do your worst." Xenophrenic (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This Wikistalk report might be of interest. However, I'm currently leaning against a block and towards a firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties). I'll watchlist Bill Maher and will block if I see contested content being added/deleted without consensus. Uninvolved editors: Does that seem appropriate? NW (Talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsupported attacks by Redheylin after warnings

    Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received multiple different warnings from admins and established editors over a long period of time to cease making personal attacks and unsupported claims about other editors which amount to same. He has continued to do so [4]. Admin action is required here, as the multiple "final warnings" have had no effect.

    • After an ANI thread was closed by admin Jehochman with a warning to Redheylin [5], I had hoped that the issue would be resolved. However it appears this is not the case, as Redheylin continues to make wholly unsupported claims that I "make changes to a page with a view to making a WP:POINT on another page", that I use "inadequate citations", and that this is "disruptive" [6].
    Warnings
    ANI thread closed by Jehochman with warning to Redheylin
    Redheylin recent unsupported claims

    Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with the above comments, that the editor in question has in fact continued to engage in what is clearly disruptive and tendentious editing, even after being warned repeatedly to cease such behavior. Unfortunately, I also know that I would be perceived as having a conflict of interest in actively imposing the deserved sanctions myself. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should invite the editor to comment here. If we cannot reach a mutual agreement with them to stop pestering you, then several of us can certify an RfC, and based upon the results there, we may be able to implement a community sanction forcing the editor to disengage for you or the topic areas where they habitually get into trouble. I recognize that this is a potentially time consuming process, but I think it is the only way to generate a solid consensus for a remedy that will provide lasting relief. Escalating blocks to the user will just result in more grief; I'd rather not kick the can down the road. We should deal with this problem seriously and decisively. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave notice to user's talkpg when I filed it [7]. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the above admin/editors have intervened on behalf of Cirt. Cirt has a long history of edit-warring on "new religious movements" and has been in dispute with many editors. I think you'll find that, outside these pages, these things do not happen much to me. On the other hand, as I say, these things "happen to" Cirt with many editors. This experience conditions my impression of this affair. Although I have spent only a short time involved with these pages, Cirt has secured several warnings from admins who allege that all objections to disruption, poor citation, incivility and lack of good faith are "personal attacks" on Cirt, whereas Cirt's own comments are above reproach as she is "highly respected". Well, she may be, but her application for sysop status drew great concern owing to repeated blocks for those very faults on these very articles. I have had no contact with any of these editors other than when they intervened on Cirt's behalf. Their minds were, I fear, made up, and their approaches often questionable. Just now user John Carter has ventured to forbid me ALL bold editing for no clear reason. As for Georgewilliamherbert, here's how we met on my talk page:
    Redheylin - It has been suggested that this exchange of correspondence lead to you acting as Off2riorob's proxy, or collaboration between you two, in complaining about Cirt's conduct (your recent ANI posting). Given Off2riorob's recent disagreement with Cirt the combination of behavior is sort of suspicious. Would you like to comment on ANI regarding the nature of this discussion you two had? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • This is to say, as Cirt has been in edit-war with ANOTHER editor YOU must be acting in bad faith. This IS an assumption of bad faith, based on another editor's asking to confer with me on some matter - I do not know which as the contact never occurred. But the above admin used this allegation to turn MY ANI report on Cirt's misuse of citations, which he avoided by repeatedly asking me to define the way in which the information claimed was not present, into a witch-hunt based on his own unsupported accusations of some unnamed nefarious collaboration. This stuff is hard to take seriously - and that seems to make these folks very mad. That's all. Redheylin (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]



    Update: Continued violations by Redheylin

    This comment violates WP:NPA, as it makes attacks not backed up or supported by anything. It violates WP:NOT#FORUM, as it is use of the talk page space for discussion not related to further improvement of this article but rather to increase drama and drag out attacks. And per both of those, it violates WP:BATTLE. I asked Redheylin to remove it. He refused, saying: If you think it's an attack, report it.. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagreement with Cirt's analysis

    Stating that content isn't supported by the citations used is a personal attack? Since when? And I don't see saying someone has a POV as ideal, although it's sometimes accurate and worth pointing out. Is Cirt denying he has a point of view? I don't see how any of this behavior is blockable, but Cirt's aggressive battlefield approach has been extraordinarily disruptive. If accusign someone of having a POV is blockable then the diffs of Cirt saying the same thing repeatedly are problematic. He's also made numerous statements ascribing bad faith to others and accusing them of collusion. This ANI report is outrageous and some sanction against Cirt and his suitability to have admin tools may be worth considering. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it was about matters which had been resolved already, and the editor in question has continued to basically continued to beat a dead horse, which is a form of tendentious editing, which itself is a violation of WP:DE. I would have to think that calling someone an "outrageous hypocrite" is itself almost certainly a violation of WP:NPA, by the way, as you so clearly do above. Perhaps we are to take that as being an indication you are unable to understand the meaning of "personal attack"? John Carter (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has been interjecting himself into disputes, pushing for the POV of Redheylin (talk · contribs) and supporting Redheylin in the prior ANI thread [10]. ChildofMidnight even went so far as to start a duplicate post at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard in support of Redheylin's POV - directly below a post I had just made at the same noticeboard [11]. This could have something to do with the fact that admin Georgewilliamherbert was one of the admins listed above that has warned Redheylin, and apparently ChildofMidnight does not like this particular admin [12]. In addition to Redheylin (talk · contribs), it would seem ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) would also merit a warning regarding WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again with Cirt's accusations against those he disagrees with. I do not support Redheylin's views and I don't even know what they are fully. I've encouraged him and Cirt to use the dispute resolution process rather than ANI boards and accusations and counter accusations. When someone accuses someone else of doing something they themselves are doing that is by definition hypocrisy. And here again we see Cirt accusing me of something that isn't true after I've explained myself repeatedly (see my talk page). A block of Cirt and a desysop may be appropriate at this point. John Carter is involved and along with GWH has a long history of disruptive and unhelpful stoking the flames and side taking in this type of dispute. I encourage both of them to try to resolve disputes fairly and collegially instead of going after one side while failing to enforce the same standards on other parties (ie. their buddies). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But there are reasonable and acceptable terms which could be used instead of "hypocrisy", and you have yet completely and utterly failed to even offer a weak justification of the word "outrageous", which in context makes it a even more pronounced attack. I have to assume by failing to address that point you are in effect acknowledging misconduct. If that is so, the reasonable action to take would be to correct the mistake by removing it, rather than offering a rather self-serving defense of yourself. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I quoted ChildofMidnight on his talk page:
    "That's one of the reasons I didn't think it was important for me to read up on all the discussions, articles, and issues involved."
    I pointed out to him that unless he reads discussions, articles and the issues involved, he's not really qualified to comment on those disputes and also he has not been asked to give input on these disputes it would be best if he stayed away from them. CoM, for your own good I would advise you to focus yourself on the articles you edit and the disputes related to those articles othewise what you're doing may be seen as disruption. It looks like you're ignoring all the diffs that Cirt has pointed out above which include comments about Redheylin's conduct from other editors. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NPA I have amended the subtitle on this thread. Will not edit war if the poster wishes to restore the original wording, but please consider that a calm and factual expression of one's opinion is more likely to be persuasive. Durova371 19:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested block of User:ChildofMidnight

    Please note that the above editor has engaged in further insults above after being given a final warning for blatant personal attacks. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please? It should be noted that John Carter is involved and has a long history of disruptive and confrontational behavior that I have pointed out to him.
    The irony of this whole outrageous thread is that Redheylin has moved on to other projects and the diffs are days old. I have no idea why Cirt is continuing his disruptive campaigning and battlefield behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the love of God/Buddha/FSM, yes - What this stems from is Cirt's issuance of warnings to ChildofMidnight months back, due to violations of Obama-article Arbcom restrictions. CoM has a long history in unrelated policy discussions of directing antagonism towards those that have had to use the stick against him in the past. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc was warned for his personal attacks and incivility related to the Obama articles. He was recently blocked for edit warring on those pages and has been trolling my contributions for a long time inserting himself in discussions where he has not involvement to pursue a vendetta. If John Carter and George William Herbert cared even a tiny bit about civility and stopping the battlefield disruption engaged in by POV warriors they would have put a stop to Tarc's behavior long ago. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Distortions and half-truths are very unbecoming of you, CoM. That ArbCom case gave a mild reminder to myself and several others to be a bit less snippy in edit summaries, that is all. Yes, 1 24h block (shortened to "time served" after ~15 or so) in several years of editing. I'll match that up against your checkered log any day. Finally, I have AN/I watchlisted, and contribute here regularly, there is no stalking. When you name pops up in a header, I'll certainly pop in to see what's up and provide evidence of your past transgressions and egregiously bad behavior as warranted. I have not done anything wrong by participating here, so please stop with the misdirection. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to block for not knowing what's going on then you should start with yourself Coldplay. Your statement that I'm involved in "every" ANI thread is obviously ridiculous and false. I am very selective and most of my time is spent working on articles. I am well aware of the situation having been involved in the previous discussion and have tried to help the involved parties work through the dispute resolution process as the discussion on my talk page, the content noticeboard, and Redheylin's talk page indicate. It has been pointed out REPEATEDLY to Cirt that the dispute was over content and required no admin intervention. Cirt was asked REPEATEDLY to stop making bad faith accusations, yet he continues to go on the attack and to engage in disruption. I edit in good faith and I try to offer helpful comments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I tried at least (watch him find a rollback mistake of mine and request my rollback be taken away) CoM If I were you I would tell the community that you are sorry and don't butt-in were your comments are not needed. PS im not an admin.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote: "I understand your position CoM but you have to learn that you butt-in in every ANI conversation.". Thats what I've been trying to tell CoM on his talk as nicely as I could but it looks like this will end up in some kind of action since he's not stopping and he escalates disputes in his attempts to resolve them. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "yet he continues to go on the attack and to engage in disruption" COM, please provide quotes, edit diff links, with dates here. Don't point to another page. Specific edit diffs, or your allegations may be dismissed by some. Ikip (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content creation is not a license to freely make personal attacks and harass. This is like saying it's right to pardon people like Bernie Maddoff simply because they're educated. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse-he seems to call for desysops everytime he's in a tiff with an admin. Good content editor or not, disruptive behavior is uncalled for. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do not know who ChildofMidnight is or how s/he became involved, but I do know that others on the ANI page agreed with me (see the talk-page barnstar) that this editor has mediated with kindness, good faith, good humour and accuracy here, and it is getting ever harder to avoid the conclusion that it is these very qualities that have caused these present attacks.
    • In order to forestall any penalty - such as would be in my view an injustice brought about partly by myself - it is only decent that I offer this forum myself to resign for any decided period from wiki-editing. I know the worth of my contributions, I have nothing but contempt for anything and anyone that seeks to prevent or disrupt dedicated, good-faith editing in pursuit of narrow points of view, but if wikipedia cannot find a consensus of contributors able to see this matter in such a light, I prefer to resign rather than be responsible for the blocking of an editor who, without previous contact or article-involvement and without any obvious rancour towards any other party, but rather the opposite, has offered such a high standard of contribution on this page. Take this as oppose, I suppose. Redheylin (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Going by what an editor and his buddies say about him on his talk page is just about the worst way one can form a judgment about an editor's actions. A better and more objective place to start would be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. Tarc (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Going by what an editor and his buddies say about him on his talk page is just about the worst way one can form a judgment about an editor's actions." - I said "this shows (and the present page shows) that I am not alone in the first impression I got". Somehow what I said must have got twisted in your mind - maybe it's something to do with Obama - I do not care. I am simply saying, I prefer to go myself than have another editor blocked for what seems to me clear-headed, mediative wikipedianism. And that stands: that is my offer. Redheylin (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose . Calling for excessive blocks against editors in this way is plain silly. This whole drama should be closed, there is nothing actually going on here, one editor disagrees with another editors standpoint and a bit of adult communication has occurred, but there has been nothing excessive here... (imo). Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- I would only say that, as the originator of this thread, I never gave an indication of the time span of the block I proposed, and I actually have no real agreement with the lengthy periods proposed above. However, I can and do believe engaging in blatant personal attacks, as this editor has repeatedly done, on noticeboards no less, has to receive some degree of sanction. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Off2riorob. And what good will that solve anything? This only puts off the problem for later (sort of like how the US congress was putting off the healthcare debate for so long) and inevitably, we will have to deal with it. CoM's track record is strongly suggestive this will only happen again if it runs unchecked. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please no, everyone. This whole drama is not productive. Blocking one of our best creators of interesting new articles from namespace is not going to help the project, nor is continuing this whole bruhaha. Let's go back to working on articles, please. Jonathunder (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Even the good editors (Betacommand, ScienceApologist, Ottava) don't get a free pass in the end for their uncivil disruptions. Giving a simply prolific editor a free pass for the same would be setting the bar quite a bit lower for acceptable behavior. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. While the editor was, on one occasion in the past, rather impolite to me, the editor: (a) respected my request to stop; (b) seemsto try to be genuinely civil (although more success in this regard would be better); (c) is a very productive editor. Regarding the last point, it is my understanding that the issue of productivity vs. civility is an open ArbCom discussion (albeit regarding another editor) - until this issue is resolved (and policy updated), I think it fair to give productivity some weight in deliberation of blocks. I wish established editors, who should know better, would be nicer to other editors, but acknowledge that WP:AGF is really hard, sometimes - I'm assuming that something other than blocks and bans can lead to improvements in general civility. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment can someone point me to the policy page where it says if you're productive you're allowed to ignore other polices and guidelines?--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to this situation. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    which is an extraordinary circumstance involving the second most productive editor last year, who is not under prior ArbCom sanctions, as CoM is. There are remarkable differences between the two. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "not under prior ArbCom sanctions" - fair enough. My understanding from that case, however, was that ArbCom is considering some response to the appearance that contributions can trump civility requirements. I would like there to be some clear mandate on this (and I am in favor of rules applying equally to everyone) - but my view of reality is that the rules don't apply equally to everyone right now. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While ArbCom may be considering such sanctions in that particular case, that is not necessarily reason to believe that they would necessarily be extended beyond that case. Also, as that is an existing case, and likely to be resolved fairly soon, even an indefinite block, which as I have now said I would myself oppose, could very likely be shortened by that ruling. I really don't think it makes sense to not act on the basis of current problems because of something ArbCom is factually only considering in one other extant case. John Carter (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, block The whole point of a final warning is that if the user does not stop violating the policy after a final warning they get a block, that is why we call them final warnings. When we give a final warning and the disruptive behavior continues we need to follow through. Civility is simply not optional, and nobody has ever gotten consensus that it should not be blockable, or that contributors of content should get a free ride. I hope this discussion is read by the acting admin in light of policy and not as a head count. Chillum 01:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose idenfinitely blocking per User:A_Nobody#Favorite_userpages on which the subject is listed and as he has largely been nice to me. Please note, I am not condoning incivility or personal attacks and strongly urge that all involved refrain from any such edits, but it seems unseemly for me to speak (write) against someone who likes basset hounds and has generally been nice to me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's silly to ignore the obvious just because you like their userpage. This isn't a very productive edit. Nja247 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is "silly." As for anything else, I see nothing "obvious." I am not going to endorse blocking someone who has generally been good to me as that would be a bit of back stab. I do not turn on those who have treated me well per The Golden Rule. Take care. --A NobodyMy talk 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Seriously guys, this has gotten way out of hand. Either we block him or we dont. I cant belive that Im going to say this but I agree with Tan here. This Drama has got to stop.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I tend to agree, particularly considering the somewhat unusual nature of several of the comments here. I note that people have repeatedly opposed only an indefinite block, which I myself, the originator of this thread also oppose by the way, but that those other comments are made in such a way as to give the appearance of being opposed to any block. Like I said, I don't think an indefinite block is called for. I was myself thinking of something along the spectrum of 1 week to 1 month. If I had meant an indefinite block, I would have specified that. I did not state any terms because I did not think under the circumstances I should be the one to suggest them. I should also note that my own suggestions are not necessarily binding to the rest of you either. Perhaps in this way delimiting the terms we might be able to stop the extremist posts and actually reach some sort of solution to this matter. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support 1 week block--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strongly oppose block ChildofMidnight is an excellent contributor to wikipedia. Just because a few people dislike some of his actions does not justify preventing this exceptionally fine editor from improving the encyclopedia. Wikipedia would be much worse off if the block happens. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      So because I've made a few edits, you would be okay with me calling you an idiot or leveling other kinds of insults or attacks in your direction because I disagree with you?--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be okay with you saying those things, regardless of how many edits you had made in the past. I certainly wouldn't want you blocked or banned. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose block of ChildofMidnight. ChildofMidnight received a Diplomacy barnstar from respected mediator and admin Atama for his earlier attempt to mediate in this dispute. Half an hour later, he was repeatedly accused by Cirt of "interjecting" himself at User_talk:ChildofMidnight#Why_are_you_pushing_this_so_hard.3F and of taking Cirt's opponent's side. --JN466 04:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that kind of sums up ChildofMidnight's approach to editing; he can be productive and sugary sweet in one forum, and then positively vile and destructive only minutes later in another venue. This good hand/bad hand approach is the epitome of disruptive. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a bizarre comment, given that Atama's and Cirt's comments related to the same actions by CoM; what Atama praised as diplomacy, Cirt castigated as "interjecting". Go figure. --JN466 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Of his last 500 edits, I count 44 AN/I edits, with the majority of the remaineder being front page edits on numerous articles. Blocking an editor because you disagree with, at most, less than 10% of his activity is counter-productive and unnecessarily harsh. If CoM's AN/I contributions are a problem, then a reminder should suffice, especially for such a prodigious content creator. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Powerful Support Indef. - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 04:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Endorse, unfortunately. Child of Midnight has been given more than enough chances, and yet is granted amnesty each time. CoM is undoubtedly familiar with our core policies and despite the ridiculous number of blocks, continues to repeatedly flaunt our policies, particularity when there are opportunities for drama mongering. Why, how many ANI threads bearing CoM's name are there? 10, 15, 20? It's almost as if this user is above Wikipedia's policies! We're here to build an encyclopedia, not make drama. Wikipedia is not meant to be, and was never meant to be a "4chan" or "Encyclopedia Drammatica". -FASTILY (TALK) 05:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way do CoM's edits make WP a 4chan or ED? I'm sorry, but I'm just not following your assertion. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Perhaps a topic ban-like what MoP suggested-would be a better idea. Unless it is an obvious breech in policy (Editwaring, Uncivility ect), CoM cannot be engaged in ANI disscussions unless he himself is affected or under discussion.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Actually all that is needed is that ANI discussions initiated by the user and specifically found meritless may then be followed by a one week block ... so this is an oppose as presented. Overkill is not warranted. Collect (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Initiated by who, CoM himself? As far as I can recall, he never has initiated a discussion in these parts. The disruption stems from his participation in the threads of others, most notably when he hounds admins who have taken action against him in the past. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that is in reference to the now closed (as presumably baseless?) and collaposed request to have myself, Cirt, and Georgewilliamherbert desysoped. Granted, in this case I might be prejudiced, but I'm not sure I myself would necessaarily agree with the proposal in all instances, as it would potentially have a quite chilling effect on newcomers to the boards, but am not so sure that it might not be an appropriate option to have available for more experienced editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)
        • Ahh, ok, I had been considering it in terms of a completely new filing and not just an extension of an existing one as he did here. I was getting more at CoM's habit of always complaining about the alleged "abuse" and whgatnot that he claims to have suffered from others, and I have invited him on numerous occasions to either make a full filing here, or WQA, or RfC, etc...and he never does, claiming that diff-hunting is too much effort. And speaking of the below section, I have rehatted it as CoM has 2 or 3 times now re-opened it. I am fairly sure that the entiure sub-section has been deemed disruptive and pointy on his part, so if CoM opens it again, there may be grounds for action there too. (Also I tagged your reply with an unsigned template, feel free to remove that and put a real sig if you wish). Tarc (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          My "~" key has been having intermittent problems lately, so it might be a good idea to have it on record somewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose community blocks of established editors are always suspect, I see them usually as an easy way to silence critics. If these editors have a problem, take it to RFC. Calling for three admins to be desopyed? Big deal. I might not agree with what COM said, but these kind of threats happen all the time, whether it be threats of arbcom, RFC, desop, etc., etc. When the community continues to have contrasting punishment for editors, the community loses faith in Wikipedia to treat all editors fairly. Ikip (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: 1 week block. Looks like another Giano II scenario with lots of user edits which divides the masses between "he's a fine editor" and the rest would like to see some action on the misconduct and believe that there's no justification for inappropriate conduct (as everyone is pointing out above). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block/Support WP:DR It's very hard for me to support blocking anyone with an adorable picture of a basset hound on their user page. In all seriousness, a block isn't going to solve the problem here and might drive away a prolific content contributor. What we need is something a little more tailored to the user, and AN/I is a terrible forum for crafting nuanced remedies. RfCs can be dramafests but might be a good forum for letting CoM know what areas he needs to improve in. Arbitration might not be a bad idea either. AniMate 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, let me put a kitten on my page and see what I can call you. For the sake of completeness, I support a block because I happen to be wearing a white shirt right now. I mean how can I not support a block while I'm wearing a white shirt. Prolific content contributor doesn't give him a pass to do whatever he wants.--Crossmr (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block, support opening a Request for Comment. I agree with AniMate's thinking here. A block simply will do no good, and it would have no immediate effect in terms of preventing further disruption since disruption does not seem to be ongoing. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight remains a red link. On a couple of other occasions I have expressed my willingness to participate in an RfC regarding this user, so long as a couple of others were willing to assist in its preparation/certification. I have tried on multiple occasions in the past to resolve some of these problems with C of M to no avail (though not so much recently), which I think would give me standing to co-certify an RfC. Clearly many see some problems here, and an RfC (while I agree they can be dramafests) seems like the best way to gauge how the community feels and offer some constructive feedback and criticism. I don't think it's appropriate to jump right to ArbCom at this point when an RfC has not been attempted. As I said I'm quite willing to help get this going, but don't want to dive into a lengthy process without knowing that the RfC will be able to be certified by enough people. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you'd be interested in working on that (obviously these should be editors who have tried and failed to resolve issues/disputes with C of M per whatever the exact rules for user conduct RfCs are). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may ask, what are the specific edits on the basis of which a block is called for here? While I am aware that ChildofMidnight has been a problematic editor in several respects previously, it's not very clear what he's believed to have done wrong here. Calling for admins to be desysopped? Making silly demands is not sufficient grounds for blocking an editor.  Sandstein  21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As some point we simply get into straw territory; if this were an isolated incident, it'd probably be nothing. But as I pointed out in CoM's hopefully WP:Plaxico topic below, we are talking about and editor whose talk page once looked like this. Haven't we reached the enough is enough point yet? Tarc (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose - Agree with William S. Saturn and others. Izzedine 07:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to any admin that might be reading this for any clear cut signs of a consensus. Seeing that since the relisting, the desision is tied 7-7 I would mark this as "no concensus" since there is no concensus, I guess that were all going to have to wait for CoM to do the same thing again before decideing whether or not to block/topic ban him.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: this is pure class, does no one have a sense of humour? I don't vote, even when I do have suffrage. Good luck CoM, I salute you! Alastair Haines (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, therefore I do not believe that one would be appropriate in this instance, and an indef could be a net loss to the encyclopaedia becuase, as has been pointed out above, CoM is a fine content contributor. I would recommend this discussion be taken to an RfC (per Bigtimepeace, who, as ever, articulately puts across a very sensible suggestion). I would also suggest, perhaps as an alternative, that CoM voluntarily take a long weekend to regain perspective and, on his return, try to keep his head down, stay out of trouble (no calling for desysoppings, no confrontation, no incivility) and focus his energies elsewhere than ANI. Hopefully that would lead to this being the last ANI thread about this editor which seems to be the objective of almost all here. HJMitchell You rang? 12:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there is a history and no evidence he's going to stop, it would be preventative, I'm still waiting for someone to show me the policy where it shows how many good contributions you can trade in to ignore other policies.--Crossmr (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Without discussing CoM's encyclopedic article contributions (I helped out on the vegetarian article World Porridge Day started by him, but have not yet graduated to bacon articles), it might be an idea to restrict him from intervening in project pages (here. ArbCom cases, AN, WQA, FTN, etc). His interventions there can often be immoderate and are often unsupported by diffs. He also seems to bear personal grudges against various groups of editors and administrators which, when played out on project pages, serve little or no purpose in solving problems. Of course his restriction from editing Obama-related articles stops in a week or two, so further discussion might be more appropriate in a month or two. Mathsci (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support somewhere in the region of a month. CoM is highly uncivil, and my butting heads with him on the Obama articles left a bad taste in my mouth... but at least he does work. Let's give him another chance. Sceptre (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested desysop of Cirt, GWH, and John Carter

