Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Unblocking editor Wiki Greek Basketball

Resolved

 – Consensus seems clear: closing promptly to avoid pileon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Please can he be allowed back in from the cold? He apologises for the past disruption and hopes that as its been a month since he was blocked, he can be allowed back in line with some of the more lenient suggestions at the previous discussion. He is very keen to go back to writing articles. Except for that he didn't want to wait a further 2 months as I advised, he has volunteered for harsher restrictions than was suggested. WGB says if he is allowed back:

• He will consider himself perma banned from RfA , not only from applying to be an admin but even from voting.
• He is happy for you to ban him from ANI if you wish.
• He is happy to be mentored if felt appropriate.

Hopefully you guys will have clemency here. If things go well we get back a good mainspace contributor, if not there is little downside risk as it seems unlikely many will speak up for him and he can be re-blocked at the first offence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Resounding oppose—he needs to come back after a significant period of time, per Wikipedia:Standard offer. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - he was to be given the standard offer, and chose to create a sockpuppet instead (or is it his cousin?). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: they're still bombarding random admins with email pleas to be unblocked. They would appear to have been doing so constantly since they were blocked. Doesn't suggest to me that they've learned what the problem was in the first place. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hell no, and reset the clock on the standard offer. Tan | 39 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This isnt a vote gentlemen. Per WP:No consensus it only requires one fair and independently minded admin to unblock WGB and then we gain a constructive editor and send a positive signal about our considerate treatment of volunteers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. If any admin unblocks in the face of this much opposition, it's clearly very inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, you asked. We replied. Tan | 39 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, admins don't act by fiat. If there is consensus against an unblock then that admin should not go against that consensus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes at this point there does seem to be a concensus, so WP:No_consensus no longer applies. I guess you could resolve the request. No point fighting the great beast of consensus! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—there was a clear consensus last time (before he created a sock) that he should be given the standard offer. If we're going to have this whole palaver once a fortnight until six months away, it's counterproductive. Let's completely ignore any of his constant appeals until a significant piece of time has elapsed. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose:Just because he has whined and whined like a five year old, doesn't mean that we have to act like his mum. Also, he's managed to get himself blocked in three other places since we blocked him. Do we want him back? I think not.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• His email access was blocked, and yet he has still been emailing admins (presumably from previous correspondence or finding their emails on their userpages) asking for an unblock. So it doesn't appear that he is respecting the terms of his block, even as recent as today. –xeno^talk 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose To soon, and not really showing any sign of "getting it". Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. WGB has caused problems and hasn't shown any sign that the lesson has yet been learned. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• opposse anyone who causes that much drama gets my standard response of the door, and as always I don't remotely support standard offer.--Crossmr (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is the kind of eDrama we didn't need then, and don't need to see a return of now. And the news that he has been given the boot at three other wiki-projects during his block here kinda seals the deal, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per all of the above. Willking1979 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per everyone above me. No need to keep rehashing this one. Clearly isn't even respecting the terms of his block as we speak. --Smashville^talk 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Despite being one of the random admins to have received his latest email plea, Wiki Greek Basketball needs to follow the standard process. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Does anyone want to handle the latest adminhelp request from his obvious sock (you may need to remove talkpage access to prevent additional misuse)? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Why we're even entertaining unblock ideas is beyond me. Tan | 39 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Socking to evade a block? Not only should this request be denied, I agree with Tan that the clock on the standard offer should be reset. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even when blocked, he's too much of a drain on our resources. Who'd want to deal with incessant whining and suicide threats again? I'm pretty sure it'll take a good deal more time before he's grown up.--Atlan (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose If he takes some time off and stops the drama, i'm fine with him coming back. No appearance of that happening currently though. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Time to formally ban User:Wiki Greek Basketball

See users talk page and User talk:Abecedare#Wiki Greek Basketball. User refuses to accept their block here, has apparently engaged in socking, and is emailing users outside of the WP email system who were unfortunate enough to have emailed him the past, allowing him to see their addresses. Has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and was warned on his talk page the last time he sent out his emails begging to be unblocked that keeping it up would lead to a ban. After being blocked here, he went on to get himself blocked from Simple, Italian Wikipedia, and Commons. This user has had good faith extended to them time and again, only to have him spit in our faces each time. A formal siteban seems an appropriate action, this one is a lost cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He's already de facto banned - indef blocked and just had a (I think?) unanimous rejection of the proposal to unblock him. –xeno^talk 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just the guy who started the thread - although he kind of backed off during the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, he's the proposer, so it's somewhat implied he supported it. The proposal itself still stands unanimously rejected. –xeno^talk 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) the guy is clearly de-facto banned anyway - I certainly never plan to unblock him, and I'd be surprised if there were any admins around with enough over-optimistic good faith to do so. He's had more than enough chances, and will need a lengthy absence before he can have another one. I don't think we need a great deal of extra discussion here. ~ mazca ^talk 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no way he will be let back in less than six months, if ever. I say leave it be as is unless more socking and email nettling crops up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But it did just crop up, after he was warned to cut it out. While he is defacto banned, an actual siteban makes the process of dealing with the inevitable sock accounts simpler, that is essentially the only reason for this request for a formal ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually hadn't realized till just now that he'd duped someone into requesting his unblock here just yesterday, I missed that but if anything it strengthens the case for banning. He was blocked from the WP email system, but continues to evade that as well and emails users with his begging and pleading to be unblocked despite having the issues explained to him about a thousand times already and being told he needs to sit tight for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How does a formal site ban make it easier to deal with socks? Block evasion is block evasion whether it's evading a de facto or formal ban. –xeno^talk 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he's lied without end. I've tagged his userpage with the banned template. If this doesn't have consensus, any admin can take it down or ask me to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As one of the admins he's been in touch with (albeit without knowing that I was recently made an admin), I agree with everyone above. I have reached the limit with WGB. I can see no evidence from the communications that I've had with him that he is sorry for the disruption he has caused (here, on Commons, on SE Wikipedia and on the Italian Wikipedia) - all he does is blame everyone else. I have now set up an auto reply which just lets him know that I am ignoring his email (I have emailed him to let him know that is what I am doing). The auto-reply was triggered about 30 mins ago. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose That only gives him no other option other than to make socks if he doesn't get Wikipedia out of his system. WGB doesn't seem to respond well to feeling cornered as we've seen. Sure, we can block the socks and then he'll make more and we'll block those, and we'll just waste everyone's time. Keep it at an indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. Those are all his problems, not ours, it's ridiculous in the extreme to suggest he has no choice but to create sock accounts. I'm sure his web browser allows him to access the rest of the internet, not just Wikipedia.The fact that he has in the meantime managed to be indef blocked from three other Wikimedia sites is telling as well. Caving in to his pathetic whining is only going to encourage more of this foolishness. This user needs to be sent a clear and direct message (again) that they are not welcome to be editing Wikipedia under any name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the indef block isn't caving into him by any means. Caving in would be removing the block. My goal is to reduce to amount of aggrevation we see in regards to this user. If he completely loses hope with the WGB handle, but isn't completely off Wikipedia, he'll just cause more aggrevation. If you want to deal with that aggrevation, i'm fine with it: in that case, we shouldn't be talking here, his incarnations should just be blocked on sight. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, wikipedia isn't therapy. It isn't our place to coddle people, unless they're incredibly uncivil and make friends first.. The community needs to handle problem users appropriately. We're a group of volunteers and don't have the time, skills or resources to go around psycho-evaluating everyone to see how our discipline is going to effect them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, we're looking for the solution here that helps the encyclopedia the most. Banning WGB adds nothing to help the encyclopedia versus keeping him on indef block. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• support Like most, I don't see much chance of reform here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support And the argument that a ban will encourage him to further violate the rules, what's the next alternative, letting him back so he wouldn't need socks? He's already shown that he won't stop with the current situation. He knows what he needs to do and he just doesn't want to do it. I know it's absurd but why not let him have the admin tools too so he won't bother people with AFDs and the like if he gets disruptive there? Rewarding this kind of behavior is bad. If he cannot control himself, he should get punished further. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - By inciting a formal ban, we'll eliminate the need to worry about WP:OFFER - not that it's official or anything, but I think the user has certainly exhausted the patience of the community infinitely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well actually no. WP:OFFER is applicable to banned users also--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I feel that WGB has exhausted the patience of the community (he certainly has mine). He has shown by his actions on other WMF projects that he is as unwilling to work in a co-operative manner on any of them, not just the English Wikipedia. Although not 'admissible' here, his behaviour off-wiki (including threats of legal action against two admins here who had done nothing wrong) leads me to personally be unwilling to extend him any leeway - but his behaviour on-wiki is just as bad, and so even without the emails which I used to receive from him (before I set up an "ignore" rule) I would feel that a ban is justified for this user. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps in this case a global block (or what ever it's called when Global admins block an account) would be more to the point? If there is significant disruption on WMF sites including en-wikipedia then it should be taken up the line, no?--Cailil ^talk 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support There was already established consensus for this, and the above arguments have identified those well. This is really just a technicality at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Otherwise, I think wikipedia will run out of carrots. Consensus was already fairly well established. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have been forwarding his various emails to the unblock list. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• This whole affair is very unfortunate. Wiki Greek Basketball is somebody with the potential to become a fine article contributor — but the downside obviously being his apparent inability to interact cordially with others. This leads me to question his suitability for a collaborative website like Wikipedia, as it requires people who can get along with others. At this time, a ban may be a fair option, as the community has attempted various options leading up to this and there isn't much else to choose from at this point. A break would be good for him, to allow some time to grow and learn from his mistakes. That said, I wouldn't like to shut the doors on this person entirely. If at some point in the future he has matured enough to be a collaborative and agreeable editor without causing significant issues like he has done before, then I would support a return to normal editing, with obvious sanctions such as a restriction from editing requests for adminship or a ruling against interacting with certain people. But given his attitude towards others and the bad blood that has been created, some time needs to pass before that can be considered (I'd say a minimum of 6 months, though preferably longer, and without sockpuppeting or unnecessary off-wiki communications with other users). At present, WGB is already under a de facto indefinite ban, and therefore should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia under any account. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, even if it's a mere formality at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support If it makes it easier to block his socks, do it. RadManCF (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Judging by past practice, someone is going to suggest an unblock again in a short time, and we need to have a clear statement of the community's reluctant agreement that collaboration involving this user is not likely in the near future. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander redux