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The extraordinarily disruptive and confrontational approach to editing taken by these admins is inconsistent with our civility policy and our core values. I think some sort of action may be warranted to rein in their behavior, especially in light of the loss of so many content contributors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had some complaints about your comments in the past Protonk, but I haven't seen anything too outrageous from you recently. In fact I agreed with you on a subject recently, which came as something of a surprise to me (sorry I can't remember off the top of my head what it was). So keep up the good work. I'm optimistic that you may be on the right track going forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM, I think you're going overboard now and perhaps need some kind of disciplinary action to make you realize you're on the wrong path. None of these admins has involved themselves in any objectionable behavior. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM is also failing to follow even basic etiquette now, such as well, notifying at least me of my being the subject to a thread here. My terms of desysoping are quite straightforward. I have said I will ask an uninvolved administrator to review the actions in question and go by their judgement. I am therefore asking User:Protonk to review the complaint. Nor did CoM give notice to Cirt of Georgewilliamherbert, or even give the latter of even using his full name. I have now myself rectifed that clear violation of etiquette, considering CoM apparently had no interest in doing so. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not aware of this thread? You just left me a note about it on my talk page. Is this type of dishonest behavior allowed from admins? I don't think I'm going overboard at all. I think this type of outrageous conduct is why we are losing so many content contributors and why have so many disgruntled editors. This is a content dispute that was over and it's been reinflamed by Cirt's relentless battlefield campaigning. His accusations and assumptions of bad faith against me are almost as bad as Tarc's. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is basic courtesy' to at least notify people that you are requesting that they be desysoped. Although you had the time to post the above comment, you apparently didn't think it worth notifying either Cirt or Georgewilliamherbert of this request. I think I'll let your own choice of actions speak here. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refactor your false statement. You're certainly making my case for me that you're not well suited to possess administrative tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A big ol' YAWN - directed at this entire thread. Can we all move on now? Tan | 39 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wowsers, these are the most simultanious calls for indef blocks, blocks & deseysops, I've ever seen. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the allegation that I made a false statement, I note this quote from the top of the page: "You must notify any user that you discuss." CoM gave no such notice. I also note that Protonk has declined to review my actions. I therefore request any uninvolved admin seeing this thread to do so. I will abide by that decision. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I already requested that you refactor your false statement once, and instead of doing so you now repeat it. I notified the editor who wasn't aware of the thread and I'm happy to provide a diff if necessary. Please refactor both your false statements pronto and cease your disruptive and civility violating behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm closing this entire thread. This has degenerated into mud-slinging, finger-pointing and bickering. Nothing useful is happening. Tan | 39 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) CoM, I can read times just as well as anyone. John Carter made his "false statement" at 19:16. You notified Georgewilliamherbert at 19:22. We all make mistakes and you'll find people will be less annoyed at you if you own up to them. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been involved at all here and don't know what it's about. But I just felt the need to comment on the demand for notification: I believe that courtesy only applies to editors who weren't already participating in a given thread. John appears to have been aware of this thread already, having commented within it. I don't really think admonishing CoM for not notifying him is warranted, and probably goes to show how much this thread has deteriorated into a slugfest on all sides. Equazcion (talk) 19:56, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    (sorry, I conflicted with the closing -- feel free to move it into the collapse) Equazcion (talk) 19:58, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    My statement was made on the basis of a new discussion taking place regarding me, and Cirt, and Georgewilliamherbert, specifically calling for us to be desysoped. It has been my understanding, perhaps erroneous, that if one were to start such a discussion, even as a subthread of a thread of which they were already aware, that, considering they themselves were not the subject of the prior thread, that the courtesy ruling extended there too. To my eyes, that would be the logical call in cases such as these, because even if one had commented on one section before, that does not mean that they would necessarily think to return to that page, particularly if they were involved in doing something else which might cause them to miss the discussion. If I am wrong in that, I apologize. And I do note, after the fact, that CoM did give Georgewilliamherbert some apparent indication that he was to be desysoped, although inclusion of that notice in such a literally parenthetical way made it at least to me unclear whether that were a warning of a request or a reference to a previous discussion calling for that desysoping. I apologize for my misunderstanding of that matter, but, if anyone does see this discussion, think it might be a good idea to amend the top of the page to indicate that notice should be given any time a new thread regarding an individual, or subthread in which they are themselves not clearly named as a party, would be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be some major WP:CREEP. Erring on the side of over-notification is of course the best idea, probably, but my point was that it wasn't so clearcut an underhanded or negligent tactic as to warrant being admonished, is all. It more seems like you were peeved for other reasons (probably understandable) and tacked this on. No offense intended, I might've reacted similarly in this situation. Equazcion (talk) 20:35, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

    Closed due to nothing useful taking place. Start an RfC or go edit an article, one of the two. Tan | 39 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the first bit of it makes sense. Leave it for a bit to see if something good comes of it (Wikipedia might get a bit more drama but then the BBC hasn't suffered for that).  GARDEN  20:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Garden, believe Tan jumped the gun on closing this thread. Jusdafax 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When this finally fizzles out, please ping me with any useful resolutions that occur as a result of this bullshit. I won't hold my breath. Tan | 39 20:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular subsection should be closed, yes. Quibbling about who notified who when is getting a bit pedantic, and a call by the subject of the previous section for desysops of admins he has disagreements with is beyond disruptive. More eyes should be on "Requested block of User:ChildofMidnight", which has not seen a single oppose (other than an oppose of just the indef part). Tarc (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have already made clear what I think of these editors and the way they use their admin powers. Redheylin (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tan. Let me know if something useful comes of this thread. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that what might come out of it that would be useful would be a system of sanctions against using ANI and other such pages as a means of disruption, so that wanton, disruptive, mischievous or POV-based actions would be subject to sanction without further action, and that this would particularly extend to admins who work in packs, who engage in baiting, side-taking, gang-buddyism and summary threats, with the ready possibility of sysop suspension at least. Otherwise these pages just become a sophisticated means of edit-warring that removes the debate from the subject of the article, which is clearly to the advantage of the weaker argument, and replaces it with lawyering, policy manipulation, dirty tricks and lynch-mob mentality, encouraging time-wasting argumentation at the expense of what we're supposedly here to do. To those who habitually represent this kind of sentiment as a "personal attack" - you know what to do. Redheylin (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's okay, CoM. When I was new I was way overly arrogant and headstrong. You'd be better if you take a deep breath... take a break for a few days.. realize no one is perfect, and assume good faith by just being nice and not jumping the gun to demand sysopping perfectly fine admins. k? :) A8UDI 11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this has come up, it's worth documenting that Cirt made two mistakes with regard to a top 15% journal Adamantius stubbed by a reliable editor: he closed a deletion discussion as delete, without there being evidence or consensus for such a decision; and when this was drawn to his attention he made personal attacks rather than seeking information. The results of Cirt's unwillingness to countenance an error on his own part have inevitably been obstruction and disharmony.
    A fragile ego is not a crime deserving desysopping, though.
    Cirt needs pressure taken off him so that he feels confident to be able to apologize, while keeping his credibility. Everyone makes mistakes, disharmony results when there is too much fear to leave space for apology. There is altogether too much drama at this page. I'm glad I don't use it, we've all got books to read and summarise for a hungry public.
    Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For a review of my deletion closure in that AFD please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15 (Decision endorsed). For documentation of disruption by Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) involving the same article, please see [13]. Cirt (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Still no apology. Still being obstructive and divisive, Cirt (I should add on this specific matter only).
    The journal is peer-reviewed, and reviews by third parties are indexed.
    A discussion that salts without seeking those facts is empty. It proves my point exactly.
    People should never have been asked to share ignorance on the subject. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support, but did not act, to salt the page. The protecting of Adamantius (journal) was done by admin Jayron32 (talk · contribs), and this shows why. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see the "this", Cirt. I do hope it is not defamatory. A personal attack on a proven reliable editor is never a good idea.
    Whatever it is, it is not a reliable source regarding the notability of the journal, because that has only one answer.
    Reliable sources create consensus, making decisions without them is an attempt to circumvent them.
    I trust you won't attempt that again when I recreate the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some reservations about Cirt's personal agenda given his dedication to researching Behind the Exclusive Brethren (which looks like a great article and fascinating book), but his irrational suppression of the scholastic work of more than 50 Italian academics over decades regarding a founding father of Christianity--Origen Adamantius--is the issue.
    Cirt's personal assessment of what is notable appears to be a little out of balance, when it comes to Christianity, but that also is no crime.
    After some time delay, and no reply, I think this can be closed: documentation is adequate, and I certainly don't want criticism of Cirt hanging around like a bad smell. I'm unwatching, please contact my talk page (or email) if further comment is desired. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed: Redheylin topic banned from Cirt

    Preamble: I don't think anything remotely good is coming from this sequence of events.

    Proposal:

    1. Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained disruption regarding Administrator Cirt. Redheylin is henceforth topic banned, interpreted broadly, from User:Cirt - may not respond to comments on Wikipedia, leave user talk page comments, mention, file ANI reports on, or revert article content changes by Cirt. Redheylin is not banned from common articles but must use dilligence to avoid responding to or confronting Cirt. This administrative sanction shall last for 90 days after enactment.
    2. Administrator User:Cirt is deemed an involved party and requested to disengage equally on-wiki from Redheylin, without finding of fault.
    A. I'm not involved in the original complaint - Redheylin is upset with me for having intervened in the original complaint as an uninvolved administrator and attempting to resolve it; per WP:UNINVOLVED this specifically does not cause an admin to become involved and disqualified from actions. I have nothing to do with the content dispute that initiated this.
    B. Anyone, even involved parties, can propose a community response.
    C. As a community proposal, I'm not using any administrator powers to do anything here, anyways.
    Do you believe that this is truly not past the time at which we need to disengage the parties who are butting heads? Do you believe that anything but further disruption will follow from these two continuing to interact on-wiki? If you believe that their relationship will suddenly become collegial and productive, working towards consensus, that's a perfectly great reason to oppose. But I believe the alternative is not only likely but obviously already true.
    Oppose if you want more of this - or you think less will come from another better approach, but not for that reason, please. Think it through. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be indicating there that this goes back to bad blood between Cirt and you and others in the latest Arbcom case on Scientology... This does not make sense as a reason to avoid separating the parties now. If anything it seems to argue more strongly for it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait... according to evidence in the last Scientology case you're another of the Osho followers, Jayen. Is that true? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this Arbcom case going to apply itself to this proposal of yours?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously arbcom sanctioned editors showing up here without prior involvement, who are personally involved in the topic (Osho / Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh ) which seems to actually underly the dispute, seems to provide strong evidence for Cirt's comment above that this is not tied to any editor but is a group activity by Rajneesh followers. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    George, to the best of my recollection, the only editors to have commented here and to have been parties to WP:ARBSCI are Will Beback, Cirt, John Carter and I. Will and Cirt presented evidence against me at ARBSCI, and John Carter supported me. John Carter and I were, more recently, in broad agreement at the Matisse arbcom case, and generally get along well. Will and I have our ups and downs, but he knows that I respect him as an editor, and he has been kind enough once or twice to say the same about me. This dispute is not about any fault lines left over from ARBSCI. --JN466 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you denying the claims made in the ARBSCI case that you are a member of the Rajneesh movement? Arbcom made a finding of fact citing Rick Ross' claim to that effect, and your rejoinder to Ross did not acknowledge or deny that part of the claim. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do deny that. For your information, I could cite you diffs where I have been accused of being a follower of Prem Rawat and of Scientology as well. --JN466 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Jayen's comment about ARBSCI, there is one other editor from that case who has commented here: the filing party; myself. In order to avoid appearance of partiality I have commented only procedurally. It is an example which, in good faith, might be best if others also followed. Durova371 06:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cirt's a hardworking, detailed, resourceful article writer, as I've said many times. I for my part have done a great deal of work on "Indian" articles, including recategorising all Indian music, providing illustrations, maintaining a watchlist and rewriting quite a few major articles such as Kabir panth, Meera, Ravidas, Kaula, Saiva Siddhanta and a dozen more. Indian religion has its share of factions and fanaticisms, but the record shows thousands of my edits on dozens of articles and very little friction. I am sorry to say I have found it impossible to reach consensus with Cirt, who seems to find a "personal attack" in every issue raised. I am absolutely capable of conciliation but, like Jayen and every other editor I've seen working on this group of articles, find myself in cases like this time after time, find myself reverted, insulted or met with blank denial. Perhaps it is a failure of mine also - we talk straight and blunt where I come from and won't be bullied - but I can neither negotiate nor walk away from articles that, according to my lights, are being subjected to a strongly negative POV. From my own view, with my own wiki history, I'd welcome any kind of oversight or mediation that achieved balanced articles, constantly improving by consensus. I am sorry, though, but I cannot perceive myself as solely to blame for this affair, and all the admins of wiki and all the blocks they can block cannot change that. However, if a way can be found to achieve harmony without abandoning the said articles to a single editor's viewpoint, I think you'll find me very tractable indeed, because I believe in what I am doing just as much as the other guy. When we are both working for the same goal.... so I'd ask for a more balanced summary of this affair, and, if I show impatience or even contempt, I apologise: I do not mean any offence, I do not have any POV to push, I just want a better wiki and a modicum of civility on the side. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Redheylin has been saying things (diffs above are evidence) that a number of people have objected to. Cirt on the other hand has never engaged in personal attacks or undesirable behavior as far as I know for the little time I've known him. Thats why Cirt was able to collect diffs as evidence against Redheylin while I bet no one can do the same for Cirt. I came new into this whole Osho related business only a few days ago. I was impressed by Cirt's constant patience while dealing with Redheylin and Off2riorob and even Jayen in the old days ([14]). I suggest we give 2 or 3 more weeks to Redheylin and see if things are still the same as before. If they are, then it would be time to file an RfC and go from there. Cirt should not be punished by disallowing him to talk to Redheylin about Osho-related articles because they both edit these articles. Its Redheylin who has to improve his conduct. Red its simple: stay focused on the article, not the editor. See how Cirt does it. People have been editing controversy related articles with differing viewpoints for a long time and it can be done. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanction as presented. This is not about Cirt and Redheylin, but about Rajneesh. Any attempt to institute this ban would be counterproductive, because it would, basically, be completely dependent on the level of Cirt's activity involving that content at any given time. There are ways to deal effectively with matters like this. One is to call in other editors who deal with religion. I think I got involved because of Cirt's doing that, myself being an active religion editor. Should that fail, in all honesty, either an RfC or formal mediation would have a much better chance of effectiveness, and, with any luck, much less rancor. "Straight and blunt speaking" and its equivalents are as often as not used as euphemisms for other things which have policy or guideline pages named after them. Cirt has probably been subjected to more harrasment than most any of us for his contributions to wikipedia, includinhg off-wiki harrassment, and I can and do understand how it might give him, at times, a quick trigger finger. I'm not saying this is one of those times, however. I haven't reviewed the matter to that degree. In all honesty, I think the best approach in this instance would be for both to disengage for a while, maybe file an RfC or mediation on whatever they decide the core disagreement is, and go on from there. ALternately, if there were any sort of way of offering potential sanctions to any disruptive editors in discussions relating to the subject of Osho/Rajneesh, that would probably be more effective. John Carter (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Jayen's "Yes, I do deny that", why then do you still use your sanyassin title? how come you don't make a statement about this on your user page (like Jalal). From information I see online, you left the movement following a leadership rift, (Keerti V Osho Foundation International?) can you clarify this for us? I think it would be helpful to know exactly where you stand on this matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this question relevant to the thread itself, please? If it is not directly relevant, would it be asking too much to have the discussion taken elsewhere? John Carter (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayen466

    In the above section, Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) denied being a member of the Rajneesh organization. Quoting:
    Are you denying the claims made in the ARBSCI case that you are a member of the Rajneesh movement? Arbcom made a finding of fact citing Rick Ross' claim to that effect, and your rejoinder to Ross did not acknowledge or deny that part of the claim. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do deny that. For your information, I could cite you diffs where I have been accused of being a follower of Prem Rawat and of Scientology as well. --JN466 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsequent to that denial, I was emailed a set of links for web content which contradicts that assertion, or at least shows that it was materially misleading. These links include:
    • Here at the ex-site website, he says that he was out of contact with his family for some time while a member original google translation
    • This google groups post to the Caravansarai group.
    • This thread at Rebellious Spirit, titled "Nishkam: Sannyas persecutions in France".
    Links redacted at Jayen's request - the summary points are below in a quote box.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I told Jayen on his talk page, referencing those URLs, that they seemed to establish that he had in fact been a member and asked him to clarify or restate his position; he deleted the question without comment, with TW. I asked again, saying that I would leave the URLs off but that I felt that he really did have to answer the question, as there was now credible evidence on hand that he had misled ANI. He again deleted without comment. I stopped activity on his talk page at that point, as repeatedly continuing to repost deleted requests on user talk pages is specifically listed as harrassment. He still has not answered in the last several hours.
    I believe that these, most specifically the "ex-site" link, demonstrate that there is credible cause to believe that Jayen466 was at one time a member of Osho's organization, at the time known as the Rajneesh movement. There is some sense in those links and others that Jayen is no longer a member; however, I believe that his answer above was materially misleading, in that it denied a connection which is still close enough for our conflict of interest policy to apply, and was materially misleading regarding the subthread's key question, as to whether Rajneesh connected accounts were ganging together to participate in the ANI discussion.
    WP:CIVIL states in part ( Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying incivility 2.c. ) that other incivil behaviors includes "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information;". Jayen has been editing here long enough (3+ years, 20,000 plus edits) enough to know that by now. He also was subject to a specific (non-Scientology, general cult critic) article / topic ban by Arbcom in the latest Scientology arbcom case, relative to allegations Jayen was involved with the Rajneesh movement, and that he was editing with a conflict of interest and disruptively pushing an agenda on that page.
    The evidence is not perfect, but it's persuasive to me. I can no longer AGF.
    I don't quite know what to do - We expect our longtime contributors to be doing so honestly and without gross deception. This appears to breach the communities trust by lying to us above, a specifically policy-listed uncivil behavior, and grossly breach the WP:COI guidelines over an extended period of time by denying that a conflict existed.
    I would like to request uninvolved admin and general community review and input. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgewilliamherbert, I made a full disclosure to arbcom about what history I have with the Osho movement, more than a year ago. I do not have to justify myself to you.
    I have also openly discussed this history several times on-wiki. There is no need for you to post links to Internet discussions, in a blatant abuse of my privacy, to make your point. Osho died 20 years ago; I am 30 years older than I was when I first heard of him. Believe me, I have grown up a little since then.
    This is, as I said, a blatant abuse of my privacy. I am discussing family relationships and my father's death at one of these links. I will be asking for you to be desysopped.--JN466 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make it once more clear to you: I am not a member of the Rajneesh movement. I don't regret the time when I was such a member, over 25 years ago, but it is not my lifestyle now, and it has not been for a long time. --JN466 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semitransgenic, given that you received a warning by Will Beback in January for a very similar outing incident, am I correct in assuming that you supplied these links to Georgewilliamherbert? --JN466 02:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The warning I gave to Semitransgenic, IIRC, concerned disclosing an editor's RL name. This matter seems different. If I post personal information under "Will Beback" on public website then it's publicly available and linking to those postings wouldn't be outing. The links that Georgewilliamherbert has posted all concern accounts with username "Jayen466", so I don't see how this information is outing. Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) has been a contentious topic, and you have been extensively involved in editing it, having made more than 1300 out of a total of fewer than 3200 edits to that article. WP:COI calls on editors to make suitable disclosures if they are actively engaged in editing. The Rajneesh movement has always been relatively small, so far as I'm aware, and it's new so this is not comparable to editors who belong to large, established religious movements. If you prefer to maintain your privacy about your past or current involvement in this topic then it'd be best if you avoided editing it in the future. Having dealt with the user:Jossi's deep conflicts, and his disruptive refusal to recognize them, I think the community has recognizes that it's hard to be neutral in topics that one feels strongly about. If this matter is so sensitive that you're suggesting de-sysopping someone over it then perhaps it's too sensitive to be editing neutrally. There are millions of other topics to edit.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking your points in turn, (1) RL name – same situation here, at least in part. (2) I would consider my linking to your off-site forum posts as Will Beback (say on WikipediaReview etc.) here on Wikipedia as improper. I believe that is the general community understanding. (3) The Osho article has averaged an edit a day for the past year, and has been stable. There are talk page comments to that effect by multiple editors. So has the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack FA, which I co-wrote with Cirt, and the other articles. To the extent that there has been controversy recently at Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) and Rajneesh movement, I believe any fair-minded examination of the few talk page and article edits I have made will show that I have tried to mediate between more extreme views than my own. (4) If you search for Jayen466 and Osho on WP talk pages, you will find that I have talked on-wiki about my past involvement with the movement, including conversations you took part in. (5) I believe linking to editor's off-site activities is improper, especially so by an admin. There are limits, and that is what the proposed desysop is about. I have never seen an admin link to an editor's offsite posts, regardless where and under what name they were made. --JN466 04:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1) If Jayen is your real name then I don't understand how using it would be outing. I don't see any other name on the linked pages. 2) I disagree that linking to posts by Newyorkbrad or Everyking on WR would be regarded by the community as instances of outing. If I'm not mistaken folks have linked to external forum postings and blogs before. 3) I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you have not been involved in any conflicts concerning the Osho/Rajneesh article? Can you see how being an involved party with an undisclosed involvement in the topic could make it hard to be a neutral mediator? 4) Would you be willing to avoid editing the topic in the future? 5) I'd be surprised if there is no precedent for linking to off-site postings. Has anyone ever been de-sysopped someone for linking to such posts that have been written using the same name?   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with Jayen's assertion of credit for that FA. Actually he slowed down progress during article improvement; he seemed unfamiliar with FA standards and was difficult to work with. [15], [16] Cirt (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was indeed unfamiliar with FA standards at the time, but did contribute content which still stands in the article today. You did the lion's share of the work no doubt, yet we each have a half barnstar in our user space to remind us of the collaboration, so at least one observer thought something useful was going on. Cheers, --JN466 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The learning curve of the Wikipedia project is fast in some areas and slow in others. We're still figuring out how to deal with various issues including long-running ethnic disputes, political debates, and intensive new religious movements. In regard to the latter, we have the example of user:Jossi, who used a variety of Wikipedia paths to promote his teacher. Jossi, another editor of a new religious movement of Indian origins who had a problematic conflict of interest, claimed credit for helping to promote FA where he was perhaps more of a hindrance than a help. Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) and Prem Rawat are both Indian gurus who achieved prominence in the West in the 1970s. The followers of these spiritual leaders have a history of trouble editing related articles in a neutral fashion. Let's find a way to resolve that problem.   Will Beback  talk  11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not by any chance seeking to imply that I am in many ways like Jossi, and "more of a hindrance than a help" at the Prem Rawat articles that have taken your fancy, are you? It would only be human for you to consider me a hindrance there, but I feel compelled to point out that you were admonished for your Rawat editing at the most recent Prem Rawat arbcom, and I was one of the few parties who was not. Glasshouse, stones. Let us also remember that it takes two sides to make a POV problem. In the much-quoted WP:ARBSCI, the number of cult critics that arbcom saw fit to topic-ban outstripped the number of Scientologists sanctioned.
    And just FYI, the only FA contribution credits I claim are those where I have received barnstars for my input, explicitly naming the article, or a thank you post from the author on my talk page. So why make a shoddy comment like that, Will? --JN466 12:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, where the lead author says that you impeded the article's progress. Regarding WP:ARBSCI, an entire class of editors was sanctioned which outstrips the individually named editors. There have been two issues in the cases that have come to the ArbCom - poor behavior and non-neutral editing. The poor behavior has been found on all sides, but the non-neutral editing has tended to be more a problem with the "pro" sides than the other sides. Wikipedia is still without adequate policies to address what's been called "polite POV pushing".   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we now close this conversation please? I believe Georgewilliamherbert and I have cleared the air between us on his talk page. We have both apologised to each other, and I think we can all move on now to more profitable pursuits. --JN466 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing: Excuse my butting-in. Contrary to what Will Beback says, I can confirm that given a RL detail in one of the links, I can find over 800 google results. At least one of those results provides sufficient detail to find out Jayen466's RL name, employment and location. Esowteric+Talk 07:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You've looked more closely than I. I've been in contact with JN about it and I'm sure there's a way to redact this down to the relevant parts without any unnecessary disclosures.   Will Beback  talk  10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the links and asked Jayen to supply a redacted version of the key points in the links. Here is what he wrote back.

    -- In one I describe becoming a sannyasin as a teenager and how this affected my family life;

    -- In another I quote and compare material from several sources, one of them being Osho, saying that there is something similar and of value in what all of them are saying;

    -- In the last one I comment on infighting within the Osho movement.

      Will Beback  talk  20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    correction jayen, January 2008, almost 2 years ago, when I was still wet behind the ears. Following this I made a naive attempt at filing a COI report about you and Jalal when you were both actively tag-teaming on the article.
    Yes, I did bring what I thought was a discrepancy to George's attention, privately, because I saw a denial which appears to be somewhat disingenuous, but I clearly stated I was not seeking a reprimand.
    In terms of why I'm being cautious, I witnessed what I considered, at the time, to be biased and dishonest engagement with the Osho article; you downplayed your knowledge of the movement, and only when challenged on the sourcing did it become clear that your knowledge base was significantly greater than that evidenced in your initial contributions. You were actually very familiar with most of the notable literature on the subject but addressed it only when challenged on the articles content issues.
    Since then you have become the paragon of neutrality, and I commend you on your efforts, but I still find you sometimes cagey (plus a bit of a religious zealot).
    If you were genuinely no longer associated with the Rajneesh Movement, why did you use your Sanyassin title as a wikipedia username? In the interests of transparency, I asked you for an honest explanation for the use of this title, because I wasn't aware you had made a prior disclosure, I fail to see why any of this is problematic.
    Also, this is hardly an outing offense, the link that I posted in January 2008 was not removed by admin for quite some time (though it appears to has since been scrubbed), and you made no explicit statement on that "outing" so I don't see what the fuss is now. If you are concerned about "privacy" why are you using the exact same user name across the internet? We could dig on many user names, and maybe find personal info, eventually, but no one here has ever posted Jayen's real name, address etc. so this is not an outing. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for your endorsement of my neutrality. Why I used my sannyasin name? Lack of imagination. I already had a pseudonym; I'd used it for posts online elsewhere before, and was too lazy to make up another one. I don't use it at home, if that is what you want to know. I find you cagey too (though I feel a strange bond of kinship when we defend present article status against "newcomers"), and I also suspect you turned up under two different sock accounts at two GA reviews of an article of mine. Well, perhaps your points had merit; I don't regret taking them on board. It was the edit to techno that gave it away. ;) --JN466 11:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And sorry, I had meant to write January 2008. --JN466 11:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    might i also state that I have not, and will not, go so far as to search for your actual identity, as Esowteric appears to have done, it doesn't interest me in the least, it was solely a matter of confirming a direct connection with the movement, which did not involve outing. If you are stating that you are no longer affiliated with OFI or any of it's subsidiaries we should take your word on that. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I am indeed not so affiliated. --JN466 12:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are, however, still posting articles and commentary at websites related to the movement. Even if that's as a happy ex-member, without current affiliation, that degree of connection is something that should be disclosed under WP:COI, and should reasonably have been explained when I asked under the Redheylin/Cirt thread above.
    This section happened because you answered up there in the negative - contrary to what you have admitted here - and then, after I assumed in good faith that you'd answered accurately, I was emailed the links in question which showed differently.
    There's nothing wrong with you having been a member of the organization. If you'd have answered "I am not but was, but I don't think that my comment here was part of an organized effort" and pointed to instances where you've been neutral or mediating, that would all have been fine, and I would have dropped that line of inquiry equally much.
    Chosing to answer "no", however, was effectively a coverup. And particularly confusing if as you say you've admitted it before elsewhere on Wikipedia, to Arbcom in private, etc.
    What you admitted privately to Arbcom is not publicly known - you can't be upset with other users not knowing that. If you intended other users to know what you disclosed privately, you'd have disclosed it publicly. Blaming me for not knowing is not logically consistent. If you'd responded on your talk page that you didn't want to talk on wiki but that you'd disclosed to Arbcom privately, we could have followed up offline.
    I did not intend to out your real life identity; I didn't see any directly identifying information on the links I posted, and haven't followed up with wider searches. It's not relevant here. If I'd seen identifyable information I would have avoided using it. The links to external uses of the identical online pseudonym or handle are not by general Wikipedia policy by themselves a violation of outing policy, as Will has pointed out above. I do apologize if it was made easier to find your RL identity indirectly.
    I haven't spent all night staring at your contributions history, but in the short time I did spend I'm not seeing problematic edits on the Osho erlated articles. The COI policy doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't edit - it means that others should be aware that you have a personal interest that they need to be aware of, so that we can build a more neutral encyclopedia.
    In summary:
    • If you have a COI - please disclose it, voluntarily when you start editing (per WP:COI), and again if/when asked.
    • If you're asked about it, please answer honestly, even if that's privately.
    • Please don't cover up stuff, especially if you've admitted to it elsewhere on-Wiki or in easily googleable manners. The odds that someone will check are high, and even if you didn't do anything wrong to start with the coverup immediately raises suspicion and causes people to look hard for abusive behavior. There's a saying in the US press and in legal circles - the coverup is always worse than the crime.
    • If it's information which is sensitive or touches on real life identity you can ask for private discussions - arbcom exists in part for sensitive private discussions to stay that way.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted with thanks and acknowledgement of your points. I have explained further on your talk page, but I believe nothing more need be said here, and we can all move on. --JN466 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Buy me a new microwave as per WP:Overheat and WP:Humor

    My old microwave is not doing the job. I propose we indef block it and buy me a new one.

    Also, I want to be really careful not to step on any toes here, but the microwave seems to be operating from a particular racial POV. Every food item it "improves" ends up seeming... "blacker". Throwaway85 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Objection. This is beginning to sound too much like the old, bitter, contentious Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block the sun fiasco. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely that's just going to make the problems increase in frequency? Infra-redheylin
    • Strong support Microwave has for a long time been part of the kitchen appliance cabal, which has made a complete mockery of the core policies of wikipedia and not engaged in editing in a collegial manner. Just look at the problems they caused in the JuliaChild&Microwave ArbCom case which resulted in the resignation of three arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Wow, allegations of sockpuppetry as well by John Carter and others in this round-table discussion. Filing an RFC (Request for Cooking) for further investigation. Suggesting topic ban from pork and frozen food as per above recommendations. Things are getting heated. We have a lot on our plate now. Thanks for all the funny comments guys, hehe. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    98.234.169.63 = Fastily?

    Pardon the digression, but is 98.234.169.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) actually the admin Fastily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the discussion some distance up the page? Or is it an impostor? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't it be less drama inducing to ask him about it? That account has been editing for months ([17]), so I don't think it's an imposter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking the IP would be rather pointless. I was going to ask Fastily, but he hasn't edited under that ID since the 26th. It just seems weird for an IP to sign as a user, especially an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been doing it for months [18], but I admit it's a bit odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether Fastily is doing that because he is deliberately or accidentally logged out at the time. The only issue I have is with the replacement of the IP signature with Fastily's signature. A better way would be to add a link in brackets after the IP signature. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Deliberately logged out. I'm busy in real life right now so I'm attempting to take a Wikibreak which hasn't been all that successful thus far. I usually end up spending less time on-wiki editing as an IP without the tools so I do that. Please feel free to email me if you need me to confirm this. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, if you take up my suggestion above, we can mark this one as resolved. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any others alternative identities you would like to admit to Fastily?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you are asking about IP addresses, WP:OUTING may apply. Fastily, I would really suggest you try to avoid editing that much while logged out. If your IP address changes (and three months seems about right), finding out what you've said becomes unnecessarily complicated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see some acknowledgment from Fastily's own logon confirming - not that IP address again saying, "Yes, it's me." The reason I brought this up in the first place is that the IP's comments didn't sound like an admin talking, they sounded pointy, like someone trying to fan the flames. We shouldn't have to send someone an e-mail. That also sounds fishy. If it's actually Fastily, he should log on once and post here, and confirm that that IP is him. Either that, or the IP should be blocked on suspicion of impersonation. Which, by the way, is what I was originally going to propose at AIV, but I thought it would be better to bring it here first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really him; if I remember correctly he's been asked about it before and made a confirmation edit to prove it. Sure, it could theoretically have been him then and not him now (if the IP is dynamic), but seriously, I am pretty sure it's actually Fastily. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it's reasonably clear to people in the editing area and is not being used to stack or manipulate, it's not a breach of WP:SOCK, and a non-issue. Orderinchaos 05:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Incipient edit war at Josip Broz Tito

    I am not an english native speaker. So I’m not sure if this is the right place to point out the following situation. If it isn’t, I beg for you to move it to the proper place.

    User: AlasdairGreen27 and User: DIREKTOR keep engaging in persistent vandalism on Josip Broz Tito, removing every contents inserted by other users, as you can see from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&action=history. I noticed (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_2) that both users had keep deleting any new section of the article that may be perceived as critic towards Tito by the readers, supporting each others in doing so against a lot of different users. I’m not the first one to quarrel about this situation as you can see from the following links, which are mere examples of their behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_2#Discussion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_2#Whitewashing.3F, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Concerning_Wikipedia.27s_Article_Josip_Broz_Tito and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Josip_Broz_Tito. Particularly they keep deleting a passage (which was inserted by me in the article), which was heavily sourced, refusing to discuss the matter (“The foibe will not be mentioned in this article”, “End of story”, “I have no comments to make to you”, “There is nothing to discuss”). Despite my warnings (I advise them that they were committing vandalism a lot of times) and my efforts to start a true discussion (they keep refusing to comment their deletions), they seemed unnecessarily harsh towards me since their very first comment to me on the talk page (“you are here not to advance the encyclopedia, but merely to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for your own peculiar POV”, “You will notice that we have rather higher standards than that”, “you've so far clearly demonstrated you are here to push some kind of POV with biased wording”, “enwiki's burly security officers will no doubt show you to the exit fairly promptly”). They refuse to be reasonably cooperative and they show a persistent lack of good faith (“What you wrote was put there specifically and solely in an attempt to prejudice the reader against the subject of the article”) too. You can read the deleted passage here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&oldid=329320296. You can read our discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Foibe and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#New. I don’t want to start an edit war or to make things worse, so I’m asking you to please resolve the situation. Thanks. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the individuals involved of the discussion. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On reviewing the article, it seems to be POV in that the other contributors are enforcing WP:BLP-style policies overzealously, despite the fact that the individual in question has been dead nearly 30 years. They seem to have WP:COI issues (two of them profess a personal admiration for the man described by the article on their user page), and are overly prone to resorting to not so subtle bullying of other editors (see talk of same page). I'd never heard of the man before, and have no personal attachment the subject or the countries involved, so I think I'm about as unbiased as they come. Reading this article, then performing a Google search for this man leads to two completely different impressions:
    Wiki article: A heroic resistance fighter and statesman who saved his country from the Nazis and led them as president afterwards, keeping them out of Russian clutches. Made the hard decisions, but they were all vindicated by history.
    Google search (ignoring results sourced from Wikipedia, and there are a lot, indicating the importance of the article): A brutal resistance fighter who committed war crimes in the pursuit of defeating the Nazis. Unified the disparate ethnicities of his country by force, including some quasi-genocidal acts. A military dictator and strongman.
    I'm not saying the article should ignore or downplay his positive sides, but by minimizing and ignoring his negatives, you get a very skewed view of the man. The article also needs some serious trimming; the full history of the Yugoslavian front in WWII and the politics of Yugoslavia for 50 years takes more space than the text actually about the man, though perhaps that is only an indication of how thoroughly he dominated the country and its politics. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tito was a dictator, therefore there's gotta be some negative stuff. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly my point. But the editors mentioned by AndreaFox seem to think *any* mention constitutes a POV edit. They've told people on the talk page to move the info to articles on the massacres in question, but block people from even linking the massacres from the article, let alone describing them. And they're watching and doing the same sorts of reverts on the massacre pages anyway, so the suggestions are a joke in any event. For example, there seems to have been some heavy cutting on Bleiburg massacre at some point; somehow the only part of the article that even mentions the man (and only by nickname) is a brief notice in the section "Criticism of the massacre claims". Yet it appears he was the leader of the partisans that are said to have committed the massacre. I think a lot of whitewashing of genocide is going on in the historical Yugoslavia articles, and it's working too; virtually all of the first page hits on Google for both the man and the example massacre source from Wikipedia, so the *only* view people see is the sanitized version. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While more eyes on this would of course be good, and most welcome, I don't think any admin intervention is required, and therefore this thread can be closed. It must, however, be pointed out, that the original poster is a POV-driven, hate-ridden "justice must be done" contributor. End of story. And lastly in this post, as has been endlessly stated, our aticles should/must be a neutral presentation of the facts as known, from which readers may draw their own conclusions. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the thread is on your behaviour, so you may not be the most suited the person to recommend that it is closed. I have not looked at the article yet and have encountered AlasdairGreen27, but I've read a few articles where the user DIREKTOR has been involved and I've found the user to be a strong POV-pusher.Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You're (AlasdairGreen27) intentionally painting an inaccurate picture of AndreaFox. At no point in either the edits to the article or the talk page does she(?) make any such claims, express any personal opinion of Tito, or even make any significant changes without copious sources to support them from apparently reputable historians. You are reading into her edits a motivation that they do not support. You aren't making a neutral presentation of the facts, you're intentionally omitting any facts you personally disagree with and pretending it's a POV issue. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To the best of my knowledge Jeppiz, we have never interacted. If you have any remarks to make about my behaviour, the floor is yours. Fire away. Give it your best shot. And before you start to get into anybody else, bear this in mind: Welcome to the Balkans. Here we spend our entire time attempting to hold the line, impose wiki policies, make our articles kind of as good as elsewhere on the project. Yet we are under siege from POV monsters, both registered accounts and IPs, who seek to use wiki to promulgate 'the truth'. And of course, vast numbers of socks, that are all Hydra monsters. As soon as you chop off one head, another one grows. So, if you'd like to join us here, we'd be delighted to welcome you to the party. But hell, I've heard that the Armenian genocide articles are even worse, so you may prefer to hang out there. Your call. let me know how you propose to help. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a problem of meatpuppetry regarding DIREKTOR/AlasdairGreen27 and some user suspect these accounts by a single guy: for evidence read history of foibe killings, Istrian exodus and several articles pertinent ex Iugoslavian history or their personal talk pages: it's canvassing too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.254.117 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I meant to write that I have never interacted with Alasdair, as he correctly points out. Nor do I have a history of editing articles related to Yugoslavia, so I would consider myself fairly neutral. Having looked at the article, its edit history and the users involved, I must agree that AndreaFox seems to have a point. As a third editor already pointed out, the article gives a very idealised view of Tito with all criticism being suppressed by AlasdairGreen27 and DIREKTOR. In a rather flagrant violation of WP:OWN and WP:POV, and with no justification in WP:BLP for a person dead for 30 years, these two editors repeatedly remove even well-sourced and relevant sections that are critical of Tito. As this disruptive POV-pushing is not limited to just this article but seems to be repeated on a large number of articles related to Tito and Yugoslavia, I would suggest that the AlasdairGreen27 and DIREKTOR, as a first step, would be restricted to one revert per week at articles related to Yugoslavia, with the prospect of a topic-ban unless that works. Knowing a bit about the Balkans, Alasdair is probably right when he says that there are regions where feelings are strong, and that there are articles that are in an even worse state. I don't how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would justify POV-pushing. Needless to say, that goes for everybody involved. While I do think that Alasdair and DIREKTOR are guilty of widespread POV-pushing, that goes for some of the users with whom they edit was as well. The one doesn't excuse the other.Jeppiz (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    they remove my post: [19] and they attaked user:Luigi 28, user: Barba Nane, user:Ducatista2, user: Trusciante, user:Miranovic etc who are not socks. DIREKTOR was restricted for long time after POV battle against user:Giovanni Giove. AlasdairGreen27, DIREKTOR and PRODUCER were reported here as communist gang admirer of dictator Josip Broz