Noleander is back, and continuing his previous disturbing behavior. If you'll recall, in the past he created articles promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, which were eventually deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood

His activities prompted a lengthy AN/I thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:Noleander in which he quite plainly stated "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." While that AN/I thread was in progress, he disappeared for 3 months. Since his return to regular editing two weeks ago, however, he is doing much the same, albeit with more subtlety.

His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance:[1] While this may seem innocuous enough, he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: [2] an eye-winking way of saying "we don't believe this canard that a Jewish cabal controls all this stuff, it's just that there happen to be so many Jews in senior roles here". Prominent in the "Finance & Trading" section were fairly notorious Jews Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Marc Rich. For good measure, he threw in a "Pornography" section. Now, he may claim that he just happened to be adding names that he came across while reading J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power (1996). This, however, is not the case. In fact, he has had to do Google Books searches for specific names, in order to prove they were Jews; a variety of sources including

• Shapiro, Edward (1995). A Time for Healing: American Jewry Since World War II
• Shay, Scott (2007). Getting our groove back
• Harlan, Stephan (2008). Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1
• Strober, Deborah (2009). Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
• Abigail Pogrebin. Stars of David (book): Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish
• Amman, Daniel (2009). The King of Oil
• Maisel, Louis (2001). Jews in American politics
• Langley, Monica (2004). Tearing Down the Walls
• Rosenberg, Hilary (2000). The Vulture Investors

etc.

Again, this is not a case of someone coming across a name in a book they were reading, and adding it to the list, but of someone actively searching for proof that specific individuals are Jews, so that they can be added to the List. Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Marc Rich etc. do not appear on this list by chance, but rather as part of a campaign of reversing alleged "censorship" "in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews". It is no accident that it is those specific Jews he searches for to add to the list, rather than, say, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Edgar Bronfman, Andrew Grove, George Kaiser, etc. If they're not controlling world finance or the media/Hollywood, and are not criminals (or are not "pornographers"), then they don't interest Noleander.

His other edits have included edit-warring in a section about "Allegations of control of the world's banking system" in the Rothschild article:[3][4], adding sections to the "Criticism of Judaism" article [5] and proposing more [6] Also relevant are these recent edits: [7][8]

It appears, as was evident in the previous AN/I discussion, that Oleander edits Wikipedia primarily for two reasons; to include negative information about Mormons and Jews. In the past he focused more on Mormons; since the last AN/I discussion however, he has focused more on Jews. Even when the information he provides is arguably relevant, it has to be extensively edited to conform with policy (e.g. [9], [10]). While his pretense is that he is only attempting to debunk antisemitic canards, his actions indicate that he is actually attempting to promote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like one giant bad-faith assumption. I don't see anything wrong with any of these actions, unless one were to put them together and look at it from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. The heart of the original complaints against Noleander's edits were that he created a separate article about an antisemitic canard, rather than contributing to the existing article that lists them. Now you're complaining that he's contributing to existing articles by adding things that properly belong there, merely because you think he's doing it for some devious purpose? This isn't right. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, it's admirable that you leap to Noleander's defense yet again; loyalty is a great thing. However, we're not idiots here. I've described essentially all he's done on Wikipedia since he returned; tried to subtly promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. Why did he go to the trouble of adding Andrew Fastow etc. to the List of Jewish-American businesspeople? Why that list of Jewish "pornographers"? WP:DUCK applies here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm loyal to no persons, only ideals. Are you saying Jewish pornographers are somehow inappropriate for the list of successful businesspeople? For what reason? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pretending this is an issue about a single edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: If you think the list articles have become unbalanced, or something, and there are "better" examples of Jews in big business positions, then add the ones you think are missing. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

As is obvious, the issue isn't with specific article edits, though some of them are obviously problematic, but with a pattern of behavior. Please don't try to sidetrack. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this pattern. If there are things missing from articles that have been omitted because people find them unpleasant, then I think it's a good thing they're being added. Articles shouldn't artificially lean towards the positive, even for sensitive subjects like Judaism. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop deflecting. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with articles "artificially leaning towards the positive". You see nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of either promoting negative information about members of an ethnic group, or promoting information intended to support conspiracy theories about that ethnic group? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's fine. The "conspiracy theory" aspect id your guess, not exactly apparent. He's inserting the omitted "bad" stuff. The reason he's doing it is a matter of interpretation. You can say "aww come on, it's obvious he's promoting conspiracy theories" all you want, but that's again a bad-fait assumption. I'm not deflecting, I've answered your concern by explaining to you why I think this "pattern" you've identified is not a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion, we know you think "it's fine". You also thought the two deleted articles were "fine"; more than fine. And you think it's fine to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of denigrating a specific ethnic group. Gotcha. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this to be at ANI. There's no immediate pressing concern for admin action. Surely WP:DR or similar? Black Kite 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have been the only thing Noleander has focused on recently, which does make it worrying. You might say, "but all that matters is the content," but the content can't be trusted if it's being added by an editor who seems to be overly focused on one POV about one group of people. That means someone has to be constantly checking and balancing it, which isn't fair to other editors. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty fair. Part of editing the encyclopedia is balancing out each others' POV's. That's part of how articles become NPOV. The fact that a sensitive subject like Judaism is involved is the only reason this issue is at ANI. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:02, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a single article, however, such as Judaism. It's about multiple articles, with one editing goal. Or do you, too, share Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But what would you say, Equazcion, of an editor who went around adding the names of terrorists to List of Muslim businessmen, because some terrorists are Muslim and some of those were also businessmen. And when we looked at his contribs, we found that was the only thing he did, and that there was never anything positive added, only the negative. There are BLP implications, there are racism/antisemitism implications, there are SPA implications, not to mention NPOV and NOR. It's just not good editing, however you look at it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not noleander, nor am I in a cult with him, so stop trying to lump your enemies together with pigeonholes. It's irrelevant that it's not about a single article. There are editors at all these articles who can see if there's a problem with their balance, and respond to it. Maybe you could simply watch them and help balance them out. I'm not sure why we would even make the assumption, though, that this will turn into a problem. If the user is inserting material previously omitted due to it being somehow unpleasant, in order to balance them out, why are we assuming he'll go too far in the other direction? Has he already unfairly slanted any article towards the negative? Which ones? If he hasn't, should we be assuming he will? That would not seem like an assumption of good faith to me. SlimVirgin: All those implications can be dealt with per-incident, if there are any. Right now you're basically only assuming such incidents will occur. I don't think that's what we generally are supposed to do here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the lists of Jewish people (although adding a "pornography" section is really out of line), but it's ridiculous that he added this and this. I'm going to block indefinitely, this seems like a very clear case of a disruptive editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly is wrong with those edits that warrants a block, Tbsdy? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Adding Jewish conspiracy theories to Sept 11th articles is not the right way of editing this encyclopedia. I've reviewed the previous discussion and seen enough contributions to see that we have a disruptive editor on our hands. I would normally be hesitant about this sort of block, but in this case I believe it to be warranted. They clearly know what the norms and policies are of Wikipedia, so I think that ignoring them as they have done is totally out of line and shows to me that they aren't willing to abide by them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have added "Several analysts documented that a motiviation for the attackes was the support of Israel by the United States". Is that a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure it's well documented that that was indeed a possible motivation, and he added credible citations. It doesn't even seem offensive. What's the problem? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:24, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that it's giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories. There are thousands of conspiracy theories about September 11th, we don't include them in the article. There is already an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories with a whole section, and in fact another article also has a whole section on this also. He knows this, so he should be editing there, but he isn't so he's being quite disruptive. There are other worrying signs he's got a POV to push, which is OK so long as it isn't disruptive, but in this case it is so therefore I've blocked him indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The motivation involving the US support of Israel is not a conspiracy theory, fringe or otherwise. It's a well-documented possible motivation for the terrorist act. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:33, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh brother, do I have egg on my face. I didn't read carefully enough. I'm unblocking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 02:36, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editor is unblocked with my apologies. I will refrain from any further blocks based on this thread, though I reserve the right to comment on his actions on WP:AN/I and to block in future (obviously with a bit more care than this time). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he should be blocked, but there's a very clear pattern of edits. And it isn't pretty. The Jewish pornographers seems to be the most blatant. Many of these edits by themselves look innocuous but the overall pattern seems like he is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think none of us agree with "Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? ' We therefore should wish to make certain that we never do anything of the kind. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia blacklisted some sites because they are critical to Wikipedia. I hope you are not suggesting that Wikipedia should become yet another anti-Semitic site just because somebody adds anti-Semitic garbage to the articles, and claims censorship, if he is not allowed to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but nor should Wikipedia refrain from featuring verifiable (not rumoured, speculated, or "well, everybody knows that") facts (not gossip, folk myth or urban legend), just because they are about Jews, Irish, Chicanos, Phonecians, Hittites etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But since that's not what has happened in this case, it's difficult to understand why you make that point. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Merely suspecting an editor of being racist or having an agenda should never be grounds for a block. If and when there's good evidence of POV problems or disruptive editing, try talking to Noleander about it, and then go to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Taking him to ANI now for these edits is OTT. Fences&Windows 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if Noleander is racist, nor do I care, because it is entirely irrelevant to my point, and to Wikipedia. All I care about is a pattern of edits, and a stated goal. Noleander edits Wikipedia primarily for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's disruptive, and wouldn't be tolerated if he did it in relation to other minorities. Good evidence of the problem has already been presented, and there have already been two AN/I threads about it. Keep in mind, it's only two week since he returned to editing; in effect, the problem never really went away, it's just that Noleander didn't edit for a long while. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Apologies for the delay: my account was blocked for awhile. Apparently some admin blocked me by accident, then tried to unblock me but failed. I'd complain, but it's hard to get angry when admins are unpaid volunteers :-) We all make mistakes.