    Those users were all socks, and it seems likely that the IP above is as well. The first edit is a comment on Jimbo Wales talk page for actions to be taken against Alasdair and DIREKTOR, the second edit is about the dispute on Tito. It proves that Alasdair is right when he says that these articles attracts socks and POV-pushers. The accusation that Alasdair and DIREKTOR are socks of the same user seems very improbable to say the least. Let's focus on the facts here: Alasdair and DIREKTOR seems to be involved in excessive WP:OWNing to maintain their own WP:POV at articles related to Tito. It seems to be true that there are socks pushing for an opposite POV as well, but that doesn't excuse reverting edits from legitimate users.Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rememeber that insulting someone isn't allowed on wikipedia: you can't call me "monster". Please apologise for your statement. I didn't deserve it as i have not insult you. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a tad concerned with the less then 3hrs old IP. It's knowledge of Wikipedia & the Tito discussions are amazing. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FFS, as we can see from the sockpuppet intervention to this thread, above and below Jeppiz' comment, there's a lot at stake here. Enough. Given Wikipedia's non-expert culture, the culture of people who know nothing but have enormously strong opinions about a subject, I once again invite one and all to join us at the Balkans party. Those weary admins such as FpaS and Ricky who police these areas would concur, I suspect. To Jeppiz, I wearily point out, once again, DIREKTOR and I are the good guys, buddy. We're the ones holding the line against the loons. Can you not see what is so obvious? We need help here, not nonsense like this. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is you view anyone who disagrees as being with the "loons". AndreaFox's edits at the very least do not appear to be lunacy of any kind, and seem to improve the article. Feel free to contest the sourced claims if the source itself doesn't meet the threshold for reliable source, but don't delete whole sections because you feel they are critical. No, Stalin isn't referred to as a dictator on his own article, but they do point out the mass killings, gulags and assassinations carried out under his watch (I'm sure he didn't personally order every single deportation to a gulag either, just like Tito didn't order every instance of mass murder, but that doesn't mean either one gets off scot free). If you wish to use Stalin to argue against particular labels, like dictator, (which I agree are generally unnecessary) then you also need to admit that merely mentioning a person's actions and orders is also justified. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment looking at this "affaire" on both it.wiki and en.wiki it seems clear that we have two "parties" Croatian and Istrian ones. I've just blocked last Brunodam's Tamburellista's (un properly named as a sock of Pio's) sock on it.wiki and you can find on my own talkpage the last ridicolus threats by the same troll, so I think I cannot be defined as a member of the Istrian party at all. But imho DIREKTOR seems to use his sysop's rights as the Lord Protector of "Croatian party" (please note that both parties use external forums in order to set up their wiki-attivities), we **must** fight against all these nationalism which are poisoning our Project because I can see any reason to favour the one which seems to be smarter: Croatian party was so lucky when Istrian party were self-destroied by Pio and Brunodam, at the same time the party was so able using Pio and Brunodam's ghost to dictate its own POV. Imho we must make wiki clean by **all** nationalism, DIREKTOR's one too.--Vituzzu (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The time may be coming to restrict all editors-in-question from the articles-in-question, for a period of time. If only to restore the peace. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is blowing up into a discussion of Balkans issues, and WP:ARBMAC and all that. There's no need for it to be so, but if you want it to be, then that's fine. You newcomers to the arena don't really have a bloody clue about the array of issues involved, so, rather than comment, I will ask seasoned campaigners (admins, but ordinary volunteers, like you, who choose to wade in to try to clear up the appalling mess) User:Ricky81682 and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise to comment here. God help us. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very concerned with the attitude Alasdair is taking here. Statements like "there's a lot at stake here. Enough.", " I wearily point out, once again, DIREKTOR and I are the good guys", "We're the ones holding the line against the loons.", "We need help here, not nonsense like this." show all too clearly that these users see themselves as crusaders of the WP:TRUTH. Reading the talk page, I am struck by the arrogant and condescending attitude of DIREKTOR, explaining that if he wants to remove things he doesn't like, no matter how well-sourced, he will do it. IMO, both Alasdair and DIREKTOR frequently crosses the line of "mere" POV-pushing to engage in pure vandalism. They are no doubt convinced that they are doing the right thing, since they are "the good guys" who are "holding the line against the loons." Vituzzu makes a very good point about the need for action about both camps, and I fully agree with GoodDay about the need to restrict both the Italian socks and Alasdair & DIREKTOR from articles related to Tito, Yugoslavia and Istria.Jeppiz (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not endorsing a mass-restriction, just observing that it might eventually occur. I've no intentions of diving into the Tito article dispute. To quote Mike Tyson, I'm crazy, but I'm not crazy. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with your proposal. Maybe it will help the situation. However, what will you do about the passage which i inserted and which was deleted? It is POV or not? It must be reinserted or not? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read your contribution and I would say that DIREKTOR's and Alasdair's removal of it is not just POV-pushing, it is pure vandalism. It would be interesting to hear on what grounds DIREKTOR and Alasdair removed the paragraph as it was very well sourced, more so than many other parts of the article. If I were you, I'd report it as vandalism as those kinds of actions are no longer content disputes.Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly thread. I've got nothing to add. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no interest in dealing with this crap anymore. Fully protect the thing, let everyone have at it on the talk page, let some admins rewrite it to something somewhat stable and topic ban the characters who use the encyclopedia as a battleground. When even articles like 1102 have nonsensical edit wars, I don't see the point of bothering. Some people just have no interest in creating neutral anything. This garbage is bleeding throughout the entire encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You see Jeppiz and GoodDay? You see? That comes from one of the very few admins who have genuinely tried to help us in this domain. You have no goddamn idea what you are getting into. But please, as I've said above, join us. We'd love your input, or your umpiring. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No thanks, I ran out of gas at the Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta discussions. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that - you are already battle scarred. So Jeppiz, let's hear it from you. Are you just here to throw things from the peanut gallery or do you genuinely want to try to help us make some articles better? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I ask for an Arbcom's action? I'm getting more and more bored. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So much for the NPOV good-guy speech. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's beyond the pale. As a simple editor who has no interest in the Balkans I hate to stick my neck out here, but for that comment I have to suggest that AlasdairGreen27 be blocked. This is not improving the encyclopedia. --NellieBly (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If it’s true about wikipeida editors leaving, its no surprise seeing people making vile comments like that. - dwc lr (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with both of you. Alasdair's response to this thread seems to be to go ever more extreme. Repeatedly calling editors who questions his opinions for "twats, using languag such as "fuck directed at them and explicity stating his intent to insult them...[20] And this is the editor claiming he is the good guy. I came to this thread a few hours ago without having ever heard about Alasdair. After reading this report and looking into, I've been able to verify that inly in the last, he has
    • vandalised the article by removing a well-sourced paragraph [21], [22] that is contrary to his own POV. That he calls contributions by editors disagreeing with him "hatemail" doesn't make it better.
    • made clear that he will continue to act in the same manner when his vandalism was questioned by other editors [23]
    • repeatedly insulted several editors for the "crime" of not agreeing with his POV [24], [25]
    Put that together with the comments he has made here, trying several times to argue that this thread should be closed because he and DIREKTOR are "the good guys" who defend the WP:TRUTH. I've rarely seen a more striking case of WP:OWN. In combination with his uncivil behaviour, his removal of sourced claims not agreeing with his POV and his outright refusal to try to discuss the matter, I can only repeat that I think this user should perhaps not edit articles about Yugoslavia and Tito. While this report is about the Tito article, I see the same disruptive behaviour repeated in a less intense but similar patter on many other Yugoslavia-related articles.Jeppiz (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alasdair looks to me like he thinks he is untouchable probably has got away with that sort of behaviour before. And the we are the “good guys” statement was just hilarious. This guy needs a reality check desperately. - dwc lr (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I regrettably have to whole heartedly agree with the comments regarding DIREKTOR pushing a POV and have witnessed (and continue to witness) this first hand. He refuses to acknowledge any source that disagrees with his POV and attempts to censor articles by removing alternative views he simply does not adhere to a NPOV. Someone needs to put a stop to this individual’s censorship and pov pushing. The paragraph removed from the Tito article appears to be well sourced I wouldn’t necessarily put it in the lead, but none the less I don’t see how its complete removal can be justified. - dwc lr (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Be prepared for a bunch of "new" users to edit war over that. And once they get blocked, be prepared for a bunch of "new" anonymous editors to come. And then be prepared that, because all those edits are coming from several large cities in Eastern Europe (particularly universities) we cannot really stop the vandals because of collateral damage. So then be prepared to be called a Holocaust denier for quoting a line by Albert Einstein from the New York Times. And then the cycle begins anew. And finally then be called an expert on dealing with these characters so you get to keep on humoring the most insane of them. Seriously, short of massive blocks over huge parts of that region, this nonsense will never end. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May as well give a topic ban for the established users as User:Jeppiz suggested and let people who only care about the quality of the encyclopaedia and aren’t raving mad nationalists edit the articles. - dwc lr (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How about a new rule - only Africans can edit articles on the Balkans, only Latin Americans can edit articles on the Troubles, only nuns can edit articles on US politics...:). I'm not even sure that some of the Balkans editors are based in Balkans countries (so the rangeblock idea would fail), Lock down the articles, all edits to be made on the talkpage first, - with sources or it gets canned - , get in some admins as bouncers to bin anyone who mentions anyone else's nationality, indeed makes any comment at all about the editor rather than the edit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My 2 cents. The current article of Tito is not POV but is POV*POV*POV simply because it analyze only the point of view of some historical and ethnical positions, but don't analyze ALL points of view. Any article should investigate any historical version (this is a pilaster of Wikipedia), the current article follows only a single point of view of historical interpretation of Tito. In the past Italians and Yugoslavs have always denied any massacre for political reasons, the Tito's action has always been interpreted as "liberation". In this moment to have Slovenia and Croatia accepted in European Union they have dismissed the position of denial and the "official" governments of two countries have accepted that a massacre has had place and this massacre has been organized by Yugoslav partisans guided by Tito as suggested by historical documents and witnesses. What I am saying is that the current article of Tito continue to deny the historical current situation and it's still stopped to the point of view accepted during the years prior 80's: "total denial of massacre". I think that probably after some bans and blocks we will see the some situation of other articles which generate only bans and blocks but not defend the neutrality of articles and don't follow the pilasters of Wikipedia, only because it seems better to follow the easy way but not to solve "the problem". If you need some link you can see these [26][27][28]. In this case what I see is that the article of Tito don't analyze the problem of Foibe and the involvment of Tito (is Tito involved? Is not it?), simple the article is silent. I would appreciate if all discussions will be focused to solve the problem of neutrality and not to reach blocks or bans in advantage of one or two persons. Personally I would have had the opportunity to work in this article adding any new interpretation of the end of II World War but for me has not been possible because I am a peaceful guy and I don't appreciate any war edit and any nationalism. This situation is confirming me that in en.wikipedia it's difficult to contribute for moderate people, it's by this time only a place proper for not moderated people. I am very curios to see the end of this polemic and see what is the decision of sysops. --Ilario (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I hoped to resolve the situation here, but direktor and alan keep acting the same way and they clearly stated that they will keeping acting the same way. So i pointed out their behavior here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Alerts )like jeppiz and others suggested. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Having read the report here yesterday, I went to have a look at the article and to insert the criticism section that Alasdair and DIREKTOR were repeatedly removing without any justification. I must agree that the whole thing is mine field. Alasdair is currently blocked for his repeated vandalism and personal attacks, but DIREKTOR is continuing in the same way, [29] removing both the POV-tag the only critical paragraph, incidentally the best sourced in the article. I note with some fatigue that he claims that he continues to delete material and pov-tags he doesn't like "to avoid an edit war". The problem is that I, and most others, aren't very interested in Tito and we won't keep looking at the article to keep out the extreme POV that DIREKTOR and Alasdair have enforced on the article. For far too long, the two users have WP:OWNed the article and continue to act in the same way.Jeppiz (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, exactly how is this supposed to be resolved? I'm somewhat new to this board. So far the only substantial thing accomplished directly was the temporary block of AlasdairGreen27, which isn't exactly the sort of progress you hope for. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And it continues with more removal of tags and well-sourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT [30]. AndreaFox2 obviously had a fair reason to come here, Alasdair and DIREKTOR have proven themselves to be completely unwilling to listen to anyone else about the articles that they WP:OWN.Jeppiz (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DIREKTOR keeps wholesale reversion of any inclusion of material that enters upon the subject of the negative sides of Tito's regime, despite the section being reworked by numerous editors. His actions seems to have crossed the border of edit-warring long ago. Could we please have some admins look into this?. Saddhiyama (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
    I agree with Saddhiyama: it is needed an intervention by an admin, as the problem seems not to be limitated to Tito's article. For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Aimone,_Duke_of_Aosta&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foibe_killings&action=history. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Users are ganging-up on me so that they can have their way by simply banning an editor that is trying to keep to the sources. This is not a question of POV, this is an issue about sources. The edits they are proposing are contrary to sources or obviously misrepresentative of them. This is a serious dispute and these fellows, while edit-warring themselves, are trying to simply ignore the opposing arguments by lobbying here and sounding as outraged as possible, to the general merriment of the banned clique that started all this:
    "Hello Ivan. Please, before you get blocked, can you explain that I am not a sock? Thank you. Luigi--151.21.250.180 (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)" [31][reply]

    • On the Josip Broz Tito article, I made a grand total of four reverts over a period of 48 hours. My concerns on the talkpage were largely ignored, in anticipation of my forthcoming ban. It is always easier to simply lobby for a block than actually discuss, isn't it guys?
    • On the Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta article, the opposing editor User:DWC LR was edit-warring to introduce his personal opinions and removing some five or six sources that oppose him. I admit I went overboard there, but since the user simply ignored me when his version was on, thinking that the matter is "settled", I was practically left with no choice if I was to keep the sources in (while making incessant appeals everywhere that he should at least hold hsi edit until we've discussed the matter). In any case, it is as much his edit-war as it is mine.

    Without going into any details about the article, let me just state my opinion again that any experienced admin can see through the standard POV-pushing strategy. Don't discuss with the loser, just get him blocked by sounding as outraged as possible over a few reverts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not true we are "trying to simply ignore the opposing arguments". You keep deleting passages because you feel they are critical towards tito, refusing to seriously confront the others. We ask you to cite the sources that support your claims and to stop deleting other users'sources, but you ignore both of this requests. Regarding Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta article the one who is deleting sources is you, as User:DWC LR simply added new portions of text, without removing previous ones and you keep deleting his sources. --AndreaFox (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta I appealed to you on the article talk page and your user talk age directly why would not allow academics sources included I received no reply so inserted them. Not single one of your sources was removed. Back on topic you ask for sources calling Tito “authoritarian” and then straight after say “the lead, however, should remain devoid of any such labels” the sole reason because you don’t like it I assume as not once did you give a reason. ”Authoritarian” is then inserted in the lead and you instantly start belittling people. - dwc lr (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the section three times because there are serious concerns as to the representation of the sources listed therein. The section is highly inaccurate at best, and endeavors to (quote) "interpret" scientific works according to the intent of the Wikipedia editor.
    There is no debate that people were killed by bands of guerillas at the end of WWII (i.e. by the "partisans and successor regime"), there is debate as to whether Tito, who issued orders warning againstz such behavior, had anything to do with wanton acts of violence. This point is paramount. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling people "arrogant and malicious" is an insult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Alleged_involvement_in_crimes. Please apologise. --AndreaFox (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I 'd like someone to translate this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Tito) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ivan_%C5%A0tambuk#Re) because it's obvious they are talking of the users that are talking here and it seems to me, looking at some of the words used (ignorantni, genijalci), that their speeches about us aren't exactly respectfoul towards us. If it isn't the case, i apoligise, but i want to be sure. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought conversations on User talkpages had to be in english, as this is the English language Wikipedia? I need clarification on this. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zaferk keeps putting fraudulent templates on his userboard

    Specifically, he puts templates on his userboard falsely claiming that he is a Master Editor II; and that his userpage has suffered over 9,000 vandalisms! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So? Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as a user doesn't claim a position (admin, CU, etc...) falsely or otherwise violate WP:UP, I do not believe that your revert of his page was appropriate. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when did we police adding these 'medals'? And "over 9000" is an internet meme. Fences&Windows 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My reaction when seeing the UP was that he'd maybe somehow "fool" a newbie into thinking he was actually a veteran editor. As said above, don't sweat it, OM. cheers, --guyzero | talk 04:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Tarc, as long as he isn't trying to deceive anyone, he can put anything on there he wants. The 'master editor' definition is arbitrary, unofficial, and silly, so it isn't really something to enforce a definition of. Prodego talk 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Longer explanation at User talk:QueenofBattle#User:Zaferk. Prodego talk 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to quote two things from the top of this page. "You must notify any user that you discuss." "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I see neither of these. Why not? I've now notified Zaferk. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Thejadefalcon, Tarc, Hersfold and everyone else for all your kind support. Orange Mike appears to have a personal vendetta against me for whatever asinine reason, but its of no concern, I'm going to take the high ground and leave it here. --Zaferk (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The farce of Wikipedia's user space conventions

    Is there a single user page template on this site that acutally has an official meaning? We have service templates that don't reflect 'service' (and whatever anyone thinks, these do have an agreed meaning by consensus, however pointless they may be), we have retired templates that don't mean you are 'retired', we have indef block templates that can't be put on indef blocked users (who can instead pretend to have retired) etc etc etc. It is so stupid. I've heard all sorts of reasons and arguments for this nonsense situation, all of which assume that all editors are competent in such things as checking contribs and block logs, and none of which ever address the basic point - making Wikipedia's user communication systems look totally nonsensical to new users is Not a Good Thing. Combined with the fact users regularly get away with abusing the talk page with crap like this and this, shows the whole idea of Wikipedia having any kind of normalised interface for communication that you would find in any other so called community is an utter farce, and unsurprisingly imo the opinions of 'so what' et al usually come from users that have been here so long they probably cannot even remember a time when the internals of Wikipedia wasn't second nature to them. /rant. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a point there. But yeah, so what. Why waste energy on policing what users have on their user page?--Atlan (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I am sure somewhere around here some fool keeps banging on about how Wikipedia is a community of editors, and communities as I know them usually operate with certain norms and conventions. In the real world, I can't go around calling myself a Veteran of anything if I am not, or claim to visitors that I am simply on holiday when in reality I have been locked up for being an arse, or smack people in the face when they knock on my front door to simply speak to me. Yet in the nut-house that is the WP 'community', it's all ok seemingly. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously all that worked up about userspace templates? And can we tone it down about 7 notches. Throwing around words like "Farce" and phrases like "so called community" is fun but it makes communication tiresome. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it make it as tiresome as the use and abuse of templates? It fits the definition of a farce in my eyes, but If you could tell me how worked up somebody has to get about an issue before you won't consider it worth bothering about, that would be grand. This 'so what' attitude is exactly why this sort of rubbish and other crap like the use and abuse of sigs described below, is accepted here. MickMacNee (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban of User:TrEeMaNsHoE?