Regarding Jayjg's complaint: this is about 3 things: Content, Content, and Content. Jayjg is unhappy with additions I have proposed to the articles Antisemitic canard, Criticism of Judaism, and List of Jewish American businesspeople.

Rather than continue the dialog on the Talk pages (and, yes, there was on-going dialog on all those Talk pages: Ive never made any significant change without discusson on Talk pages first), Jayjg decided to throw up another "intimidation via ANI" smokescreen. And so here we are.

In the last ANI, I explained why Im interested in criticism of religion. So I won't repeat those details. But it is the topic Im interested in, and I'll continue editing there. Unfortunately, articles on religion tend to be very controversial, so I'm used to being called anti-mormon, anti-catholic, anti-semitic. I'm not of course - although the notable sources such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Israel Shahak may be. But the distinction between editor and source is deliberately blurred by Jayjg.

One of these days, someone will address the issue of censorship in the religion articles, or maybe "systematic bias" is a more accurate description of the problem? A few months ago, I brought up the systematic bias issue, expecting some Wikipedia sage to actually step in and do something, but it is dawning on me that there is no sage :-) (Although there was one editor, User:Georgewilliamherbert, who was rational and objective ... whoever he is: props to him!).

It is so easy for a handful of editors to pile-on and do the tag-team thing to exclude content they deem offensive - regardless of how notable and substantiated the content is. I suppose intimidation and tag-teaming is easier than actually discussing the content on the Talk page.

But as I learned in the prior ANI, neutral editors that visit these pages are way too busy to do a detailed scrutiny. Who has time to look at the Talk pages of the pages and see if I've been civil (I have)? Who has time to look at the content and sources to see if they are reliable and notable (they are)? Who has time to see if Jayjg tried to discuss the issue on the Talk page (he didn't)? No one. We are all unpaid volunteers, blundering forward.

So, I propose that we continue, Jayjg and me and the other interested editors, discussing the issues on the Talk pages. I also suggest that we check our egos at the door, and try to focus on what is best for the reader of this encyclopedia. Working together, we can produce neutral, balanced, comprehensive articles. Shall we try? --Noleander (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I blocked you for only 15 minutes, which is bad enough I guess. However, I did unblock you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked for 24 hours. The error message was something like "You are not blocked, but your IP address is". The expiration time of the IP block was 12 Feb 18:13, if that helps. But I can edit now, so no big deal. --Noleander (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. You should have sent me an email - I didn't block your email access. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Noleander, despite your obfuscation, the issue is about behavior, behavior, behavior. You edit primarily Jewish-related articles, solely for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's a behavioral issue, since the specific content varies wildly, depending on the article. The fact that you pretend, with no evidence whatsoever, that there is "censorship" or "systemic bias" in relation to religion articles is a pretty transparent cover for this distasteful behavior. Adding a list of "Pornographers" to the List of Jewish-American businessmen has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. And the fact that you again admit you're trying to combat this imaginary "censorship" also puts the lie to the claim that you're simply trying to document antisemitic canards. No, you are trying to promote them, in order to overcome this imaginary "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I'd agree that the term 'pornographer' is probably not what such people call themselves, there are people in the US, some of whom may be of the Jewish faith or ethnicity, who are major players in the Adult print (and increasingly web) industry and the Adult end of the movie industry, which are big business in the US. Since this is a business, like any other, so if producers of other genres of entertainment media are mentioned, the notables in the Adult genre should be mentioned too. So if your objection is to the descriptor 'pornographer', I'm with you. If your objection is to revealing that some persons who would describe themselves as Jewish-American are senior executives in Adult entertainment, then that's censorship.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No Elen of the Roads. As I've very, very clearly stated more than once, this is not about any specific edit, but about a pattern of behavior. When one edits all Jewish-related articles, including the List of Jewish American businesspeople, for the sole purpose of, in that editor's view, making Jews look bad, then it's a behavioral issue. Mentioning the list of pornographers was simply a response to Noleander's transparent prevarication that he made this edit (and other similar ones) as a "criticism of religion". Adding a list of ethnic Jews in "Pornography" is not a "criticism" of Judaism; indeed, we have no idea what religion these people practice, and in any event their line of work is irrelevant to their faiths, whatever they may be. And the fact that he used the pejorative descriptor "Pornography" while in his edit summary used the more neutral and encyclopedic "adult industry execs" is merely one symptom (albeit a common one) of the larger problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Adult entertainment" is a euphemism. Must one use euphemisms to comply with NPOV? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander's use of the not-PC-on-Wikipedia word "censorship" is obfuscating the issue. He sees something missing, I think, rather than something that isn't allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Actually, though, the only evidence that it isn't allowed to exist is threads like this, as DGG pointed out above.

This isn't a case of WP:DUCK. It's a matter of choosing to perceive things a certain way, when there's a choice. WP:AGF tells us which choice we're supposed to make in cases like this. If someone said "Maybe it's time certain information that people have traditionally found objectionable, like Jewish pornographers, be included in articles, as info like this is sorely missing from Wikipedia," that's not an unreasonable cause to undertake. The problem is, such a person's edits would be rather indistinguishable from "pushing an antisemitic agenda"; it's just a matter of how you choose to see it.