    Resolved
     – there do not seem to be any objections to banning this user
    • Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
    • Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
    • This user was indef blocked in late October. They began socking right away. A few days ago, I extended the standard offer to them. Since then at least 2 new socks have been detected and blocked. In order to simplify the process of dealing with these socks, I propose this editor be banned. Their behavior has been uniformly disruptive, and they have clearly indicated they are unwilling/unable to conform to Wikipedia policies, especially our core concept of respecting consensus. Several of the socks were confirmed by CheckUser, and at least one of them has admitted it anyway [32], adding that they "had an urge to edit false things." This is quickly heading into WP:LTA territory, and the sooner a ban is in place the simpler it will be to deal with. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban. This, being completely biased, as I've blocked some of the socks based on WP:DUCK, including TVCamera (talk · contribs), ReadBedHouse (talk · contribs) and ComputerBasketball (talk · contribs). Reasoning can be found here. — ξxplicit 04:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban. Creating socks specifically in order to vandalize the project while asking to return as an editor is disruptive enough IMO that a ban is appropriate. --NellieBly (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for what it is worth. There is no way in heck any admin would unblock this person, and such serial sockers are a "block all on sight" for admins with Duck-detecting skills and checkusers alike. Usually, there's no need to formally ban a user that stands no chance of being allowed back into the fold under their current behavior. Of course, if they actually obey the Standard offer, that may change, but given their behavior up till now, the ban already effectively exists. --Jayron32 05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban of TrEeMaNsHoE. Before the socking business started he showed that he was unwilling to follow consensus on disputed articles. See this version of his talk page for a glimpse of his previous editing style. This is not a formerly productive user who got carried away. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the ban, disagree with standard offer. It doesn't have community consensus and shouldn't be extended willy nilly.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The standard offer is intended to be standard. Unless there are serious reasons to take it off the table (serious offsite harassment et. al.), six months of non-socking is usually enough time to consider a return if the person promises to stop the problematic behavior. Community members are free to agree with the concept or not; it's a baseline for discussion. Durova371 05:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the community or an admin indef blocks or bans a user, they aren't doing so with the idea in mind that some editor is going to come along in 6 months and undo it when everyone has mostly forgotten about it. So until it gains consensus it shouldn't be offered to anyone or considered "standard".--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a misunderstanding then. SO doesn't presume that all bans expire at 6 months; it doesn't welcome any passing admin to unblock. It does provide a time frame for reopening a discussion (as long as socking doesn't appear to have occurred and the individual promises to stop the problem behavior). This offers people who are willing to reform a reasonable incentive to reform. Durova371 06:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • An idea to which the community hasn't agreed to. Currently they agree to ban a user because they've had enough of them. They didn't agree to ban them for 6 months and revisit the issue especially when most of the people involved in the discussion are unaware of this "offer" and aren't notified when its put back on the table.--Crossmr (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • (EC with above) What she said. The Standard Offer basically says "don't ask for another unblock for 6 months, because no-one is going to bother even considering it." Not "you will be unblocked in 6 months." That being said, every Standard Offer discussion I have ever started, where the blocked user in question actually abided by the Offer, ended up leading to an unblock, but there was an extensive community discussion before the unblock. It's a set of conditions that must be upheld, not a "get out of jail free" card. (after EC), except there is always a discussion, and the principles involved the first time are always notified. At least, every single time I have initiated such a discussion at ANI, I have always notified everyone involved the previous time. --Jayron32 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The principles aren't good enough. If the community has come together to ban a user, the community needs to be notified that there is an unban proposal. They weren't banned by the principals.--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wikipedia:Standard offer says very clearly that a discussion will take place at AN or ANI prior to action. Durova371 06:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What part of there is no consensus for that do you have trouble understanding? You don't have consensus for it, so what it says is pretty meaningless. If you're going to re-open a matter that the community came together to decide, you need to notify everyone who took part in that. Otherwise you're using an essay without consensus to do an end run around community consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So let me get this straight. Community consensus is enough to ban someone, but it cannot unban anyone? I don't get why the initial ban discussion, held at ANI, can be used to kick someone off of Wikipedia, but a second "unban" discussion, also held at ANI, cannot be used to return them to the fold? I just don't understand how the same standard of "community consensus" is being applied differently in each case? Are you seriously argueing that once someone is banned, they may never be unbanned, even by a discussion in the same venue that decided on the ban? I am thoroughly confused by your position. --Jayron32 07:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Because as I pointed out a couple months ago on the essay talk page, and which received no further reply, All of the editors who may have been interested in the discussion in the first place may not be aware that someone is going to bring it back up in 6 months. they expected the individual to be gone and no further mind paid to it. That is the point of a community ban. The individual has exhausted the communities patience. The initial ban discussion could attract several times the editors who might catch the unban discussion, because some people may not watch AN/I or participate it in it regular but have held an opinion on the the original discussion because of an interaction with the user. All of those people who gave their opinion before would be discounted as they are not "principles" and wouldn't be notified.--Crossmr (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay is fine - it just writes out a process that can happen anyway, with or without "consensus" that it's acceptable. The idea that there may be fewer participants in an unban discussion than a ban discussion is interesting, but unproven. The theory that the results might be different because of the supposed differing level of participation is also unproven. Unless you have data to support your belief that there is a fundamental difference in principle between a ban discussion and an unban discussion at the same forum that provides the former with legitimacy but not the latter, we should continue to regard them as equivalent. And by data, I mean scientific data of a statistically significant sample. Nathan T 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (outdent) What used to happen before SO was written was that banned editors would hang around and make political allies who would initiate unban discussions any ol' time they chose. As often as they thought they could get away with it. Putting a reasonable schedule onto it is a step forward. At any rate, editors in good standing are free to form opinions and express them. It would be nonsensical to suppress open discussion by telling a group of people who agree with an essay that they may not say so. Durova371 16:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nathan you can look at the betacommand unblock for evidence of that. There were many people who missed it, and in fact even after he was unblocked several people who had found out about it showed up to protest. A community ban often involves a lot of people for any remotely controversial editor. Waiting until everyone has basically forgotten about it and then bringing it up again when they don't expect it and aren't informed is an attempt to subvert a previous consensus as far as I'm concerned. Unless the community specifically agreed to wait 6 months and talk it out again. It could be tantamount to forum shopping. Simply waiting for everyone to forget and then picking a day when there seems to be a favorable crowd on the noticeboard. No drama would mean a very quick resolution and a short time for everyone to notice it. If editors were creating allies to continually initiate discussions and incite drama, then that can be dealt with with existing policies, like those against disruptive editing.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Since you bring it up, what is Betacommand doing now that he deserves to be reblocked? Yeah, people who wanted to see him never come back may be pissed, but it isn't anyones job to decide how those people are going to feel. If it upsets you, that is great. You get to have any emotional response that makes you happy, and if being pissed about Betacommand being back is what you want to do, that's fine. But have you found any fault with what he has done since being back? You will never count me as a "fan" or "ally" of Betacommand, but since his return has he done anything at all which would cause you to think he needs to go again? --Jayron32 19:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes actually I did. He was blocked for violating his edit throttle. The point was the consensus that had him banned was formed by a much larger one than that had him reinstated. And the consensus was for an infinite ban. That is what the community decided. They didn't decide to wait 6 months and then have someone sneak him back in when they all had their backs turned. Which is basically what this does. Its disrespectful to the community and their decisions.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One incident, particularly of a very high profile editor and former administrator, is not significant in terms of data. I'm just trying to adhere to your standards for interpreting events here. The idea that an unban discussion is invalid if it doesn't involve all of the same people as the ban discussion is novel, and has no consensus. In order for consensus to form, you'd need to present significant evidence that your approach is warranted. Nathan T 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A broader discussion of WP:OFFER may be in order at the village pump or something. I extended the offer in the hope that Treemanshoe might be able to exercise the necessary self control, but he returned to socking withn just a few days, so as far as I'm concerned the deal is off, hence the ban discussion. Some users have noted that a defacto ban is already in place, which is more or less accurate, but with a ban we don't have to waste our time dealing with further unblock requests from either the main account or the socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its quite relevant in this case because he was very high profile and yet there were still many people interested in the discussion who were never informed he was coming back.Imagine someone who has been banned who isn't as high profile, there would be even more people who would likely miss any reinstatement discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused: are you still talking about Betacommand? Either way it's not really relevant as to whether Treemanshoe should be banned or not, the offer is off the table. If you don't like the way bans are occasionally lifted as a result of someone following the terms of WP:OFFER followed by a discussion at ANI, start a new thread either here or at the Village Pump, that is not the purpose of this particular conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:English Bobby & Personal Attacks

    Not sure if this is the appropriate forum, WP:NPA was not much help. The language used on AN/I means it is blocked on my computer by the family filter. So apologies if I'm in the wrong place.

    There has been long term low level incivility against a number of editors on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, the editor seems to have a bit of an issue with the confusion between British and English. The personal attacks crossed a line today referring to another editor as senile [33]. I've already removed the attack once but the editor has reverted.

    Not sure what to do, its seems it will simply escalate if I take further action. Justin talk 16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling me a kid when i'm 24 is insulting so i think i'll take the time to complain about personal attacks while here. Also repeatedly poking at my spelling and calling me a troll are pretty uncivil. I would also like to point out justins bias when dealing with these issues, "failing" to notice any abuse against me whilst constantly harrassing me. As for the apparent insult, i said old people can go senile, i did not say gibnews was senile since i've no idea how old he is! Gibnews and Justin have being trying to gang up on me (and others) since i got here.--English Bobby (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pls do not change the heading again. Justin talk 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on, bobby. Word-lawyering is not going to get you out for this; you were just making a general comment about old people, were you? Editing on the disputed status of Gibraltar, a completely unrelated topic, and it what, slipped out? I call bullshit on that. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe he restarted that conversation not me, and also that you are ignoring their uncivil attitude! What relevence does my spelling have on a talk page hmm, not enough to constantly have it ridiculed.--English Bobby (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the assuming, i could say gibnew's comment about kids and spelling was probably not a woefull look at our countries education system but more an attack against me. Either way i'm in the wrong as much as he is.--English Bobby (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My only interaction with User:English Bobby has been to revert changes that remove cited material to replace with uncited material and to provide links to relevant policy such as WP:CITE, WP:NPA, WP:RS and WP:V. I presume the troll reference is related to these exchanges [34] & [35]. They refer to User:English Bobbys edit warring on 11-12 October 2009 diff [36] for which I issued a 3RR warning here [37], though I never followed through with a 3RR report as I generally don't like to do that with new users if I can avoid it. I did genuinely try to help a new user but when it simply resulted in personal attacks directed towards myself I concluded he was simply out for a wind up. I probably shouldn't have called him a troll but in my defence his behavious was trollish and on one occasion I explained policy to him no less than 4 times before I made the troll remark. This user does seem to have some serious problems with civility for example see [38],[39]. Justin talk 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The help i asked for was not that which you repeated 4 times as i pointed out. You wouldn't listen to what i was saying and continued to be aggressive. I don't know whether you were genuinely trying to help or not but i can assure you (from my side) it didn't work. Back to the whole issue that started this, the British/English thing, i reckon you know Britain didn't exist in 1704 and are only supporting Gibnews through comradeship.

    As for the issue i had with the Turkish Gent, firstly thats not really anything to do with you and secondly i didn't take kindly to being called a joker by him. (Don't believe i insulted him). Anyway i didn't come strait here to try and block him, because i didn't care.--English Bobby (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I did draw this editors attention to wp:npa after being called 'a unionist' which I am not, and his assertion that 'I am not English' because I disagree with his very narrow POV that there were no British people before the Act of Union, which is not what the references say. I think its desirable for anyone writing in the English wikipedia to have a decent grasp of the language, so that others do not have to rewrite their contributions and its courtesy to take the trouble to express oneself properly on talk pages and not to indulge in 'txt speak' and badly capitalised words. Particularly if one is on a crusade for England. --Gibnews (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When i make contributions i make sure i spell correctly. When i'm talking on the talk pages i'm not so fussed. Also whereas i said your not English (i thought your Gibraltarian) i never said your not British. I think this shows how you cannot tell British from English. And i'm not a "crusader for England" just because edit words or statements that are wrong. Unlike you i'm perfectly happy to work the other way (English to British where it should be).

    Finally, i'm getting tired of this little lynch mob your trying to muster against me. You won't work with me or anyone else since your both embroiled in an edit war with someone else so please leave me alone.--English Bobby (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no 'lynch mob' one editor has complained about your attitude and referred it here as an appropriate place for action. For the record, English describes an ethnic origin, British is a nationality, and Gibraltarian is a status - look them up here - so its quite easy to be all three. Its also immaterial to editing wikipedia, however, I most certainly know the difference. You suffer from an attitude. Wikipedia relies on references, not your opinion, and if reliable references say British - as they do - that is what stands. There may not have been a UK before the Act of Union but there were most certainly British people who did things and all the Act did was formalise the status quo. But I have already explained this. --Gibnews (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Try reading these. Act of Security 1704 passed by the SCOTTISH Government. Alien Act passed by the ENGLISH Government, (Which among other things declared Scots to be alien nationals in England). Hardly the actions of a status quo situation. The Alien Act by my country proves that there was no British nationality or communion of any sort before 1707. Then again user Pfainuk tried to explain this to you but because of your own narrow opions you didn't listen.--English Bobby (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's all take a step back here. Insinuating that another editor is "a kid", especially in a demeaning manner, is a personal attack. Insinuating that another editor is old and senile is also a personal attack. Speculating on other editors' motives or backgrounds is uncivil, as it is a discussion of the editor rather than the issue. I'd invite everyone here to take a step back, breathe a bit, and then: 1) Drop it. 2) Discuss the issue rather than one another, preferably utilizing reliable sources. 3) Seek dispute resolution rather than sniping if you can't come to an agreement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm willing to discuss the issue, though i'm not hopeful for a quick solution.--English Bobby (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see lots of biting the newcomer by Justin A Kuntz, in addition to blatant and repeated abuse of the rollback tool during a content dispute. 2 lines of K303 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I bite anyone? Come on, since when was trying to help a new user find policy biting? Check his talk page history as well. Justin talk 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned you about biting and you said you were not. Others seem to disagree.--English Bobby (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's another report above about another Gibralter article, this time in a dispute with the Spanish. That dispute clarifies this dispute I feel - Justin and Gibnews are determined to establish beyond all doubt that Gibralter is British - hence repelling the Spanishes. Because of this, they are reading English Bobby's perfectly correct pointing out that certain meanings of the term "Britain" and "British" are not applicable prior to certain constitutional events occurring in these islands (such as the Act of Union, as a threat to the status of Gibralter. It perhaps needs to be pointed out that Spain cannot take Gibralter back because of what it says in a Wikipedia article, and Gibnews's status as a Gibraltarian and a British citizen are not threatened by the article either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry but really, you're way out of line with that comment, for information I'm half Scottish and half Spanish. English Bobby did not "correctly" point anything he changed cited information for uncited information, with the comment he'd tell the author he was wrong. When someone tried to point him in the right direction he responded with hostility. Funnily enough the other dispute you're referring to started with a Spanish editor changing the date of the start of WW2. What the hell did that have to do with my ethnic origins?
    Now personally I find it hilarious that I'm being attacked as anti-Scottish and anti-Spanish being both but just because I have a sense of humour doesn't mean that it is acceptable to make snap judgements about people. Justin talk 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Point me in the right direction? Sorry justin thats not how you do things. More like start biting me after i made a minor comment. The way you've jumped to assume Elen was talking about your ethnic origins and lied about having a sense of humour! As for me telling the author he's wrong i actually learnt that from gibnews who said the comment about the sources i found. Your bias is unbelievable.--English Bobby (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Part of the problem with this dispute is that most of the reliable sources that have been brought up use "British" and "Britain". Presumably, the authors of such sources have either not considered that 1704 is before 1707 or have decided to simplify the issue. The only other wording I think I've seen is "Anglo-Dutch", which I don't consider definitive since the "Anglo-" prefix is frequently used for the UK. I don't think any of the sources we have say that it was an English (and Dutch) force, as English Bobby wants us to say, as opposed to a Scottish (and Dutch) force or a joint English-Scottish (and Dutch) force. We can make a strong argument that it probably was an English (and Dutch) force, but not without original synthesis.
    This discussion started due to an incident on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Ironically enough, that that article doesn't actually claim that Britain captured Gibraltar in 1704 and hasn't done since late August - the only wording it uses to describer the nationality of the captors is the aforementioned "Anglo-Dutch force". There are plenty of things wrong with that article, but this isn't one of them. Pfainuk talk 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The (modern) English have a habit of referring to themselves as British, even when referring to their ancestors at a time when there quite clearly was no Britain (eg referring to Queen Elizabeth I's British navy). The Scots don't do this - I'm not sure even now that many Scots think of themselves as British. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia policy is verifiability not truth, you're also incorrect as the use of British predates the formal act of union and was used to refer to people not a state. Furthermore, the outbreak of incivility followed some time long after I'd changed the text (diff) to avoid any contentious terms. So how you can accuse me of wanting everything to be British is beyond me. Justin talk 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But as you said yourself Pfainuk, if a source is clearly wrong then that should be taken in to account. Looking back i think the points you made were correct and still apply. As for what Elen of the Roads said, i think your completly right about gibnews and justins motives (and well put).--English Bobby (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But it's already taken into account on that article (Disputed status of Gibraltar) - as I say, the article doesn't use any of those sources, and does not claim that it was "Britain" or "British" forces that captured Gibraltar. Talk pages are intended to be used to discuss potential improvements to an article, and the discussion that prompted this ANI was not such a discussion. Rather, it focussed on the removal of a claim that had already been removed two weeks before the discussion began. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite a different matter to the eternal wrangling with the Spanish over Gibraltar. In 1713 it was ceded to the Crown of Great Britain under article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. I don't need to do anything apart from cite that to show that Gibraltar is British, Ellen. However, Wikipedia relies on sources and the sources generally say British forces occupied Gibraltar in 1704. Although this was prior to the Act of Union which created the UK, the Wikipedia article British People is clear in asserting that as such they existed BEFORE that date. The Official Royal Navy Website says British, and that is in common use on inscriptions on monuments All these have been dismissed by English Bobby because of his opinion. Now I have not complained, or solicited a complaint, but POV warriors who do not read references given and engage in abuse, are tedious.
    However, as noted the language was altered to overcome the uncertainty, which I approve of. --Gibnews (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The British People article doesn't actually say it was used much at all before the act of union and in fact that a feeling of Britishness only came around during the Napoleonic wars (allmost 100 years later). As you have aknowlaged that it was the Kingdom of England and not the uk at the time, i can only assume your prefered term is "the British from England" which is remarkably ignorant for an encyclopedia to use. As for your last remark i agree and your POV is getting tedious!--English Bobby (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    unindent

    Why are we discussing an edit that was altered to remove any contentious terms long ago? If the editor wants to change something thing, then constructive dialogue on the talk page is the way to go. The issue here is persistent incivility by English Bobby. Whilst I would normally simply ignore low level civility calling another edit senile is crossing a line. Justin talk 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well i was dicussing the gibraltar article and the military history of gibraltar article. As for your attempted to block me, i think its backfired. The admin above believe gibnews insulted me aswell (which you ignored, showing your motives for this) and since your clearly biased and equally uncivil this to me is starting to smack of harrassment.--English Bobby (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If I wanted you blocked I would have reported you at the 3RR noticeboard weeks ago for the blatant 3RR violation and you would have been blocked. If I wanted you blocked here I would have proposed it, notice I didn't. Low level incivility I just ignore, calling someone senile is crossing a line, its that simple. Justin talk 19:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet the admin above also said gibnews calling me a kid counted as an personal attack yet you ignored that. Just a simple mistake?, not really. Biased yes! Also if your not trying to get me blocked then what are you trying to do. I "insulted" Gibnews and he "insulted" me, other than that i ignore your incivility and that of your gibnews so there's nothing else to say here.--English Bobby (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry if you feel insulted by my criticism of your bad English usage, punctuation and capitalisation but its obviously not improving. Accusations of bias are unfounded, I'm not on a mission to 'exterminate the English' as I don't fancy seppuku, but find your attitude unproductive. --Gibnews (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And i find your attitude rather uncivil and smug.--English Bobby (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for oversight or revision hiding