Such ambiguous situations are the reason we have WP:AGF as a policy -- to remove the ambiguity, and tell you how you're supposed to view the situation, as least as far as your on-wiki actions are concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:36, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous? Indeed, we're supposed to assume good faith. However, once lack of good faith is demonstrated, and the assumption clearly is not a valid assumption, the policy becomes irrelevant. In this particular case, we have an editor with an unambiguously intensely POV approach to editing, doing his best to promote bigotry. It surprises me that this sort of bigotry has this much support, but perhaps I am naive. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no "ambiguity" whatsoever here. Noleander has made it clear by both his actions and words what his intent is. And Equazcion, we won't be diverted by your continued game of pretending this is about a single edit. No, it's not about "Jewish pornographers"; it's about editing articles related to Jews with the sole intent of making Jews look bad. Noleander is, as jpgordon states plainly and truthfully, "doing his best to promote bigotry". He's not trying to balance any imagined imbalance, or overcome any invented censorship. He's just quacking very loudly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be no ambiguity here. This is not the first time Equazcion has acted as an apologist for bigotry with the excuse that "wikipedia is not censored". Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that it's not about individual edits is the problem. If you can't point to any specific article issue, then there's no issue. The alternative is guilt by suspicion. The lack of individual issues to point out means there's no objective evidence. Just because you see something one way doesn't mean that's how it is. No one's condoning bigotry, they're just saying there's no reason to see it that way, nor is the perception any reason to act. WP:DUCK is pretty easily misused to mean "I can act on my suspicions". Anyway I'm sure you know that no one here is a bigot, and are in fact sensitive to those issues. Kindly cease the hostilities. People including me are simply disagreeing with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:05, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of objective evidence; it requires looking at the body of edits, not the individual edits. What a weird idea. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Invited comment: I have been notified of the existence of this thread by Jayjg, an editor I tend to disagree with on matters concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict but agree with on matters concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel. The notification was because I created a previous thread on this page concerning Noleander and his citing of articles held by far right webpages to do with Jewish involvement in Hollywood. The article about which I was complaining has been deleted along with one on allegations of anti-Semitism and because of that I have not got access to the complete archive of my postings at the time. However I recall a one sided selection of data on Noleander's part. I therefore tend to agree with postings above that WP:Duck applies. Why is Noleander so obsessed with matters Jewish that he feels the need to create entries concerning Jewish pornographers? I have seen no evidence Jews are either more nor less seedy than gentiles but am concerned by this editor's apparent obsession with digging up all he can find that is negative about Jews. I am quite happy to take part in mudslinging against the current and previous Israeli governments, but the suggestion that the Jewishness of some of the people on the seedy side of American life needs highlighting strikes me as extremely suspicious in one with the editorial history of Noleander. Unless Noleander demonstrates a capacity to spend well over half of his Wikipedia time on amtters that have nothing to do with Jews, then I think that he should be told to go and grind that axe somewhere other than in WIkipedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(Un-invited comment) I have to say, I find the existence of this thread depressing. If this were a brick and mortar encyclopedia, Noleander would have been shown the door, smartly, long before now. It's very disturbing that some people want to defend the indefensible. IronDuke 03:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsstraight

Would somebody review the contributions of Factsstraight (talk · contribs)? There's something suspicious here, staring with the username itself which is almost the same as FactsStraight (talk · contribs). The former is undoing a lot of the latter's edits. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:FactStraight is actually the one being undone, not user:FactsStraight. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:28, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry 'bout that. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Factsstraight (talk · contribs) is the same as Konstantine_001 (talk · contribs) as well as numerous anon. IPs. Here's a brief rundown at Talk:David Bagration of Mukhrani. (By the way, the article for that talk page is close to or now in violation of WP:3RR). Additionally, yes, going through Factsstraight's history you can see where that editor seems to be targeting any edits that FactStraight has made to articles of interest to Factsstraight. It looks like a personal grudge to me but I've become somewhat involved in the looming edit war and am probably biased. I would like to see some outside folk give their perspective as well as some advice. SQGibbon (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a personal grudge, since he does the same to DWC LR and anyone else who recognizes that he is a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Tfoxworth and reverts his edits. He threatens to revert my every edit indefinitely. He cannot be stopped by range blocks, and admin MuZemike found that he had to resort to article protection, because Tfoxworth generates new IPs and re-vandalizes as soon as one is blocked. Waiting for violations to reach 3RR is pointless, since he expects to be blocked anyway. Now that User:Factsstraight has been banned he's reverting me as 212.78.230.242. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Mister Flash regarding edits related to the British Isles

Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring for quite some time now over whether and how a great number of articles should use the term British Isles. That article is subject to a 1RR restriction, there is a taskforce at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, and I am not sure if this is related to and subject to the sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Many of these articles are watched by very few people, or the regular editors do not feel like getting involved with a highly contentious minor point (example: the recent edit war at FWA Footballer of the Year received no comment from editors not involved in this wide-ranging terminology dispute). It is certainly possible that wider editing restrictions may be called for regarding this dispute, but I think a restriction on Mister Flash would go a long way towards reducing British Isles terminology related disruption. I would like to propose that they be placed on a 1RR restriction and be required to gain firm consensus at the relevant talkpage or the taskforce page before making any edit regarding whether and how any article should describe this particular geographic and geopolitical region. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved in setting up the task force some intervention would be appreciated. There have been long standing edit wars over this, and consolidating all the debates in one place started to get some structure in place. However Mister Flash has an auto-revert approach on any change that does not involve the use of the BI term, regardless of the level of consensus. S/he seems to be a single purpose account. A brief review of the Task Force will show that while several editors are being even handed, their work is being disrupted by a failure to accept consensus and a consistent refusal to engage in discussion. There is a 1RR restriction already in place so I don't think that is the solution to be honest. We need something that prevents simple say-saying on every task force discussion--Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles-in-question, should be covered by the Troubles Enforcement ruling of 1RR (if they are not). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to state my case in this matter. First let me brief you on some historical aspects. From some time about early 2008 User:HighKing has waged a campaign against the term British Isles. I will not comment on his motives, but I merely draw your attention to the facts. Initially the removals were carried out en-masse, with perhaps dozens of removals in a single editing session. I estimate that in the three-year period of this activity a minimum of 500 removals have occurred. During his campaign HighKing has been assisted by numerous other users, principally User:Crispness (possibly now editing under a "clean start" as User:Þjóðólfr) and User:Snowded. HighKing's activities have spilled out across Wikipedia and have resulted in many edit wars, confrontations and violations of policy, involving everyone concerned. His work continues. Only two days ago a further two deletions were carried out, each of which featured the usual trademark of an edit summary not adequately describing what was happening. I came across HighKing in late 2008 and found myself objecting strongly to his edits. I tend to revert his edits because, in my opinion, the vast majority of them are not justified. Rarely is the term British Isles being used incorrectly. If it ever is, then I don't object to its removal. When removals are challenged, a variety of tactics are used to try and overcome the objections. All the tactics employed amount to variations on gaming the system, with wikilawyering and policy shopping being foremost amongst them. Take the recent example of Five Peaks Challenge - the edits which have caused the reporting of this incident: HighKing first tried to claim the subject was not notable, when that failed he went for a merge, and this was followed by claims that the references (references to support an axiom, I might add) were inadequate. This latter tactic is a favourite of the anti-British Isles community; place a cite tag on an obvious fact and when no references are forthcoming, delete the term. So to my part in this: I object to the policy of British Isles removals for what I consider to be political reasons, hence my numerous reversions of the edits of HighKing and others. I would be very happy never to edit another BI-related article (specifically involving addition or removal of the term) provided a similar restriction was placed on other users involved in this dispute. In his comments on this matter, User:Snowded would have you believe that I am 100% at fault and that he, HighKing and others have no case to answer. Such an assertion could not be farther from the truth. These users are at least as culpable as me in this matter. Remember that the root cause of this entire debacle is one single, solitary user - HighKing. If he stopped systematically trying to remove British Isles from Wikipedia we would not now be having this debate. So to summarise; I will accept a community sanction not to add or remove British Isles provided that sanction is also applied to the other users whose identities I have noted here. Mister Flash (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If my suggestion is adopted, then both sides will be restricted to 1RR on the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It won't work, GD. The BI removals would continue. Mister Flash (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

See above! A ban on all deletion and removals of British Isles by listed editors. Mister Flash (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Howabout a ban on all deletion/additions of British Isles for all editors on Wikipedia? I could accept that condition. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view

First no this isn't covered by the Troubles ArbCom ruling or any other ruling to my knowledge because the article sin question aren't about nationalism - but these editors are adding ideological references within them. As an outside viewer and uninvolved sysop I'd say it's pretty clear that 2/0's and Snowded's assessments bear out.
I'd block Mister Flash myself as an obvious Single Purpose Account but for the fact that it might look bad, being that I'm Irish. Nevertheless, I'm not saying editors who disagree with Flash are right or innocent of treating the site as a battleground. What follows is a brief investigation of this issue.
The FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year edit-war is indicative[11][12][13][14][15] - if this wording is a notable point it should be verifiable. In this single case it's clear that Flash reinstated an unsourced footnote for reasons other than WP:V, WP:NPOV and contrary to WP:NOR. On top of that the user's own user page is highly politicized and openly hostile to the Task force. I believe it contravenes WP:USER, in that it is deliberately inflammatory (in the manner it links to the task force) and polemical (Scottish independence etc).
Below is a review of problematic, politically motivated, edit-warring and/or wikihounding edits made by Mister Flash in some of his top 10 articles[16]

• FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year (diffs above)
• Tin_whistle[17][18][19][20] And Flash's first edit to thois article is in response to High King's[21]
• Cochrane[22]
• Neopaganism[23][24] Interestingly He'd never edited here until High King did[25]
• 1960_in_rail_transport [26][27][28][29][30] Flash starts editting here immediately after High King[31]
• Henry_John_Elwes [32][33][34][35][36]. Once more Flash appears on this page after HighKing edits it[37]
• Sarum_Rite[38][39][40][41][42]. Again Mister Flash turns up here for the first time in order to revert HighKing[43].