    An editor has posted a statement indicating that they are 13 years old on this very message board yet no one removed it. This is the second such incident I am aware of involving this particular user (the other one was removed some time ago). It may be time to consider if this particular user is capable of contributing in a responsible manner, and to formulate a different approach toward protecting underage users of WP. User not notified, but feel free to address the issue with them (and good luck with that). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which Wikipedia policy has been broken? Aside from learning someone's age, what have they disclosed that's cause for concern? If you really wanted oversight you would have emailed oversight directly rather than attract attention to something that was likely missed over by 99% of editors by starting this thread. NJA (t/c) 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do really want oversight (or revision hiding, whichever is appropriate in this case) - I've found this method to be more expedient. I believe that there is general agreement that identifying information posted by minors, or information that identifies editors as minors, is unacceptable due to safety concerns. If you feel that the sad lack of policy on this means that it should not be done, please feel free to undo my deletion of that information and close this topic. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous 13-year-olds aren't a problem. We don't need to worry until they start posting personally identifiable information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However on second thought I suppose if you look at it in a paranoid type of way, this innocent disclosure could put the user on the radar of some creeper. I will do what should have been done initially by the person who created this thread and email oversight and they can decide what they want to do. NJA (t/c) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that oversight has been contacted. Revision hiding is impracticable on a page such as this with thousands of edits. Next time if you think something is truly sensitive, treat it as such. NJA (t/c) 18:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's wise to remove this type of information. I don't think there is any need to panic about it, especially when it was originally posted here anyway. Information that I feel is "truly sensitive" I deal with differently, but thanks for the advice. If you feel that no policy has been broken, and that there is no concern about a 13 year old publicly disclosing their age on WP, why haven't you restored their comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, maybe the second post where I stated why I too think it was unwise for the disclosure to be made was missed by you? However, I honestly don't get this whole thing, ie you removed it, meaning no one else was likely to see it unless they randomly read every single diff made to this page (which can be hundreds a day). But then you create this thread with this attention grabbing heading to bring direct attention to the very edit. How is that meant to protect them? It really has me confused, but I suppose you'll have to explain to others' as my weekend is about to begin. Cherrio, NJA (t/c) 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I saw that but it was phrased in such a way ("paranoid", "innocent disclosure", "creeper") as to make me wonder if you had reversed your earlier position or if you were simply willing to let the oversight folks decide if it was appropriate. I'm still not sure, since you seem to be more concerned about my actions here than about the issue of minors disclosing information that may put them at risk. One of my reasons for posting here is that, as you may note, I did not quote the policy that was broken here, because I am unaware of such a policy existing. I am aware of an RFA which came to some conclusions and outlined some steps to be taken, but that was 2006 and nothing much appears to have happened since then. There is a brief essay at WP:CHILD but it is neither policy nor guideline and says , more or less, handle each case as it comes up. I don't believe that is sufficient and attention is needed on this issue. Enjoy your weekend - perhaps we can continue the discussion on Monday! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as there is no other identifying information, I don't see any reason that a statement of age should be a bad thing, and certainly not deserving of oversight (especially since we have no way of telling if they are even honest about it). I can tell you that I am 68 years old, and that gives you almost zero information about me. Now, information such as province, school location, address, phone number, real name, or the like is a very different case, and if that is combined with age data would make for an immediate e-mail to an oversighter. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An "immediate email to an oversighter" based on which policy or guideline? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly off of point #3 under Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, which does mention that it is used for excessive revelation of information, combined with the information further down the page on how to request oversight. Email and IRC are mentioned, but I don't do IRC that much. I mistyped to number, corrected from the original #2.Sodam Yat (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) "Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses." --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Requests for oversight is neither a guideline nor a policy. WP:Oversight is a procedural policy. Neither specifically deals with the issue of underage editors. The application of oversight or revision hiding to this type of information (ie disclosure of information by minors) is done (fairly routinely). Why don't we have a policy in place to inform minors of the community's expectation of their conduct on this site and to follow in these cases, rather than have discussions like this one each time something like this comes up? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was working on an understanding that the Requests page was spun out of policy, since it is fully protected and stable, and is an extension of a procedural policy. If this is not the case, then I am mistaken. As for your question, it will have to be addressed by users more familiar with it than I. Sodam Yat (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of "To request permanent deletion of dangerous personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone" is unclear? If there were any problem with the edit in question, you just increased the number of eyeballs pointing to it by a factor of ten. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not agreeing that something is "dangerous" is not synonymous with not understanding. See earlier discussion about removing the info of minors, above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note that the user in question is changing his account name to his real name at WP:CHU, so he's no longer an anonymous 13 year old. (No direct link, as that would defeat the purpose of the oversight if it happens; however, I couldn't really rationalize not telling the user that this is happening, so I posted on his talkpage.) -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean this in the nicest possible way, but in the majority of cases, it's pretty obvious when an editor (at least a prolific one) is 13 years old or younger because of they way they talk and the kinds of edits they make. I don't really think that theres much anyone can do to hide that. However I think that it is worth a second thought before approving any name change requests for someone that young to their real name. Also, I just noticed that his real name is in his talk page's edit notice too. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 05:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was hoping someone would have pointed out by now: Children over the age of 13 can give out personal information without parental consent (see, for example Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). So for a 13 year old (or older), there is no need for oversight or removing the information (unless of course the user were to request it). Prodego talk 05:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that Wikipedia conforms to that law? Or are you suggesting that the law eliminates the need to have a policy on the use of WP accounts by minors? I am not a lawyer, but don't most websites have their own codes of conduct and other rules by which users are expected to comport themselves or face expulsion? If WP decided that users 15 and below could not reveal personal information, wouldn't that supercede the COPPA law? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As the others were over 13 year olds, I think the user you are directing to is me. Since the article clearly states "Children under 13 are legally allowed to give personal info on parent's permission", I do not think that this actually complies with those exactly 13 year old. I see that on the top of the ANI page, we have the RFCU/User conduct list. I have a feeling that someone is going to add me into that list for the conduct stated on the top of the thread.Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 07:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    7107, can I remind you that making assumptions about what someone might or might not do like you did there goes against the guidelines of WP:AGF. Stephen! Coming... 08:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my questions were for Prodego, to better understand their answer. Of course, anyone who can accurately answer the questions about COPPA and site policies is welcome to reply. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do wish to point out again, as did Protonk, that this thread and the way it was handled was poor, in that it took a revision no one was likely to see and brought it front and centre. An acknowledgement that it was handled poorly by the thread starter would have been nice to see. Anyhow this thread is going nowhere and people are simply bickering at this point, thus closing unless someone has something of true substance to add. NJA (t/c) 08:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've boldly unarchived it. I'm not sure where you find "bickering" in this thread, but there are unanswered questions here and I wouldn't wish to discourage responses. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD for the 2009 White House gatecrash incident

    The epic deletion battle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 White House gatecrash incident has been "withdrawn" by the nominator. I'm not sure if that is appropriate, since there were some pro-deletion arguments aside from the nominator. I also don't think the closing itself was done properly, as the formatting on the AFD is all weird and the AFD tags are stil on the article. Someone more knowledgeable about this than me should take a look at it. --Blargh29 (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reopened it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I saw that if the nominator withdraws the AFD, the AFD ends. From a practical standpoint, reopening seems ok because someone would probably resubmit the AFD if it is closed with no decision because of withdrawal. (If the nominator withdraws the AFD then it's suppose to close and another user can re-submit the AFD again.) Can anyone cite the exact rule? I suggested having all the rules in one place before but an administrator told me to fuck off. Later, I found that a Wikipedia trustee has exactly the same idea of creating a one stop rule book place. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If a nomination is withdrawn, it is closed iff nobody else has commented in favor of deletion. If someone had called for deletion and their reasoning does not heavily hinge on the nominator's statement, then it remains open. I don't recall where this is documented or even if it is, but that's standard practice. Many of Wikipedia's procedures are simply undocumented precedent. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be looking for WP:SK. Tim Song (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in this particular case it was not appropriate to close--the nominator said he was basically testing notability and was unsure he himself wanted it deleted & was withdrawing because he had been told he shouldn't have nominated in that circumstance. First, I think he was well within policy to have nominated--I;ve done some myself where it seemed clear to me a community opinion was needed--refusing to hear such cases is relying on technicalities and against NOT BUREAUCRACY. Second, others had given relevant arguments for deletion & felt strongly enough that they would simply have renominated. Sarek did right to reopen it. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jimmy Slade

    Jimmy Slade has been adding {{NYC-transport-stub}} tags to all NYC Transportation related articles (see his contributions page and is not willing to stop, or even acknowledge or respond to comments. A few of many examples:

    This even prompted a discussion on the Talk:South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway) page, in which the user demonstrated his confusion over what a WP:STUB is. We don't know if he ever read the explanations in that discussion, although he obviously did not heed them.

    Several messages were left on his User talk:Jimmy Slade page by myself and User:Acps110 trying to explain stubs, and asking him to stop adding the tags, and requesting edit summaries, although the user has a tendency to remove the comment or blank [47] [48] the page without a response, and continues the activity.

    He's been involved in a number of other controversies, such as marking user subpages as AFD (see his contribs from Dec 2-3) and this [49] talk page comment, since blanked. There are other controversies, namely reverts to edits on NYC Transit related pages, without explanations or edit summaries. The animation of the Wikipedia globe on his user page might also violate WP:USERPAGE, I'm not really sure.

    (A bit of disclosure -- you may see user Sme3 on some talk pages. That was me, before a recent user name change).

    I don't know what the appropriate action is. A temporary block? A topic-ban? A simple opportunity to explain himself? Could this rapid activity be the work of a bot? I'll leave it up to the experts/admins to decide. Me Three (talk to me) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified Jimmy Slade and Acps110 of this thread. Mr. Slade has already removed the notification from his talk page. Me Three (talk to me) 18:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Me Three [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimmy_Slade&action=historysubmit&diff=329712734&oldid=329679439 notified] the editor in question. Just confirming this as the editor in question blanked their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    My guess is that the user is working off a bad understanding of English. The discussion on that talk page is almost incomprehensible, and I fear that he may be interpreting a stub as 'a smaller article of a whole' rather than 'a short article that needs expanding'. Probably an indef block until he acknowledges the problem would be appropriate, as he seems determined to ignore it otherwise. Sodam Yat (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As linked to above, he blanks a user subpage of mine and sends it to AFD [50] (should go to MFD, and certainly shouldn't have been blanked), I sent him a simple query on his talk page asking him what's up [51] and no reply (but he does blank it.. seems to love blanking). --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef block until he starts talking, and the reversion of his edits as vandalism where they are deemed inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, user indef blocked. Someone more familiar with the situation than I am (other than a cursory examination of his/her inability to communicate) might want to explain on their user talk page what any circumstances of unblocking are. Tan | 39 19:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just want to say that I didn't intend for this to turn into an indef block for him; I'm a bit torn on what should be done. I've been reading the conversation since this block on his talk page. He has had his share of valid edits (mostly minor cleanup on articles) -- he just needs to state, in his own words, that if he doesn't understand a template or policy clearly, such as WP:STUB or WP:AFD, he won't touch them. I really don't think the guy has any malicious intent. Me Three (talk to me) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree and we should probably discuss with him whether or not he is willing to change. Unfortunately, we might have already scared him off, unless he opened a new account already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, there is a serious competence issue here - namely, one of language. As it turns out, editing an English-language encyclopedia takes a certain level of fluency in the English language; this editor almost certainly falls far short of this level. Tan | 39 02:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He should also be warned about sockpuppetry. (If he begins to use sock puppets or anonoymous IPs with the same edit patterns, my opinion of him will change negatively.) I'm fine with the indef block but I think a topic ban is sufficient in my opinion. But he seriously needs to improve his fluency and understanding of the English language as well as learn WP:Wikiquette before he attempts to return here. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the indef block as well. He was out of control. There were other issues in addition to the current stub tagging too. I begged, pleaded, etc. with him many times on his talk page. He continually blanked his talk page instead of discussing. Additional diff evidence here in my user space. Acps110 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have become very uncomfortable with this user. Although I also don't believe he intends any harm, reaching a consensus with him is so difficult because of language and etiquette differences.

    • He blanks his talk page messages without comment (as stated above) and rarely with [satisfying] responses, leaving me to wonder if he agrees with myself or if he is dismissing my communication in a harsh, uncollaborative, unfriendly way.
    • He also routinely does not provide edit summaries, which is very disappointing for the WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. He made many edits to New York City Subway-related articles without edit summaries, including stations and lines/services. (sample: [52]) There are 423 New York City Subway stations, so any en masse changes to those articles raise eyebrows. In addition, many of those changes are aesthetically-driven as opposed to content-driven. [53] [54] That's almost as annoying to me as vandalism because he spends his time filling in spaces, adding/subtracting newlines, capitalizing where it doesn't matter (i.e. template links)—in other words, his edits are largely unnecessary as I see them.
    • Also in the same WikiProject, we agreed to apply the style guidelines regarding WP:ENDASH in articles and page titles. [55] (More accurately, I raised the issue and there was no reply, so I assume it was safe to do so.) Based on this, I took it upon myself to also apply WP:SLASH, an essentially similar guideline. But Jimmy Slade disagreed and reverted my moves. [56] [57] [58] I asked him why and his response: [59] [60] I asked for confirmation of my page moves on the WikiProject and asked Jimmy Slade for his opinion there. [61] [62] He declined. I didn't attempt to apply WP:SLASH since then because I felt there was a high probability that he will revert again.

    I hate lack of constructive dialogue, non-transparency and edit wars such as this. Maybe it's my fault I have a higher level of English than himself, but I don't like to talk to him like a child because that's insulting to his intelligence and not in good faith. I stopped editing Wikipedia until I saw that something was done about this user. I had a similar situation years ago with other users that made my blood boil and I vowed never to go down that route again. Now that this user has been reprimanded, I feel better and will return to WP, but sorry that it had to come down to this. So I hope my concerns and others' can be addressed and resolved. Tinlinkin (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not so much that they've been reprimanded, as they've been shown the door - rather permanently, as it seems at the moment. Tan | 39 04:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought indef blocks can be overturned or demoted. I guess that's not going to happen easily and for some time, then. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I knocking on the right door?

    Resolved
     – users blocked

    I don't know if I am or not, but one of you will know more than I do: check out this diff; I've seen a half a dozen or more of these weird "welcomes" (from different IPs) go by. I'm going through manually replacing them with a 'real' welcome, but what is going on? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you could pull up more diffs it might be p[ossible to find an older, wiser admin than myself to do a rangeblock. I'll try leaving a note for the one ip identified so far. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to have stopped; I don't see them go by on Recent Changes. Diffs: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. Oops, sorry--those are my diffs for the corrections, but I hope it's good enough. (I'd redo it but I gotta powder my nose RIGHT NOW.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the anontalk spammer on open proxies, FYI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I doubt that. Firstly, most open proxies are quickly blocked by WP. Second, the good mr. Alm always includes links to anontalk in his spam. Third, he uses a botnet, not proxies. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. Firstly, I block most of the open proxies. Second he has tried all sorts of vandalbot edits without his links. Third, he has no botnet - he uses publicly open proxies. I have little doubt this is him. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That they are now blocked seems the most important point. Thanks to zzuzz for tracking this down and making the blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor, new category, weird membership

    I left a note at User talk:Zerschmettert die Schändliche for this new editor who has just created Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship, and seems to be including every politician they can find into it. Is this pure vandalism? Is this something real? If it is, wouldn't it require a reference per WP:BLP? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a serious BLP problem. The Family is a standard whipping post for conspiracy theorists to "prove" that the U.S. is being secretly controlled by a group of power mad christian fundementalists. He needs to be told to stop ASAP, and if he does not, he should be blocked post-haste. --Jayron32 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up a bunch, but you swept faster than I did. User:GB fan took care of a few of them also. "He needs to be told...": hey, you're the admin here! ;) Drmies (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin, I have access to some special tools. However, I believe that a keyboard is availible for use even by non-admins. I seem to remember having access to a keyboard even before I was an admin. As such, even you could tell this user to stop (it looks like you have) and even you can notify them that you started this ANI discussion, which as the thread starter, you are required to do (but have not yet). I have also started a CFD discussion, found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 4 for anyone that wishes to comment on the issue. --Jayron32 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right; I have notified the editor. Sorry--I should have done that right away. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way "Zerschmettert die Schändliche" is German and means "crush the infamy" - Voltaire's call to fight the catholic church and the nobility, so this user is probably on a personal crusade. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 20:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have this sneaking suspicion that he might not even speak much English at all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The concerns expressed here are frankly nonsense. All my edits clearly satisfy WP:CITE. Sources:

    • Terry Gross (November 24, 2009). "The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family'". Fresh Air from WHYY. The legislator that introduced the bill [imposing the death penalty on Ugandan homosexuals], a guy named David Bahati, is a member of the Family, appears to be a core member of the Family, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfasts, and oversees an African student leadership program.
    • Ruth Gledhill (November 29, 2009). "Archbishop of Canterbury in 'intensive' efforts to combat Ugandan anti-gay death law". The Times. David Bahati, the Ugandan MP who introduced the legislation, is reported to be a member of The Family, The Children of God, The Family International, The Fellowship.
    • Mooney, Alexander (July 17, 2009). "A third 'C Street' Republican embroiled in sex scandal". CNN. Retrieved July 20, 2009.
    • Belz, Emily (August 29, 2009). "All in the Family". World Magazine. Retrieved August 14, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    • Google news search for david bahati family jeff sharlet reveals dozens of articles

    Therefore, According to the standards of WP:CITE, David Bahiti can be said to be a member of the Family. I will post these citations on the various discussions arising from Wikipedia edits about David Bahati and other Family members. The membership of the politicians included in the Category as been widely reported in the media -- see the citations provided in The Fellowship (Christian organization)#List of prominent Family members. Several of these politicians have resided at the Family's C Street residence for years, so denying their membership in this organization is absurd. For the record, here is the list of prominent members of the Family listed in WP:CITE sources:

    The claim leveled above that I've included "every politician they can find into it" is lazy nonsense, as can be shown by three seconds of Googling. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Surely you can do better, esp. in the case of living persons, than to suggest that other readers and editors do three seconds of Googling. The onus is on you, the contributor. Drmies (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, here are the reliable sources, more available at The Fellowship (Christian organization)#List of prominent Family members:
    I can understand an objection that these sources were not included on the actual page, but I'm honestly not sure how to do that with a category marker. Some help improving the article, rather than the unfair mischaracterizations and easily-avoided snap judgments, above would be more helpful. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I guess we have an answer to the question regarding your language skills. Anyways... what "article" are you talking about? The fellowship-stuff or the category? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both, as well as the pages of individuals that belong to this organization. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are serious undue weight problems to say the least in chucking allegations of membership of this thing in the lead of various articles, eg, to folks who were the heads of the army/air force especially when many of hte articles are short, and an allegation of something not so notable is given such prominence compared to war decisions and strategic policy. Same for the politicians frankly. The agenda is very obvious YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 12:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I placed a single, referenced sentence in the best place I could -- only in a few instances was this the lead. You're free to change the order of these facts if you believe that there's a better one. And any agenda that I have or do not have has no bearing on the inclusion of highly relevant and widely reported factual associations are mentioned in biographies. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not regard all of the above sources usable alone for the purpose of BLP, especially BLP of this nature--only CNN and the NYT. Even then, I think the wording in the article can be no more than "reported to be associated with" or the equivalent. Or a statement of living in the C Street house with a link, for those where there are BLP quality sources. I agree with YM that it should never be in the lede. It's equivalent to putting "said to be a Nazi/Communist/..." in the lede if any one source ever called him such. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New block evasion by User:InkHeart

    192.197.54.136, a previously confirmed sockpuppet of indef blocked user InkHeart, has resumed editing on a number of articles favoured by this user in the past. Only a handfull of new edits, but these include the removal of some valid templates at Lee Dong-wook [70], and the restoration of prior contributions at Park Si-yeon to reintroduce some nonsensical material to the lead and other unconstructive changes [71]. Clear block evasion, and not the first I've reported for this user recently. PC78 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP claims to be used by the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, but I've softblocked it for while. Hope this helps; if the disruption keeps up, maybe we ought to think about article semiprotection instead (I was involved with them in their Colleen16 incarnation and seem to recall it's only a small set of articles). EyeSerenetalk 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. This is starting to get a little tiresome, but we'll see how it goes. PC78 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Three new reverts by 24.114.255.83 suggest they're at it again. This one hasn't previously been confirmed as a sock, but a quick look through the contributions of this IP shows edits to Lee Jun Ki, Nam Sang Mi, and a few other favourite articles of InkHeart. I'll be happy to file an SPI for this one if it's required, but the IP already has a colourful block log. PC78 (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked; Yoon So Yi, Lee Dong-wook and Park Si-yeon semiprotected for 1 month. EyeSerenetalk 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Editor XXV

    Resolved
     – Ban is enacted, for whatever that's worth. Tan | 39 20:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of you may already be aware of User:Editor XXV. Originally, he was just another vandal who was blocked within hours. Since then, he has used sockpuppets and anonymous IPs to evade his block and continue vandalizing Wikipedia.

    It is obvious that this user has no intention of stopping. He has at least two dozen sockpuppets and could be creating more as we speak. (write? type?) I doubt that any administrator will unblock this user.

    This user is obviously no longer welcome here, but I don't think he gets it.

    So, in accordance with WP:BAN, I am starting a discussion here. Should we consider this user effectively banned?