In summary, it is clear that Mister Flash is not alone in tendentious and disruptive behaviour. A number of edits by User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr are equally problematic.
In terms of sanctions, HighKing has contributed positively to the project but seems overly focused on this issue([44]). It is also clear that Þjóðólfr and HighKing have edit warred with Mister Flash. It also seems that Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash engaged in wikihounding (Þjóðólfr of Flash; and Flash of HighKing).
For this reason I move that Þjóðólfr should be topic banned from British Isles naming dispute topics for 6 months and placed on a 1RR restriction; that HighKing should be placed on a 1RR restriction in all articles. It might also be worthwhile considering a 6 month topic ban from British Isles naming dispute topics for HighKing, but his presence on the task force (and therefore willingness to dialogue) gives me hope. That said it might be worth investigating both of them a little further.
Mister Flash being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account should be site banned. Wikipedia is not a battleground and unless or until Mister Flash can commit themselves to the core policies and standards of editing on this site they should be prevented from disrupting it further--Cailil ^talk 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, the only thing the special examples page has managed to do is introduce totally innaccurate, and borderline nonsense, information to articles, which other people have to clean up after the event. It quite evidently only exists to push a POV, 90% of cases presented are fine, it's the other 10% you need to watch to see how bad it is at coming up with an informed and accurate solution to this apparent 'problem' of mentioning the verboten phrase. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hence my call for further investigation and a potential topic ban for HighKing--Cailil ^talk 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

HighKing was problematic, but then fully participated in the task force and accepted the agreements reached there (albeit with frustration at times). However the functioning of the task group has been badly damaged by the actions of MisterFlash (occasionally with other support) who has either edit warred against consensus, or indulged in delaying tactics (look the discussions on Sarum Rite for an example). Attempts by myself and others to create some order through the task force have either being met by a total lack of cooperation or downright abuse. We could do with admin support there. I support the proposal by Cailil although I think it is harsh on Þjóðólfr who in general has responded to Flash and has not initiated any change where agreement has not first been established at the task force.--Snowded ^TALK 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Inside view

I've previously been involved in this dispute but I've largely given up on it now. In fact, it's driven me away from Wikipedia to a certain degree. It seems that Cailil has not quite grasped the underlying issues concerned with HighKing and his edits. As many editors have noted, HK's edits are political in nature. He has an agenda and is using Wikipedia to promote it. It is his actions that are the ultimate source of the problems we encounter. Ask yourselves this question - If Mister Flash is site banned (a wholly disproportionate response) will the problem go away? Then ask this question - If HK is site banned (or topic banned) will the problem go away? I suggest the answer to the first question is 'No', because others would simply take up the reins. I also suggest that the answer to the second question is 'Yes'. It's very noticeable that when HK is not editing, no-one else is bothered about the SE page and there are no British Isles issues. Only when he re-starts does the problem crop up again. To me the solution to this intractable problem is simple - topic ban all concerned. Everyone involved in this has a case to answer, including Snowded who would have us believe he is whiter than white. No need for site-wide bans. Editors such as Mister Flash would simply melt away into background if a topic ban was in place. His editing is pretty much SPA so he'd move on elsewhere, and perhaps HK would as well. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NEW POLICY: Oppose an AFD, just vandalize

I submitted an AFD. The person is not notable but maybe his death is. Someone removed the AFD tag and wiped out the AFD. I reported it to AIV and nothing was done. Therefore, unless someone says otherwise, this appears to be the new order -- If you don't like something, wipe it out. Please, if you are an administrator, please tell Cassandra 73 that he can't just remove AFD tags. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nodar_Kumaritashvili&action=historysubmit&diff=343844459&oldid=343844024 Revenge No (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The AFD was closed by an admin as a speedy keep. If you'd prefer consensus for a speedy keep, I'd happily help provide that consensus. Reach Out to the Truth 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This guy is obscure. In Wikipedia, we write "Murder of --" not "--"

You are just giving excuses. There was vandalism then the speedy keep. So you allow vandalism? At least tell the man, Cassandra 73, that what he did was wrong. I will settle for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revenge No (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:ATHLETE. Going to the Olympics made him notable, and that's why he was given a page on February 6. He had notability even before his death. Reach Out to the Truth 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For info, removing the AFD was an accident - I rolled back the user because of the totally inappropriate comment the user added in that edit (didn't actually see there was an AFD in there as well until afterwards). Also an article currently linked to on the main page qualifies for a speedy keep. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, that may be questionable, as I noted on the talk page a moment ago. But apart from that, I fail to see the justification for a speedy close on the AfD, and what appears to be a very hostile reaction to this user's nomination thereof. What gives here? Tarc (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could have been handled in a more polite manner. Cassandra's error just shows how automated tasks have potential problems. Let's just be nice. As far as WP:ATH, this person doesn't qualify by the Olympics since it hadn't started when he died. However, he probably competed in the World Championships so he qualifies. Spevw (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In actual practice, we do have a fair number of articles whose entire basis is that the subject's name once appeared on a Winter Olympics roster, with nothing more than that in the article (e.g., no references for them actually competing). Even with the plain meaning of WP:ATHLETE, those articles aren't likely to be deleted - so the real bar of notability is low enough to encompass such articles. Having said that, the manner of this person's death unquestionably makes them posthumously notable regardless. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the speedy close if that will help end the wikidrama here. WP:SNOW seems to be in order, and the speedy close minimizes the disruption from a bad nomination -- at least until we get into the meta-discussion here. THF (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the comment the user added to the article at the same time [45]. Cassandra 73 (talk)

Yes close this ..He is clearly notable ..be it for WP:ATHLETE for making it to the Olympics and not to mention how he die will be talk about for year and will probably have a big impact on future tracks designs...So i would guess that because of this we will see a few articles arise like track safety..Olympic over site of designs etc.. that would all link to Nodar Kumaritashvili as an examples ... pls see this people for other examples of Olympic fatalities --->Nicolas Bochatay, Kazimierz Kay-Skrzypeski, Knud Enemark Jensen and Francisco Lázaro..Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who speedily kept the article, I'd been somewhat reticent about taking any further action. However, looking at his history, it seems to me that this user is clearly here only to make a point, and his contrib history suggests that he's somebody's sockpuppet. For that reason, I've blocked this user indefinitely as a disruptive, POINTy SPA. Blueboy96 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the feeling I got from him too. He creates an account today, claims Nodar Kumaritashvili isn't notable, nominates the article for deletion, and then goes to AIV and ANI when the AFD is speedy closed. I don't think most new members would immediately be familiar with all of those processes. Reach Out to the Truth 00:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking he reminded me of WossOccurring (talk · contribs), who came to ANI a couple of times when his AFDs weren't going as he liked and accused an editor who reverted him of vandalism [46], although the malformed AFD was odd [47].Cassandra 73 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The AfD was an obvious act of vandalism. Removing the AfD tag and speedy keeping the article was simply cleaning up the vandalism. The indef banning was appropriate. The less time we spend on people clearly intent on disruption, the better. It's preferable to lose a few people who might possibly somehow be persuaded to edit constructively than to wear down proven, dedicated contributors. That isn't to say we don't go through the usual warning processes with obviously novice editors, but I do think we can dispense with the niceties when dealing with the rest. Rklawton (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How was this new user able to create an AfD page with only three previous edits? Aren't ten required? Woogee (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaredkunz30 Making NPOV warning to good faith editor, POV pushing and tendentious editing.

Unresolved

 – Jaredkunz30 has been blocked indefinitely after a WP:SPI investigation along with 3 WP:DUCK sock puppet accounts. But another admin is requesting a checkuser to double check--Cailil ^talk 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaredkunz30 persists in POV-pushing edits on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, using incivility, tendentious argument and has threatened to create sock puppet accounts if blocked. Generally disruptive behaviour. Has issued NPOV warning to User:Ian.thomson.--Charles (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Jaredkunz30 has been informed about this matter. Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to report this incident Charles. I am interested to see how the WP admins respond to a complaint against a new editor. I have learned a lot about the rules of civility since I first started editing a few days ago and I now know of the errors of sock puppets. My record will show that my contributions and behavior have improved as I have been learning the ropes around here. It has been difficult with a few experienced editors who dismiss most of my contributions and issue me unwarranted warnings without any kind of friendly notice. I am confident the WP admins will make the right call with this reported incident. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: There was a WQA discussion earlier in which both involved individuals participated. --Shirik ♥♥ 00:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaredkunz30, you were told repeatedly not to make POV edits and then not to attack editors, and you said you didn't care about the NPOV or civility policies, until you received warnings explaining that would be banned for further misbehavior and when you were reported at Wikiquette alerts. Don't even try to act like you didn't know what you were doing: you were told repeatedly "don't do this" and you kept it up. I hope you know that the admins can go through your history on this site and see that you only feign repentance when you are going to get in trouble. The majority of your edits violate the NPOV policy. I, too, am confident that the admins will make the right call. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As you all can see, apparently there are some who feel strongly about my record as a new editor. I welcome the history of my activities to be reviewed as it will show that while I have made some errors, there have been a number of experienced editors who should have been a little more helpful and forgiving. I have received messages from more friendly editors who are in support of my situation. I know there are a lot of great people on WP, unfortunately I ran into a few difficult people from the get go and initially I did not react very well. I'm looking forward to continuing as a value adding contributor in the WP community. This is an excellent place to be. ThanksJaredkunz30 (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the NPOV comments for a second, statements like these are borderline unacceptable. You really need to avoid personal attacks: focus on the content, not the contributor. You're welcome to disagree with content, but when that extends into issues like religion which are irrelevant (for the most part; not splitting hairs here) to building an encyclopedia, such discussion should be dropped. I'm inclined to ask you to take a step back and breathe for a moment and calmly approach Ian to discuss the issue at hand. I do in fact believe in WP:TEARHEADOFF (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but there's limits, too. Try to consider Ian's views for a second and come to a compromise on your beliefs and his to resolve this problem. --Shirik ♥♥ 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A comparison of the cotributions of Jaredkunz30 and WaltFrost is interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oneida NY as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How so?Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How so? Well, all three editors make the same kinds of POV edits to the same article. They don't overlap in any way, nor do they edit more than one or two other articles. This looks very much like a single editor persisting with their POV edits for a length of time, until they wear out their welcome using that username. Then a month or so later, a new account is made to push the same POV, until that username becomes a little too hot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you making an accusation here? Our IPs are probably on the other side of the world... Conspiracy theorists unite! Too funny.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm making an observation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And that observation seems spot on. Since this user has already threatened to make sock accounts, it is likely they already have. I would suggest you head over to SPI with your concerns. I personally don't think CU would be necessary.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, I suggest you head over there and add anyone else you "suspect" so you can waste people's time with frivolous requests for investigations. My call for conspiracy theorists to unite must have worked! I've been on WP three days and I've had alerts, an ANI and now someone's calling for an SPI! Its like I stepped into a time warp into Stalin's Russia. Guilty until proven innocent. Amusing, on one level. Unbelievable on many others.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance - I was going to let the whole thing go, but your unpleasant remarks tipped the scale. See you on SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if there's a witchhunt after you threaten to cast spells.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a first, I've been called a witch! Blatant personal attack. I've made no such threats. Please do the right thing and strikeout your lies of the deepest darkest hue. Ever heard the song "Instant Karma"? Or "Karma Police"? "Who on earth do you think you are? A superstar? Well right you are. Well we all, shine, on. Like the moon and the stars and the sun. hey hey...alright." I love you like a brother or a sister whatever you are Daedalus. You're quite the comedian. Flame on.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did I call you a witch? I clearly made an analogy. If you can't see that, that's your own problem. I retract nothing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Analogy" eh? More like a sad attempt to be clever and resort to name calling in hopes no one will see the attack for what it really is. Retracted or not, you have revealed something very telling about yourself. Good job.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so full of yourself. I never called you a name. I said don't be surprised if you are accused of sockpuppetry after threatening to sock. Do you know what a witch-hunt is? It's a hunt for a witch. In your case, it is a hunt for a sock. I couldn't really care less about what you think you know about me. I'm not here to defend myself, and indeed, I'm not the one that is under the lamp. You are. We are not as stupid as you think we are, your attempts to distract us is not working. Lastly, from what I can see, you've been edit warring on that article, and have possibly already violated 3rr. See you at WP:AN3! :D — Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha.. name-calling. I've never once called anyone any names... maybe when I was 10, that was the case, but it's not my style to call people names. Instead I just tear apart their argument piece by piece, and let everyone else judge it. I don't really need to do anything else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• SPI addressed. Jaredkunz30 has been blocked indefinitely along with the 3 accounts User:WaltFrost, User:John Freestone and User:Oneida NY, per WP:DUCK. The IP address User:76.22.84.237 has been blocked for 3 months. A fuller explanation is given at WP:SPI--Cailil ^talk 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Something strange...

Within the past hour there were some vandal/disruptive edits from User:81.137.221.153, he was not blocked at the time. The IPs contrib page is now showing a current block, but that 3 month block is dated 19 June 2007. Odd. Also odd is that it says the IP was blocked by Luna Santin who does not appear to have been active for about 33 hours. Probably not a big deal, but someone might want to have a look. Wine Guy~Talk 03:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Software glitch? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, there actually was a warning to that IP's talk page just before that time, on that date: [48]. It's likely the block was enacted then. How it got reinstated now is a bit of a mystery, and sort of a coincidence that it happened after recent vandalism. Perhaps the software is... learning... protecting itself... ...my god. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:18, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that this happens when an SUL or IP has been blocked on all Wikimedia projects by a steward or global sysop or something (for example due to cross-wiki vandalism). I'm unsure of the details on where this is logged, but it doesn't show up in the en.wiki block log. However, the software knows he's blocked, so it shows the most recent block from the en.wiki block log. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That seems like a good explanation. Still, mine is more interesting, don't you think? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:32, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like it is a global block [49]. I don't know what you're talking about, HAL. I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen... ... yeah maybe it was a software glitch?;) Wine Guy~Talk 04:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• If it was a global account lock, it could've been oversighted, so you might not be able to find a particular account in the logs. See [50] -- "(log action removed)". Equazcion ^(talk) 15:38, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

What I'm interested in is what will happen after three months. Will he still be blocked? Also what happens if one where to try and unblock this IP? Rgoodermote  01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Resolved

 – deamed by -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ (Author)

I would like to note that an AfD is up that I think meets G10 (WP:CSD), and I want to bring it to admin attention.
Article: Black people in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Creator: BigBossBlues (talk · contribs)
Please remove it from wikipedia if it meets this criteria. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it meets G10; it's not an attack page. I say let the AfD run. And I note that your G10 request (filed after this report here at WP:AN/I was declined.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:SNOW? Rklawton (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I think it should be re-written since it seems to be related to a whole sleu of articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's redundant and not sourced, so there's nothing to re-write. Rklawton (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTEARLY
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW - "However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy." Rklawton (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have realized that this is not a CSD. Thanks to the admins who took the time to look. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball involved in online stalking of WP users

I saw that this individual created an account (as Yellow2010) at the Wikipedia Review and made several posts in which he ranted against several administrators for deciding to ban him from Wikipedia. In one of his posts, he said this:

---

This Tanthalas39 guy is such a psycho. I can't even begin with all the things he did to me. Some searches on him show him to be at a martial arts school in _. Someone needs to join up at the school and put him in his place.

wikipediareview DOT com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=844c8736c6726464cb26bb58466846bf&search_in=posts&result_type=posts

(Did not add direct link, type into browser and replace DOT with .)