    --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I would beware or doing that as we could have another general tojo on your hands. Perhaps we can just WP:RBI?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He wants to be up there with Grawp, Willy on Wheels and Bambifan101. RBI is something we should apply while dealing with him. What we need is something that will tell him "go away, we don't want you here". A ban is just that. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A "we don't want you here" is usually what the problematic sockpuppeteers want. WP:RBI would be the best option in my opinion so that you can WP:DENY.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been three threads on User talk:Spongefrog about him (now solely in page history). Add his various talk pages and WP:DR has failed. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And with a sleeper sock getting blocked a few minutes ago, I repeat my appeal to the community for an indefinite ban of this user. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 13:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Approve ban for reasons noted. It will help us deal with him easier. And in addition, a link to him from wp:banned users would be helpful. --Rockstonetalk to me! 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I've been involved with this user since near the beginning. The problem is that he has a dynamic IP, so normal blocks only stop him for a short time. I'm not too sure how a community ban will kick him out for good, but RBI and DENY don't seem to work so the least we can do is try in my opinion. I've tried to keep him contained but the last three times he's appeared recently (I seem to be a rapid target for some reason) I've been away from the computer and unable to help out. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a more or less a neutral !vote. I'm sort of torn between the benefits of a ban, and the potential escalation it could cause. To be perfectly honest, I don't see much benefit in banning this guy. Some, but not much. He seems to get a high from defying authority. Banning may only make him want to vandalise more. On the other hand, it would be helpful to have his name on WP:banned users (but it may have the opposite effect), and the banning notice may give him some idea of how serious the thing is. Right now, he thinks he's just annoying a few random editors, but if he realises the whole community wants him out, he may be a bit intimidated and leave. Or not. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. - He has a goal to get 100 socks. Maybe he'll stop if he reaches that number? Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kicking back and letting vandals vandalize is the worst solution in the book. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 17:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he really should be banned before he creates 100 more socks. December21st2012Freak (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. We need to be firm when dealing with annoying, useless, users --Rockstonetalk to me! 23:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seriously suggesting we let him do that, I'm just telling you one of his motivations. :) Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Readded - to my knowledge, nothing actually happened here... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I missed that. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is going to happen if a "ban" is enacted here? This is silly. RBI as best we can, until they grow up. Tan | 39 04:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Banning them isn't going to cause them to stop dead in their tracks. It's just a formality, and a silly one. I've always thought bans on vandals were silly, as it's like a trophy to them. Reverting them, blocking them, and ignoring them without giving them attention here at ANI, or anywhere else, means they won't get that attention that they desire so greatly. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak approval of community ban. Although I do agree that this ban will prevent him from further sockpuppeteering, I sincerely doubt that this will last long enough to ensure his long-running sock puppetry "career" will end. What I would suggest is to detect IPs he uses while using his account, and then block the account. - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 10:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I-I-I mean, the IPS. - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 10:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We already know the range he uses, but it's huge, so it can only be blocked for short intervals. We blocked it once, but it shut down a lot of people (including me). --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 12:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Scratch that. But still, the only way to stop him is an indef. range-block, and that would come at a lot of collateral damage. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 12:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, out of curiosity - how is this community ban going to prevent that? Are we going to range-block his state? He's probably enjoying this conversation immensely. Bans work against established editors who have an explicit agenda, not sockers like this. Or, an even better idea: The community ban against XXV is hereby enacted.. There. I'm closing this thread now; please take whatever steps you think will work to prevent future socking now that a ban is in place. Tan | 39 20:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding by User:Yzak Jule

    Yzak Jule (talk · contribs) was earlier advice to completely disengage from Tryptofish (talk · contribs) and stop following Tryptofish around Wikipedia.[72] However, Yzak Jule has continued to harrass Tryptofish including restoring two personal attacks made toward Tryptofish that were removed by another editor[73] and then telling Tryptofish to "grow up" here on ANI.[74] Now after I issued an warning for the continued personal attacks, Yzak Jule has turned to hounding me as well.[75] This particular comment[76] is troubling as it shows that Yzak Jule has no interest in leaving Tryptofish alone. —Farix (t | c) 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think constituting attempting to talk to someone on their talk page as hounding requires a particularly loose interpretation of the hounding policy, personally. Yzak Jule (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I told you before, "advice" is the noun. The word you want is "advise".Yzak Jule (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yzak Jule should be blocked, they revert legit warnings from their talkpage and call them "vandalism" and inserted the name of this Tryptofish person they're stalking into a template on their talk page. They are being disruptive. Fixieboy (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given them a final warning. If I see any more incivility, I will block them. Fences&Windows 03:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything particuarly "harassing" about User:Yzak Jule's recent edits, and I think it's regrettable that both of these users are trying to drag AN/I into what is essentially a content dispute. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Lankiveil, I've tried to put myself in your shoes, and I do realize that it can look like that, given how difficult it can be to follow the thread of this controversy, and given that there is, indeed, a real content dispute going on at the same time. But you are factually incorrect about "drag"ing into ANI. Without belaboring points already archived in the last two ANI archives, let me suggest that you look at the edit history for my user page and my talk page over the last several days, and then note that I, in turn, have done nothing even remotely comparable at Yzak's talk or anyone else's. The issues here are authentically user conduct, not page content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for baselessly accusing me of being all of those anonymous editors, I really appreciate it. The only thing I've done to your talk page is add back a couple of comments I felt you need to address, which I now realize isn't how things work here.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    About baseless accusations, you are putting words in my mouth. About my talk page, I think I'm entitled to read insults and then delete them; nothing entitles you to edit war (and not with me!) over restoring them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, please. The intent in the way you wrote that is clear. And I already said that about your talk page. Additionally, one revert is not an edit war.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yzak Jule has a userbox on his user page in which he claims to have founded Wikipedia. Is this a policy violation, or just something to scratch our heads over? --NellieBly (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a policy violation, claiming the user him/herself as a founder of Wikipedia, is what we call A FRAUD. As for the case stated above, I can assure you that this is another case of WP:STALK. - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 10:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's obvious to anyone that I'm not the founder and the box is there as a joke, but if you're going to get so worked up over it I'll take it out. And please point me to the section of WP:Stalk that covers replying to someone's comments on your talk page on their talk page, please.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thank Farix and the other editors who have stepped up here, thank you very much. Let me point out one thing more: Yzak Jule also moved a template from Talk:Crucifixion to the top of his own talk page, implying that he thinks that warnings against hate-speech are a joke. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a specific warning about disparaging Aspergers and anime is ridiculous and only putting fuel on the fire, yes.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that you may feel similarly about specific warnings about hounding. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I've done nothing that violates the hounding policy, and I think that's apparent by everyone I've asked to explain exactly how I'm violating it never answering.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edman1959

    Resolved
     – User blocked.

    Edman1959 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a vandalism-only account. —SlamDiego←T 02:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong forum. You want WP:AIV. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 02:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I thought that, for it to go to WP:AIV, the vandalism had to be “now”, but a double-check indicates that this is only in the case of unregistered users. —SlamDiego←T 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A8UDI

    Resolved
     – User has no idea about WP:V, has "retired" in a huff, nothing to see here. Tan | 39 04:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user A8UDI keeps giving me bogus warnings on my talk page for things that aren't vandalism. I went through this with him or her yesterday and they apologized and removed the warning. I made a perfectly normal edit to the wild turkey article and was reverted and accused again of making "nonconstructive edits". When I went to his talk page to tell him he was wrong, the talk page is protected so I can't edit it. Please tell this person to stop accusing me of things and stop reverting legitimate edits, it's getting pretty annoying. Fixieboy (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    They are currently experimenting with igloo and having some teething troubles with it. I don't think this is in bad faith at all. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what "igloo" is. Why are perfectly good edits being reverted as "non constructive"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixieboy (talk • contribs) 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You inserted Original Research. I already spoke to you on your talk page about this. A8UDI 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could your lack of edit summaries have anything to do with this? Eeekster (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's a program like WP:Huggle, used to revert vandalism. igloo is still in testing, I believe, and so there are problems by the users and by the program itself. If used to revert something, it also automatically places a warning on the user's talk page. Therefore, A8UDI has warned themselves with it by mistake. As I said, I'm going to assume good faith. --ThejadefalconSing your song

    The bird's seeds 03:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Are my edits valdalism or not?? I inserted normal factual language into an article about turkeys! If you think my edits are original research then the whole of the first two sentences of that article are as well. Why dont you delete those too? Fixieboy (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not vandalism. I use a program and by default it uses the vandalism template. Sorry for any confusion. The first 2 sentences are not, because they have their own cited articles. A8UDI 03:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But I see you left anyways, sorry to see you go over this. A8UDI 03:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument.Yzak Jule (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...wow, from a discussion here to scrambled password in 20 minutes? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    big shrug.... ..... A8UDI 04:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That's... kind of pathetic really. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This may be marked "resolved," but I have something else to say (EC). This was not an isolated incident. Please stop issuing vandalism warnings for edits that aren't vandalism, A8UDI. If the program you use to issue warnings (apparently you are using Igloo, which is still in alpha testing according to its information page) is automatically using the vandalism template for all warnings and does not let you override the defaults, then stop using that program. (Most automated-warning programs around here allow the user to override defaults.) I checked into this ANI because your name had popped up on my watchlist a couple of hours ago, and I was perplexed to see that you had issued a vandalism warning (diff) to a newbie for an edit that was a clear case of good-faith original research. Issuance of incorrect warnings like that way is not a responsible or effective way to communicate with newbies. To make matters worse, when that newbie came back and repeated the inappropriate edit, the editor who reverted it (also using an automated program) assumed that your warning was valid and simply increased the level of the vandalism warning. Those were bad edits, but they weren't vandalism, and the editor surely had no idea why s/he got that misguided warning. Can you see how using an automated tool in this manner can be harmful (and possibly even cause more damage than they correct)? --Orlady (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll second that. Using an automatic script is not a get out of WP:BITE-free card. Please stop using this tool until it works right. Furthermore, take care when using ANY automated editing tool; they make doing things faster, which basically means they can make mistakes happen faster. --Jayron32 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't bite newcomers.. at all. I've replied to this on my talk page. Thank you A8UDI 04:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Au contraire. You bit at least two newcomers within the last ~24 hours. --Orlady (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Orlady, while I agree with you, let's tone down the rhetoric. He has not "bit" anyone, even as far as WP:BITE is concerned. In fact, per that guideline, "Standard welcome/warning messages are both cordial and correcting." Let's also not forget that this editor was violating the policy WP:OR. A8UDI should consider using a new program to revert these edits, and everyone should go on about their business. Tan | 39 06:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue (with Imrelatedtosamhoustonway, not Fixieboy) wasn't WP:BITE so much as it was a problem of counterproductive communication. Having worked (earlier in the day) on cleaning up a mess created by that newbie (whose first contribution was best described as a personal essay), I was fully expecting him/her to return and make additional problematic edits, requiring additional cleanup and warnings. The problem is that after a series of warnings that are so off-target that they only leave the recipient asking "WTF?", there is a significantly reduced likelihood of ever getting the right message across to that person. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll use Igloo only for blatant vandalism.. even if an edit is wrong then. Or use 2 windows o.O I must be a robot. O.o A8UDI 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Nicebumtities

    ...any thoughts on this username? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's speeld rong. Crafty (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I never noticed :P... but alright, no-one seems to see any problems apart from the spelling. Fine. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no doubt someone will have a problem with the name. En-wiki is notoriously hostile to titties. Nice bums are different matter. Crafty (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case why was it requested that I remove this image? --William S. Saturn

    (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it's the wrong sorta bum. Crafty (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks alright to me. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong noticeboard. You want WP:UAA. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. TNXMan 15:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jack Merridew is back to his disruptive/annoying signature

    Resolved
     – User is free to paste silly boxes around his name on his own talk page to his heart's content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This post marks the evidence of this ANI post. Although I did told him about this right before the disruptive post, he uses the disruptive signature once again. This time, he reverted my signature! - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 08:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's his talk page. If you don't like him using his funny sig anywhere, consider not reading HIS TALK PAGE. Hipocrite (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it's an eyesore, but if he wants to use it on his own user talk page, is it really a big problem? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    (ec) Knock it off. He used his mock signature once, on his own talk page, evidently simply in order to make the point that he can. And he is right about that. He is also entitled, just to drive home the point, to refactor yours (which is only slightly less annoying than his mock signature). Please don't waste our time with frivolous complaints here. Leave the guy alone. I can't see your presence on his user talk page as having had any constructive purpose in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like a lot of people are using this signature thing as a tool to pick at people they don't like for one reason or another. It's trivial and constantly complaining about it probably only makes them that much more determined to not change. I couldn't care less about Jack Merridew's or anyone else's signature being over a certain number of bytes or whatever. It's his own talk page, just let him be. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not 'his' talk page to act like a dick on either. People using sigs to be dicks by complaining about others at ANI, and people using ridiculous sigs to make stupid points on talk pages, are both examples of people being massive dicks. MickMacNee (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, people are sometimes given latitude on "their" pages, but they are not in fact "their" pages. They do not own them. People being disruptive have had their talk pages locked. There is plenty of precedent to support that you can't be a dick on your own talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disruptive" is one thing, "annoying" is another. We have a lot of annoying editors (probably including me), but they are not all disruptive. Having recently been brought to ANI regarding his signature, he's making a WP:POINT on his talkpage. When a user is temporarily blocked, we allow them to vent on their talkpage - to a degree. As such, there's also precedent to support him making his annoying point for a short period, as long as it does not become disruptive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not allow venting at all. It is sometimes overlooked, but it is absolutely not allowed by any policy. Venting is an understandable human failing, intentionally acting like a dick is a different matter entirely. Being annoying to make a point = disruption tbh, and has also per precedent led to all sorts of people being blocked. MickMacNee (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, except that's not what was going on here. Venting IS defacto allowed. But there wasn't any actual disruption here, at least not such that a reasonable person would see it. I think you should let let sleeping dogs lie instead of getting so self righteous about it. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the resolved tag as I don't see that the issue is resolved.
    The way I see it is this - either the signature complies with {{WP:SIG]], in which case no administrative action is required, or the signature fails to comply with WP:SIG, in which case administrative action is required, especially if the user has already been informed that his signature does not comply with the guideline. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Failing to comply with a guideline on your own talk page does not require administrative action, especially his signature. Let it be huge, who cares. Have some common sense. Tan | 39 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He uses his "annoying" signature on his talk page to make a point. If you think that is silly attention-seeking, ignore it unless you want to give him what he wants. If you think it is disrupting the encyclopedia, your definition of encyclopedia is different from mine. — Kusma talk 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue with another editor was addressed here at ANI just last month, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#sig the editor wrote: "On my talk page, someone told me to shorten my signature. Why is it necessary?" Section closed because "Signature shortened per WP:SIG."
    Jack Merridew's same long signature discussed here is also found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew one_year_unban_review/mentors page#Jack_Merridew.27s_summary_of previous year and on User_talk:Zsero [77] Earlier pages beyond Jack Merridew's talk page also have this signature.
    Chaser reverted Jack Merridew's signature on Jack Merridew's talk page: [78] and
    Jack Merridew reverted Chaser, "My talk page; my sig-rulz." 02:26, 5 December 2009.[79]
    See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Jack_Merridew.27s_disruptive_signature Ikip (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ikip, you forgot to add the part about where Chaser and Jack had a sit down and a nice cup of tea... there's no actual issue there any more. Of course, that interferes with your narrative, doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put, Lar: User_talk:Chaser#Tea.--Chaser (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ikip, enough. You've been told by others your fixation on getting Jack Merridew sanctioned is unhealthy. I will now state this as an official administrative warning: Lay off J.M., or you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK can we close this? I've noodled about what to do... Let's give Jack 40 lashes with a wet stalk and move on. You first, Ikip. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SmackBot changing referencing style, again

    As I have pointed out a couple of weeks ago, some users have been using bots and scripts to impose their own preferred style of referencing, the "named" references, on articles previously not using it.

    This system (the same footnote re-used again and again) is common in some fields and used by many science journals. It is, however, absolutely non-standard in the humanities. Many contributors, not just me, do not like it and do not want to have this system imposed on all articles.

    See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Replacing duplicate footnotes with named footnotes. User:Postdlf makes a good job there of summarizing the reasons against this style in three points. A fourth point is that of usability. Named refs makes references dependent on each other, which makes it more cumbersome to edit them, for instance to correct a page or page range, to add an additional source with a contrasting view, or to clarify how a reference supports the claim made. This point was touched on by me, earlier in that discussion, and expressed very clearly by User:Golbez in a previous (now archived) discussion (from July 2009).

    The article Charles Boit, which I used as an example, had at that point been hit three times by this:

    I reverted this every time.

    • It has now been hit again, a fourth time, again by SmackBot.

    SmackBot, or rather its keeper, User:Rich Farmbrough, has previously been warned by the administrator User:CBM for this behaviour. CBM blocked SmackBot, then unblocked it on the condition that the feature was disabled. Rich Farmbrough agreed to this. (See edit link earlier in paragraph, it's all there.)

    Thanks for your attention. --Hegvald (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked temporarily again, and will unblock again once this is fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering SmackBot/RF has already been warned about this and that these edits were never appropriate to begin with (as there is no general agreement that named refs are better), it would only be appropriate for SmackBot to be given the task of reverting its own previous edits. Who else is going to do this? --Hegvald (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't suppose User:SmackBot/References Log Log of ref runs would be of any assist as evidence?
    When I've been hit by this it's made me assume I'd been a lazy/awful/terrible editor for non memorizing every last work of article guidelines. If I think that way, who knows how many others have been discouraged? This has covered an insane number of articles and as far as we know it could have started edit wars from article creators... especially since the edit summaries given have nothing to do with what was changed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Political agenda

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

    New user removing instances of ({{lang-es|Guerra de las Malvinas}}), this contradicts consensus established here.

    These edits have been reverted by multiple different users. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would second Ryan's request for admin action, there is an agreement between British and Argentine editors to respect both names here and on es.wikipedia. It avoids a lot of vandalis edits. 13:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Small disclaimer: Despite this comment, I have never replaced other names with "Malvinas", nor delete them to keep it as the single name, or anything like that. My linked user page does not even have a single mention to the islands, only that I'm Argentine, and proud to be so. But even so, I know how to keep my opinions and points of view in check, and don't let them pass into the articles. MBelgrano (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unresponsive editor returns as sock

    This is an update on this discussion about [89] where Yongle the Great (talk · contribs) was indef blocked. He's returned several times, most recently (a few minutes ago) as Perpetual Happiness (talk · contribs) but also as 123.23.253.192 (talk · contribs), 123.23.251.85 (talk · contribs) and 123.23.254.31 (talk · contribs). He may also be Kungkang (talk · contribs) the creator of the article Zhu Benli, Prince of Han where he keeps removing the AfD tag. My continued efforts to get Kungkang to respond about copyvio and other problems have also been met with silence. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, there's only one way to handle a contributor who doesn't respond about copyvios and keeps creating them. You gave him a notice on 11 November, which included a block warning. On 2 December, he blatantly violated copyright again. I would start with a temporary block (I've got a notice template I use at User:Moonriddengirl/cblock) and escalate to indef if it persists. This is an issue, obviously, that we have to be adamant about. Of course, if he's a sock of Yongle the Great (talk · contribs), that's a whole different kettle of fish. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hipocrite and personal attacks

    Resolved
     – No admin action required. Tan | 39 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User reported: User:Hipocrite [90] [91]