---

Apparently he's decided to stalk at least 1 named member via google and posting their personal information on another website (and he's also likely doing this to several other admins he named in a "list" which he also posted on the Wikipedia Review). Based on his posts he definitely appears to be mentally unstable, so I would recommend filing some type of abuse report against him via his IP information. His "list" also named these members (though it didn't contain any personal info that I know of):

---

Coffee
Ryulong
Beeblebrox
Tanthalas39
Phantomsteve
Bwilkins
Gwen Gale
TreasuryTag
MSGJ
Daedalus69
Tbsdy lives
Fastily
The Thing That Should Not Be
Wisdom89
ArcAngel
Pakaran
Rjanag
Abecedare
Cyclopia
Rschen7754
Seb az86556
Mjroots
MuZemike

wikipediareview DOT com/index.php?showtopic=28529&st=0 (Did not add direct link, type into browser and replace DOT with .)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.16.234 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake, could we just officially ban this guy already? He's gone through more lives than a cat, and he obviously STILL doesn't get it. What's the holdup? Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, banning will CERTAINLY stop WGB from acting like this...Doc Quintana (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this[51] he's already banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia Review is taking care of this in some capacity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For ease of viewing, see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Standard Offer"

I am not sure what exactly this is, but with the thing about this and the other situation, I am just going ahead and start this. I propose that the Wikipedia:Standard offer is hereby revoked from WGB. I believe he voided this a long time ago (as I recall, there was a suicide threat about this and if law enforcement is envoked, according to the SO page, the offer is revoked. Also under "Variations," any more disruption will cause a six month timer to be reset. I seen it grown by a few years in the past week or two, so just make this go away for good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to the suicide threat portion of this, the police were called in that instance, never heard back from them so I don't know what was done/said (if anything) to WGB. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The page said that even if there is a posibility that cops could be involved, it should not be extended or should be revoked. I never received an email about this, but I am sick and tired of seeing this user pop up on ANI on a near daily basis. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen his name pop up since he was banned. Although, what are generally the reasons by which this "standard offer" is revoked anyway?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I posted on the original thread about this (I can dig it out of archives, if needed) but wasn't aware you needed an email on this as well, my apologizes on that. But I did call them and the cops seemed kinda lost on how to proceed, so nothing may have happened, I am not sure as I never received a call back (though honestly didn't expect one). I do agree with you, WGB has tried, time and time again, the patience of the community and the standard offer should be revoked and he should go far, far away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sections "Eligibility" and "Variations" explain on how it can be revoked and the 6 month timer. Even if there is no rule on how to revoke it, I will make one up by coming here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we just don't offer it in the first place? I support revoking it because I don't support it in the first place. A 6 month get out of jail free card when you've exhausted the community's patience is absurd.--Crossmr (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only for people who behave good during the whole 6 months, which to be honest, doesnt happen that often. ♥Soap♥ 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, nobody knows how we'll feel in 6 months about him (or a year, or two). I will almost always disagree with any ban of infinite length (note that indefinite is not the same as infinite, and totally support this indefinite ban). Primary reason? People can change. I think that's the fundamental belief behind WP:SO. In a year, maybe he will have reached out to everyone, apologized, gotten back on their good side, and then he can come back and ask for another chance. Until such time that he has cooled down and at least earned back a little trust of the community, I 100% agree with his ban, but I don't think we should be making decisions that will give others no hope of ever coming back, no matter what they do. If it comes up in 6 months or a year or whatever, then we make the decision about it then, not now. --Shirik ♥♥ 16:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• The standard offer should be totally revoked here. Not only has he admitted to socking (User:Euroleague Basketball Project), but he as also asked at WR for people to advise him on how to sock better without getting noticed. This type of behavior is not acceptable, and we shouldn't think twice about considering WGB permanently banned from Wikipedia. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• After all the trouble WGB has caused, I definitely agree with revoking the standard offer. A permanent ban is worth considering, but I'm not sure I'd support applying one to WGB yet. RadManCF (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Y'all, please forget it. WGB is community banned, six months is a long time on the Internet, let it be. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban him, he's just turned into another Peter Damian. God, do we need another one of those again?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

He is banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I'm not mistaken, the "standard offer" is just a general guideline, but not a specific code for banned users to follow if they want to make a legitemate return to active editing. It's a generalized concept - there are some editors who are unbanned prior to the six month mark, and then there are editors who may never be welcomed back to Wikipedia. It needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. In this case, due to the off-wiki harassment of various different users on this site, I would expect that it will be well over a year before anybody seriously discusses unbanning WGB. He has exhausted the community's patience. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• If ever there was a case for damnatio memoriae, this is it. Just talking about him (yes, yes, I know, but this is _my_ last mention of this topic forever and anon) gives him what he craves: more fodder for dramatization on WR, more attention, etc. May his name no more be spoken. GJC 05:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• He has a 6-month ban/block. Whether these are lifted after that will depend on his attitude at that time. If his attitude is the same as it has been for the last month or so, it won't be. If his attitude is one of someone who realises that they've done things wrong, but who wants to move on and be constructive, then the lifting can be discussed by the community. Either way, there's a bit under 6 months left until we need to think about it, so let's ignore him and move on. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Just ignore him. IMHO, this has got to the point where consensus will be against allowing him to return for a very long time. There's nothing more we can do about him on Wikipedia, so let's stop discussing him on weekly basis. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Orijentolog: community ban

See thread above for background. Orijentolog (talk · contribs), a user known for aggressive nationalist and anti-semitic editing, was blocked on 27 September for "tendentious editing", initially for 2 days; this had to be immediately increased to two weeks and then indef because of massive block-evading activity through dynamic IPs. Since then, he seems to have continued socking more or less permanently. He has been the subject of two more SPI reports (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive) and the cause of massive disruption forcing protection of the Greco-Persian Wars article and even its talk page. He immediately continued socking through new IPs even after the latest round of blocks yesterday, including revert-warring against users who were trying to clean up his previous block evasion.

I propose treating him as formally and permanently community-banned from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Concur Best formalise what is very apparent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, although technically, there's no such thing as permanent, given that the community could change its mind at a later time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Extremely disruptive user. Athenean (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Silverhorse and date formats

User:Silverhorse (talk|contribs) has been imposing his preferred date formats on a number of articles ([52], [53], [54], for example). He has been asked to stop many times ([55], [56], [57], etc.). He consistently ignores all communication and only blanks his talk page. The editor seems to do little or nothing else beyond these lame and unhelpful edits. --Amble (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And what do i do when i find a page that has differnt date formantsSilverhorse (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave it alone, as you have been repeatedly asked. Wikipedia day articles go to February 14, not [[14 February]], which is a redirect-watch where it goes when you click. If it's good enough for Wikipedia, it's good enough for you. Surely you can find something productive to do here. Your dating system is not it. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on date policies has been patiently explained to you again and again, with links to Wikipedia:MOSDATE, over the last year. Have you read it? --Amble (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed this user's contributions and talk page history. He seems to be almost solely dedicated to changing dates to a single format, in violation of WP:MOSDATE which says that styles should not be converted without a style-independent reason. He has received, and blanked without any other reaction, very many warnings about this. This is disruptive editing. I've blocked him for 24 hours. If the disruption does not stop after this, escalating blocks should be applied.  Sandstein  22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I should mention that some of his format changes are OK: for articles pertaining to a specific English-speaking country, it's acceptable to ensure the article uses that country's usual style and spellings. So for WorkChoices, for example, I think Silverhorse's edits are fine. It's imposing his country's date style on all articles that's the problem. --Amble (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppett

retrieved from Sarastro's page [edit] Troll banned Hi, Sarastro. I think you'll be pleased to know that the FirstComrade/BrownEdge/ASMF troll has been banned via WP:ANI. Your replies to him were instrumental as you clearly identified him as HughGal. My interest in him was his Fieldgoalunit alias last year, under which he caused considerable disruption and annoyance. Hopefully he will finally get the message that nobody wants him here. We don't want him in the ACS either, despite his blatherings about it (he was sacked as journal editor and chucked his Wisdens out of his pram: yes, he really did). JJJ (not at home so not logged in). --86.160.125.25 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarastro1"

Clearly JameszJJames is a blackjack sockpuppetMariaSpawasser (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burpelson_AFB" see also JamesJJames for more personal attacks. Check that JamesJJames returns to editing when Blackjack was bannedMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the above account posting has only 3 edits: 2 to Burpelson AFB's talk page and the edit above. I would treat the above account as a sockpuppet itself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were so, which it isn't, it does not condone a)The personal abuse at JamesJJames and b)The fact thaT JamesJJames is a likely sockpuppet of blackjackMariaSpawasser (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Make that 4 edits total. Checkuser, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the abusive posting by a sockpuppet. Why?MariaSpawasser (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

5 edits total. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

7 in totalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 8 In TotalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is the JamesJJames is a sockpuppet of blackjack - 8 In totalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually only 6. If any admin was concerned in the slightest by this, they would have commented. So, unless you can come up with some diffs on why we should take this seriously and also establish you aren't a sock, I see no reason to keep this open. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in a semiprotected page

I disagree with few Neutrality (NPOV) in the "Venezuela" article. Wikipedia guide ask me to add {{POV}} or {{POV-check}}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute), but the "Venezuela" article is semiprotected and I must be an "established user" to add it.