    It is one thing that the user has proven unable to rationally prove his claim, although even an administrator has explained to him the same as I have, that a person can not be defamed by their very own words [92], but to continously insist on baseless claims such as this leaving little doubt as to who he is referring to, is just ridiculous. The rest of his claim makes equally little sense. This is personal attacks and harrassment. This is unacceptable. His incivilty i.e. [93], [94], [95] [96] is just getting tiring and I would think that wikipedia rules apply to all editors. His behaviour is not exactly beneficial for the editing process or communication. Fragma08 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs don't seem to show any incivility apart perhaps from one edit summary ("GTFO"). If he wants you to stop posting at his talk page, he is perfectly in his rights to ask you to stop doing so. Not respecting those requests can sometimes be interpreted as hounding or harrassment. Posting here when you had previously started an AN3 thread [97] today is forum shopping and unhelpful. You also did not inform User:Hipocrite about your posting here. The history of Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks as if you yourself have been edit warring on this BLP. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not inform and I was not informed when Hipocrite reported me. I learned from an experienced user and feel you should convey that to him also. For future reference. If he is in his right to refuse discussion on an article which he is edit warring on then, then it would make more sense for him to not be involved in that article. Afterall, if you are not willing to discuss, then the rest falls on that. Refusal to discuss but edit war can also be seen as hounding and lack of adherence to wikipedia guidelines on editing. There is definete breach of incivility whether it is referring people gentalia or just asking them to GTFO. It is also strange you ask me to inform him, when you also ask me to respect his refusal to not talk to him. Both are not possible and I have respected his refusal to talk but in terms of edit warring and editing on wikipedia, this constitutes a clear problem. I am not forum shopping but asking to have these issues dealt with which are two separate things (edit war and incivility and personal attacks) albeit interlinked. I suggest you read the first two edit which confirm the person attack as he is referring to his fabricated claim of defamation which he claimed earlier towards me. Both are listed. Fragma08 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You conveniently left out that Hipocrite was editwarring too. A war consists of at least two parties. Not one. That issue is separate and has already been addressed on the appropriate board. Also note that my part in the edit war was dealt with. So I fail to see your mentioning it here. Perhaps an attempt to sidetrack the issue? That is also very unhelpful as you should know that this noticeboard is not reserved for edit wars and nothing justified personal attacks or even incivility. Fragma08 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The tone in which you write is quite inappropriate. You have been reverted by mutiple editors on the article above and have not yet explained your forum shopping or your failure to inform Hipocrite of your two reports. Mathsci (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My tone is not inappropriate and I have addressed your concerns above. As stated, I was not informed by Hipocrite. But yet that is OK with you. You also asked me to respect his wish to to write on his talkpage, which I am and have been since being told so. I repeat, I am not forum shopping, but in fact alerting of two seperate issues. Incivility and edit warring. As for the other editors edits, I have fully explained my reversions and you are continously sidetracking this issue. Fragma08 (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You were discourteous in failing to inform User:Hipocrite of the report here and on WP:AN3 and claiming it was my responsibility. I've put a message about you on Hipocrite's talk page. Now let's leave it up to other users to decide whether or not you have been disruptive. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been discourteous, but followed what I have seen from Hipocrite. This is my first report, so I was in good faith. You contradict yourself by insisting that I should write to him on his talkpage (against his wish) while also respecting his wish for me not to write to him, which you said was hounding. Which is it, as that makes no sense. For whatever reason, you have been sidetracking the issue (i.e. by deliberately mixing up two different problems on this board) and this appears a bit biased. Leaving it to the other members is fine by me. Fragma08 (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "He was mean to me first" is not an acceptable excuse for failure to follow the established procedures. Also, I second Mathsci's opinion that your tone here is needlessly hostile and confrontational. When you come to a group of people asking for assistance, it behooves you to be as polite as possible, lest your own impolite behavior becomes the focus of conversation instead. GJC 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not behoove you to adopting an accussatory tone with me, when I never said he was mean to me first. I said I followed ANI to the best of what I knew and followed his way. I find your tone equally confrontational, needlessly hostile, and strongly biased, considering the kind of behaviour you are trying to justify or excuse. Nothing justifies addressing people like that and I have answered in a clear, calm manner as I always do. I find that easier. Try it. My tone is as it is, and you are welcome to not talk to me. At least I don't go asking people to get the fuck out nor reject discussions. And all of this was very irrelevant to the thread and the purpose of it. Fragma08 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Hipocrite did warn Fragma08 when he reported him to AN3 [98]. I've declilned Fragma08's AN3 complaint which is stale (over a week old), so a block would be pointless. By the way, these warnings are obligatory, even if an editor has asked you not to write on their talk page you must notify them of such complaints. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a warning of the ANI dispute he started against me, so you are not correct. That was a general warning of edit warning. As I understand now, he should have informed me that he initiated ANI against me. He did not. Also it does not matter if this is a week old, as he was clearly in violation of the civility policy along with 3RRR. First I am told I would be hounding if not respecting a no edit to somebodys talkpage, and now I am ask to go against that. It does not sound like people are able to make up their minds. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The fact that his incivility has been ongoing deserves some sort of action. I will not write to any user when being asked to GTFO and this being condoned in the absence of any action. I will gladly inform other users as I now know, though. Fragma08 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately you're fighting a losing battle here, Fragma. The diffs you quoted, with accusations of you being a stalker and telling you to 'get the fuck out', show clear violation of WP:CIVIL, viz: "editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." However, under the RPG rules of Wikpedia, Hipocrite has a higher level than you, and therefore is free to call people a dick without fear of sanction. The diversionary tactics above are typical of the WP:CABAL closing ranks and refusing to address legitimate criticism, with fellow "max-level wikipedians" supporting their levelled-up clan members. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia which anyone can edit, although some editors are less equal than others. Don't take it personally, it's just a game. Best not to get too involved :) Little Professor (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I regret to say, you could be right. There appears to be biased and certain editors have rights to evade rules and policies without anybody calling them out but the the same right is fiercely not extended to other. I think you are right. Clearly the policies and block procedures are biased. No ifs or buts around that. I had sadly expected rules to apply to all irrespective of rank or time spent on wikipedia. Thanks for your kind post. Fragma08 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A refusal to speak to someone via their user talk page is not necessarily a refusal to talk about an article. If Hipocrite doesn't want you on his talk page that is his choice, but if you need to nevertheless discuss an article, use the article's talk page (which he can't remove comments from). As for informing him of this report, you're obligated to leave the message, even if you know they'll likely remove it; just something to keep in mind for next time. I'm not sure if this is forum shopping per se, since it's not like you received an unfavorable response in one place and then tried another. Still though, you're only supposed to report an incident in one place, so keep that in mind for next time. Equazcion (talk) 16:46, 5 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    Kindly note, this is a contradictory statement if you refer to his entire history as directly or indirectly addressing me. I was told " do not edit my talkpage" and words like "you are not welcome", "unwelcome", "Get the Fuck out" appear to be common practice for him. Strangely enough I do not wish to talk to such a person now. On his talkpage I had asked him to kindly explain his baseless reverts. That was all. And I did talk on the talkpage of the article, where he did not discuss, but merely inserted his standard claim, which has been proven baseless. So no discussion is wanted on his part which is fine, but then in all fairness, he should not engage in such articles, but leave to those who can actually argue their case. Honestly, speaking this has been very unpleasent and I am still learning and do not know but being given contradictory and biased information as you can see above, which is of little help. Although I appreciate your balanced post. Fragma08 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced by the evidence you've cited, Fragma08. Please read WP:BATTLE and make sure you don't slip into a mode of using Wikipedia as a battleground for personal disputes with other editors. Whatever the case may be with Hipocrite's behavior and observation or non-observation of policy, you have full control over yourself. Your first priority should be to make sure that your behavior is proper before you go complaining about others. Jehochman Talk 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am not convinced by your advice on behaviour to me, seeing as I am not the one asking people to "get the fuck out", asking them not to edit my talkpage, when they seek an explantion to reverts, nor do I act hostile and generally offputting trying to push my own opinions through. So I am quite comfortable with my behaviour and the report on Hipocrite is fully valid. I attempted discussion and I spoke normally. That is about all I can do. its regretable that you think otherwise, but that is not in my control. Hipocrite has been receiving notices and warnings on his behaviour but has continued steadily. Fragma08 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If X posts rudely to you, I recommend you say something such as "Wow, X, that's a very rude remark. Would you please improve it?". Then sit back and wait for somebody else to take notice. A calm response that specifically calls out the offense is the best you can do. Jehochman Talk 17:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although not a case of "IF", but when. I can't say that as I am not welcome on his talkpage and so I have not written there since. However, yet I am being indirectly addressed as somebody who defames people now, which I would not dream of. Hence I brought it up here. My first ANI ever. This thread proves, although I appreciate what you said in your second post, that certain editors can freely evade rules and WP. Anyways not much to do there although I will keep your it mind. I have not had the need so far, mind you. Fragma08 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On Talk:Mufti Ebrahim Desai I see the issue has been discussed. Hipocrite himself hasn't participated there much, but multiple other editors have weighed in and seem to disagree with you, and many of them have been reverting you. There's no reason to try to force discussion from Hipcrite specifically. I'm not quite sure what the shoutout diff is about; if he were indeed posting a list of people, that would be against the rules, but I don't think this itself constitutes a personal attack. Equazcion (talk) 17:00, 5 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    I am happy to take this discussion on the relevant page as it serves little purpose here. However the other editors, one being a possible adherent of that cleric, the other reverting the page back to the first of the former editor, which was in violation with Wikipedia guidelines, the third claimning that all articles are like this when in fact it is doubtful he even has examined majority of the articles don't carry much weight especially when majority of the article would be invalid according to their objection. Yet this is happily accepted whereas one specific parts is rejected. As for Hipocrite, he insists on addressing me as somebody who defames living people, when he has been explained (dee original post above with references) that a person living, can not be defamed by their own words or statements. But this is irrelevant in this particular thread.Fragma08 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Being "a possible adherent of that cleric" is irrelevant. "reverting the page back to the first of the former editor" -- meaning that someone else reverted to another editor's version? That's not against any policy. The bottom line here is that the issue has been discussed and everyone else seems to disagree with you. On Wikipedia that pretty much means you're out of luck. Just because one of the editors who disagrees with you hasn't spoken about it much, that doesn't really change anything. The issue has been discussed nonetheless. Equazcion (talk) 17:31, 5 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    Actually it is not irrelevant, as the article was loaded with subjective wording and information unsourced as well as links which were inapplicable as referencing. When people fail to be neutral either because they are that person who the articles is about, or affiliated in other way, then it is a cause for concern with regards to neutrality. Breach of WP. The issues has not been discussed as the holes in their argumentation remain unaddressed. That suggests bias. Breach of WP. Discussion implies that you argue your case/claim, rather than just say "that is how it will be EOD". Clearly or anybody could just gather enough people to side with them and have an article their way. This case is special due to its nature. But I really don't care to discuss it here. And I don't have to discuss with all editors, but this editors claims was completely outlandish and baseless which is why I can not even consider that. And claiming other srae defaming, which is an outright lie, can not be taken seriously but is disturbing as it appears to be the "argumentation" against knowing better. If you are interested it can happen there although I have pretty much explained my objections thoroghly. I think this topic is pretty much done here.Fragma08 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Within the last hour or so, I noticed that several articles I watch have had external links to jewsforjudaism.org and outreachjudaism.org deleted all by the same editor, JonHarder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curiously, on one of the articles, Messianic Judaism, he left an edit summary claiming that he was "promoting" the links to "See also" items Jews for Judaism and Outreach Judaism. Since both those links were already in the text of the article, having them linked in the "See also" section as well violates the MOS. Therefore, I deleted the "See also" listings and restored the links. Checking Mr Harder's contributions showed me that he seems to have been systematically eliminating links to these two websites. I reverted all such deletions I could find. One particularly dishonest one is this where the editor claims that he is "Remov[ing] ref that does not provide supporting evidence for statement." Here is the sentence in the article:

    One outreach effort in 1996 at Texas A&M resulted in accusations of anti-semitism, stemming from a report in The Texas A&M Battalion that Short had told Jewish students that "Hitler didn't go far enough".

    And here is a quotation from the cited webpage.

    Tom Short, an itinerant evangelist brought to campus by the A&M Christian Fellowship, told one student that, because she is Jewish, she is going "to burn in Hell." He told another Jewish student that "Hitler did not go far enough."</blockquote.>

    So how exactly does that "not provide supporting evidence for the statement"?

    Ok, so clearly something fishy is going on. Then I found this: User:JonHarder/todo

    I don't know any other way to put it except that this looks like some kind of a hit list. Just look at it, it's a list of websites that apparently Mr. Harder would rather Wikipedia not link to and Wikipedia articles he'd like to substitute for the links. And what websites are on the list?

    jewsforjudaism.org can be replaced with Jews for Judaism

    www.uua.org may be replaced with Unitarian Universalist Association or Unitarian Universalism

    pantheism.net can be replaced with World Pantheist Movement

    naturalism.org can be replaced with Naturalism (philosophy)

    yu.edu can be replaced with Yeshiva University

    jtsa.edu can be replaced with Jewish Theological Seminary of America

    rrc.edu can be replaced with Reconstructionist Rabbinical College

    huc.edu can be replaced with Hebrew Union College

    infidels.org can be replaced with Internet Infidels

    atheists.org can be replaced with American Atheists

    worldconvention.org can be replaced with World Convention of Churches of Christ

    umc.org can be replaced with United Methodist Church

    Some of dordt.edu can be replaced with Dordt College

    Some of calvin.edu can be replaced with Calvin College

    And in a less religious vein:

    warplane.com can be replaced with Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum

    arboretum.org can be replaced with Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden

    ojjdp.ncjrs.org can be replaced with Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

    equalityhumanrights.com can be replaced with Equality and Human Rights Commission

    family.org can be replaced with Focus on the Family

    heritage.org can be replaced with The Heritage Foundation

    www.nationalreview.com can be replaced with National Review

    www.townhall.com can be replaced with Townhall.com

    www.chroniclesmagazine.org can be replaced with Chronicles (magazine)

    So what's this all about? How exactly does it improve an article to delete a perfectly good external link and replace it with a "See also" wikilink? And where did Mr. Harder get the idea that this is some kind of "promotion"?

    Incidentally, Mr. Harder has no problem adding links to gameo.org (the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online).

    None of this looks right. I think Mr. Harder should explain himself here and I think the admins should consider deleting his "to do" page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    I think it would have been a good idea to talk to him first. Perhaps it is his opinion that placement in a "See also" section is more prominent than appearance in the list of ELs, and hence replacing an EL with a "See also" is a "Promotion". We don't know until he explains. Whether he has good reasons or not, this doesn't need admin intervention if he's willing to talk about it--and either persuade you that he's right or be persuaded by you that he isn't--and follow consensus once it has been reached. (With respect to the removal of the reference, that is perplexing. Perhaps he followed the second link to the website and missed that the title was also a link. Or perhaps he is concerned about the source as reliable for a WP:BLP? This also we can't know without hearing from him.) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires that we "try...to explain and resolve the problem and not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same." The "to do" page doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria of WP:CSD. Even if you convince him that the things he is intended "to do" are not a good idea, the page itself is innocuous, and he's been using it for a long time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Done with judgment, I'm not sure this is not a good idea. If an organization is linked to its Wikipedia article within an article, we do not usually need an external link for its website as well--unless of course the article is about the organization or the site, or one of its branches or affiliates or otherwise particularly useful. However, putting them in see alsos is also generally discouraged if there is already an inline link. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    The editor repeatedly reverts to previous versions, re-adding text that has been removed for copyright violations, and ignores my requests not to re-add the same material without addressing the problem.
    For a list of associated IP addresses see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 4 sections "History of rail transport in Turkey", and "Turkish State Railways" - They have already readded text to History of rail transport in Turkey that was removed after being posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 21
    This has been going on for a week - I'm fed up of having my contributions described as "elementary school level sentences" whilst the same editor constantly reposts material that violates copyright.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    I would recommend that you don't engage. The goal here is to prevent the disruption, which has currently been accomplished through semi-protection. The IP will have to log in to edit. Registered accounts can be blocked, and if other issues develop additional steps can be taken: full protection; range blocks. The needling is standard. Remain businesslike, remove blatant personal attacks (or ask somebody else to remove them for you, if you fear being misinterpreted), and the fire will die for lack of fuel. (See also this essay on meta and especially Dealing with pestering and misplaced criticism.) (If there are particularly virulent flare-ups, brief blocks may be sufficient to address them as part of WP:RBI. I've been there.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    The 151.57.* IP is Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs), a longterm sockpuppeter. He's banned, but his dynamic IP socks are so persistent and the ranges so variable it's been hardly possible to keep him out in the long run. We usually let him edit as long as he behaves, and just do semiprotection whenever he starts warring again (which unfortunately happens at regular intervals). Sorry I can't be of more help. Please let me know if you experience any more problems with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks very much, that makes sense - I've been having the same problems with them as 'everyone' else it seems.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    I'm bringing this here because I think it is a bit more complex than could be dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but certainly there is ongoing vandalism that could be reported: this edit, past a final warning for the same thing, to a page which was recently at AfD and the outcome was redirect.

    This is an enthusiastic editor, whose enthusiasm is unfortunately misplaced. I am not sure how best to encourage them to contribute positively, because they possibly could be an asset. However, they have already been offered a lifeline, which was abused. Until recently the user also edited using the fixed IP 82.36.17.10 but was discovered using this address to !vote in an AfD they had raised, and furthermore attempting to disguise this by passing themselves off as an administrator. The user was given a chance and offered the opportunity to voluntarily stop editing as the IP - which they failed to do, so the IP was blocked - see User_talk:82.36.17.10#Disruption_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FLloyd_Daniels_.28singer.29

    The ongoing problem is the user's abuse of policy in articles relating to talent show contestants. There exists group biography articles (such as List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6)) for the contestants because they are not generally independently notable, with redirects for the individuals to the group page. This user, however, is determined to create separate articles for each, edit warring with other editors who revert to redirects, and either demanding the issue be resolved at AfD or taking the articles to AfD themselves in an attempt to obtain a "keep" result - despite AfD being an inappropriate venue for this. When the AfDs close as "redirect" they ignore the outcome anyway such as at Joe McElderry and 2 Grand. The user refuses to discuss on the talk pages. Experienced admins are beginning to tire of this and are calling for a block.

    There are further problematic edits such as this.

    I42 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    The IP has been blocked since 23 November, so the use of two accounts is not a current issue. The recent attempt to restore that article that was deleted in AfD is egregious, and EdJohnston has issued a strong warning on that. (The Susan Boyle edit also should be considered vandalism.) If any of these kinds of behavior continue, the account should be indefinitely blocked, as EdJohnston has warned. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Page move help please

    Hi, Leo Ford (pornographic actor) doesn't seem to be needing disambiguation as I only see one article with that name. There was already a redirect there so the system wouldn't allow me to move. Could someone help with that? -- Banjeboi 14:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Moved to Leo Ford. I suppressed the redirect, as it seemed unnecessary. TNXMan 15:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Good call, thank you! -- Banjeboi 15:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    It has now been prod'ed as an unsourced BLP which has been tagged as such for over two years. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Role account used for COI editing

    Resolved
     – Concerns addressed, user unblocked, autoblock cleared. Jehochman Talk

    Kils (talk · contribs) was reported to me as a role account by User:OhNoitsJamie. See this and this as evidence. Policy is no sharing. Therefore I blocked the account and ask the user to confirm that they would stop sharing the account and change their password. In the unblock requests the user's secretary insists that she must be allowed to continue sharing the account with him. [101][102]

    Anetode (talk · contribs) proceeded to unblock the user without any discussion or understanding that the user would begin to follow policy. Could we please reblock and keep this account blocked until such time as the user stops sharing it. The user should also confirm that they review and observe our COI guideline. The account has been used extensively for editing articles about the account owner [103], his projects[104], and related deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uhse_elite_university.[105]more. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Jehochman Talk 15:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    I agree that the account should be reblocked indef. This is a violation of site policy. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    If what the account says is true, that's not a "role account". Is there any evidence that more than one person is controlling the contents of what is edited? If I ever break my hands and dictate my edits to somebody else, would you block me for "sharing"? This is ridiculous as a block reason. — Kusma talk 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    This goes directly against Wikipedia:Username policy. From the policy: Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked. Cirt (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, more than one person is in control. The secretary is controlling the contents of the edits. She typing that she's the secretary and he's away. If you hired a typist while your hands were broken, the typist would take your dictation verbatim and not insert their own POV. The WP:COI issue is an aggravating factor. The situation appears to be that the account is used for promotion, and it is important to always have the account manned so that they can "defend" their use of Wikipedia as an advertising and promotion vehicle. The secretary can create her own account and disclose that she's posting on behalf of another user. So long as the other user does not join the same conversation, and she is being open about it, that would seem to be a much more straightforward arrangement. Jehochman Talk 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    It is still a silly legalistic pretext. If you want the account banned, block it for self-promotion, not for violating the letter of our rules. — Kusma talk 15:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Moot. The user promised to stop sharing, and I left them advice in the unblock message. I also cleared their autoblock, which Anetode seems to have missed, as did the administrators who reviewed the user's two prior unblock requests. All in all, a lot more grief for the user than if people had told them firmly that they needed to follow policy, and then fully unblocked them when they agreed to do so. Jehochman Talk 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    Letter vandalism

    I've just blocked three accounts, Ofcoresethorse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), BadBadBadSanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and User:Stepscurse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as vandalism accounts because they used innocuous edits to the articles for letters of the alphabet such as E for inflammatory phrases that can be seen (only) in their respective contribution histories. Which I would like to avoid, but I don't see the revision delete tabs mentioned in Wikipedia:Revision deletion. I'm reluctant to do the poor mans version as there are more than a dozen pages involved. Can someone help? Or would you disagree with removal of what imo can only be abused as a link? Moreover, did we have that before? --Tikiwont (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    I've also sent an e-mail to oversight. Would it be worth to have a filter for this?--Tikiwont (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    This is just very, very light vandalism (if you can even call it that; I'm still not sure what the problem is), and is in no way a candidate for being oversighted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    EVula, when somebody posts "DEATH TO J***" and "KILL N******" (bowdlerized by me, the user spelled them out) using multiple sock puppet accounts, what makes it "light vandalism"? Did you see that? I've emailed en-functionaries with a list of countermeasures I'd like them to employ. Jehochman Talk 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, the editor was targeting ethnicity and religion in the crudest terms. We take that seriously even when they're oblique about it. Durova371 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Wow, yeah, I totally missed that (and you're correct, Jehochman, ethnic slurs are not light vandalism). Fantastic eye you've got. That said, however, I still don't see any need for suppression; its visibility is incredibly low, and I'm not sure we need a knee-jerk reaction to this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Wow indeed! I missed the message too, and just assumed that it had already been oversighted.
    Half serious suggestion: any admin can delete one-two of the users' edits and spoil the nefarious scheme. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Admins can't delete edits - thus the oversight idea. However, like people say below, it's probably not that visible to the world at large. Tan | 39 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Technically we can, by deleting the page, and then restoring it minus the specific edits, but its very messy and not the best thing to do--Jac16888Talk 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Woah, how on earth did you spot that? Oh, tag for new user making numerous small edits in a short amount of time filter. Still, damned impressive. I think it was proper to report to oversight and they can look it over, not sure if that all would be so great for archival purposes. That looks like the sort of thing that'd be extremely hard to make a filter for, and even with one, theoretically at least, certain normal contributions might accidentally trigger it and cause thousands of alarms to go off. Not saying it's a bad idea, though. Is there any precedent for vandalism quite like that?
    CU the users I'd assume, since it'd take at least a somewhat experienced Wikipedia user to craft that together one would have to think, and might get lucky on it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps a filter to spot new users making numerous edits to members of Category:Latin letters? or I suppose Category:Letters by alphabet if you wanted to be really careful--Jac16888Talk 18:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Actually make that just Category:Phonetic transcription symbols and Category:Latin letters--Jac16888Talk 18:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    This is not an effective way to transmit ethnic slurs, as the vandalism is only visible when you click on the users' Contributions link. Our readers would have to click a page's history tab and check user contributions in order to see it. So I'd say no special measures are necessary, at most one or two people who watch the letters of the alphabet via their ordinary watchlists. — Kusma talk 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Well if I had not thought it to be rather visible, I'd been more explicit. While not many inside Wikipedia are likely to stumble upon it if not reading this thread or seeing my reverts on the letters, my concern is simply that they can be linked to effectively from outside Wikipedia via web link and which case they would stand out rather more than the same phrases inside an edit summary. Not intended as knee jerk reaction, noting that I don't have much experience with oversight trigger levels as this was actually my first such request. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    In that sense this discussion might help to understand how to gauge this revision deletion feature, assuming that i understand the state of its implementation in the first place.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=329929003"