In this country are a political persecution and lack speech of freedom and you are supporting it with this policy. I explain it: If you request be an "established user" (identifiying the user by multiple logins) to put this article on NPOV review, you attempt against the anonymity right of few people that want will be marked as NPOV dispute in the article, but don't want give their identities to anybody for protection reasons.

I think this is not the unique case only, please change it.

ANYONE SHOULD BE ABLE ANONYMOUSLY TO ASK A "NPOV" DISPUTE!!!

The appropriate place to make this request is in the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User Mcjakeqcool should be unblocked under Wiki:Give'emrope

I feel that the prospect of User Mcjakeqcool being unblocked under Wiki:Give'emrope should be seriously considered. He fits the bill and is willing for a such motive. JameszJJames (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy has a long enough history of problems, and we already have enough to do without having to babysit this editor. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

JameszJJames blocked as a sock of Mcjakeqcool (quack!) - as per [58] it surely should be "Give em enough rope and they'll out themselves."--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:DENY might be effective with this nuisance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't. His history is a bit unique, and he's not necessarily acting out of a need for attention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Occupation of Baltic States

Please take attention on User Virgil Lasis (talk) who recently accused user Igny [59] of being extremist. He also argues that all Russian sources should be removed from Wikipedia because Russia is underdeveloped authoritarian country[60] and heavily edit-warred to remove the sources so the article to represent only "official view of Baltic states". I highly suspect this account to belong to one of the banned or topic-banned participants of the EEML mailing list since it was registered in January 2001, when the ArbCom ruling came to force. He nearly repeats some arguments by the EEML members, namely, arguments that Russian sources should be excluded. He also showed familiarity with some Wikipedia's rules such as WP:UNDUE. --Dojarca (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is currently ripe for admin action (what do you want us to do?). To investigate possible sockpuppetry, please use WP:SPI (but remember WP:AGF); to resolve problems involving nationalist conflicts in Eastern Europe, please use the following in this order: (a) WP:DR, (b) WP:CCN, (c) WP:AE per the remedies of WP:DIGWUREN. You should also notify Virgil Lasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread.  Sandstein  22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you at least please as an administrator remind this user of Wikipedia's neutrality and civility rules?--Dojarca (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

... or creative coming out? You decide.

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

Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked by Jpgordon. Next time you come across a situation like this the best thing to do is to report to Wikipedia:AIV. Minimac (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that the person might be a legitimate good faith human being trying to come out, only in the wrong place. Or else just trolling. Anyway, thanks again and I will try AIV next time. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Calendar edit warring

An examination of edit histories makes it obvious that 156.61.160.1 and 62.31.226.77 are operated by the same person. He/she has reverted the three revert rule at Julian calendar, repeatedly inserting his/her personal interpretation of an ancient text over the objections of other editors. He/she also insists on editing the lead in a way that conflates the civil calendar with religious calendars.

He/she has also made a series of reverts to an outdated version of the page around 20 January and at that time refused to interact on the talk page. See also Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 1#Bissextile Day from January 2008 for previous troublesome edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack evading block (part three)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594 § BlackJack evading block

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive208 § BlackJack evading block (part two)

BlackJack (talk · contribs) who is presently blocked for abusing sockpuppets is again evading his block by editing as an IP (86.140.219.156 (talk · contribs)). Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks in advance. --85.210.135.210 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit move war regarding Genesis

Resolved

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

The article once known as Creation according to Genesis was subjected to a move request at Talk:Creation according to Genesis#Requested move (as a way to resolve every reasonable concern) (also listed at WP:RM), which concluded with the page being moved to Genesis creation myth. This move was reverted[61] by Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs). Til's move was then reverted[62] by Ben Tillman (talk · contribs), and finally re-reverted[63] by Til.

Advice and independent eyes requested. Gabbe (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please also note the user was warned about inappropriate page moves here, they then removed the notice before moving the page again. Cheers, Ben (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tillman continues his campaign to strip any semblance of neutral point of view from that particular subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the hubbub is about. Okay, so they had a couple of good albums; almost every band does. HalfShadow 17:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the deal with Phil Collins anyways? 173.100.214.133 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. I have amassed a vast number of sources for the theological POV that no part of Genesis meets nearly any definition of "myth" or objecting to its use, but the opposing POV seems to have overruled neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have to agree with Til here. It should'nt be called a "myth" nor should it be stated as fact. We are only here to present info, not to persuade people.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, you need to learn the definition of creation myth. It was established as consensus that the first two chapters of Genesis contained one. There's Hindu creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, and we shouldn't change the MOS for some who don't like the formal meaning of the word. Wikipedia is not censored.Auntie E. (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "consensus"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(double ec) This was recently discussed in a requested move, which I closed. Surprisingly (to me at least), there was almost no discussion about the merits of moving to "creation myth" in that discussion; people disagreed about whether it should be "biblical" or "Genesis" creation myth. I just tried to move-protect the page to avoid further warring, but that has already been done. Ucucha 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seresin has reverted Mr. Tillman for reverting a properly-closed requested move decision. I have move-protected the page; please seek consensus through the appropriate channels if you wish to have the page moved. NW (Talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got Ben Tillman and Til Eulenspiegel mixed up. Til Eulenspiegel was the one who objected with the RM decision, not Ben Tillman. Gabbe (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted the moves. The RM was legitimate; Til may not overrule it just because he disagrees with the closure. There are other methods to resolve naming issues. ÷seresin 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Creation Myth

We had established by consensus that this is a creation myth. Why is one person deciding it isn't and totally changing the title back to the one that censors the word? Auntie E. (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:STICK. It's over lady.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion immediately above this one. Ucucha 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a significant number of published theologians both now and going back many decades, who have explicitly disagreed with characterizing Genesis as a "myth" and pointed out numerous objections, but these theologians have been overruled without a true consensus, this has proved inflammatory and has caused incessant protest. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I sympathise with you Til, but the reality is, wikipedia is a place for POV pushers and there's nothing that you can do about it. "Consensus" (AKA, the biggest joke I've ever heard of) has "been formed".--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The POV-pushers have triumphed here, further diminishing wikipedia's reputation. I hope they're proud of themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. For christ's sake. --King Öomie 04:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ironic way to put it. It's unfortunate that you and Tillman have succeeded in pushing your POV ahead of serving the wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Request for a "Civility lecture"

Could an administrator please have a chat or give a warning on the use of words such as fraudulent or lie to User talk:Pmanderson? The use of that word on my talk page is totally uncalled for in a minor discussion of the source for a map, namely: File_talk:Catholicpopulationsnew.png#Source_and_accuracy. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump topic? Administrator not needed? Or does the status of an administrator carry more weight? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What's needed here is a stern warning to History2007 against tendentious editing and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. Which he'll get from me, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully disagree with the tone and behavior of Fut.Perf. The IDIDNTHEARTHAT accusation is not valid since the discussion had only 4 steps, so it does not apply and shows bias. How does one make a complaint against a one sided administrator please? I think administrators need to be unbiased. The other user has repeatedly used the words fraud and lie to refer to multiple other users. And I get a lecture? Another user compared that type of admin bahavior to North Korea judges. I think Fut.Perf. should reverse himself, for being biased. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So disagreeing with you constitutes "bias", while wikilawyering, personal comments and indirect "FutPerf is like a north korean judge" comments constitute the model of behaviour we should all aspire to? I'm beginning to agree that it's you who needs the lecture. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I had not thought of North Korea until another user mentioned it. It was not my starting suggestion. And does it matter that after inspection the map in question turned out to have errors after all and I was right in questioning its accuracy? The debate started by my adding a comment that I was "uncertain about the accuracy of the map". That statement was called fraudulent upfront. A totally unjustified accusation in my view. It turns out that I was right and the map had errors. And in my view IDIDNTHEARTHAT did not and does not apply to me because the discussion had just started. Do I not have the right to question the actions of FutPerf? I think I do have the right to question the accuracy of maps and the lectures issued by admins who seem to be trigger happy in my view. By the way, I have repeatedly asked Fut.Perfect to explain his use of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and he has avoided that question so far. I will have to assume he has no answer, and will have to ignore him. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I should say that the real source of the problem is the lack of technology. I added this to my list of suggestions for better Wikipedia technology. One that these features will arrive, for they are already described within Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is simple:

• There is a template which consists of various countries of the world, tinted depending on the percentage of Catholics in that country.
• It has an explicit source for the percentages of Catholics.
• Its File page contains a link to that source.
• History2007 nevertheless insists that it is unsourced, and has even taken to commenting out the link to the source.
• He also claims that it is impossible to verify the numbers, although the file talk page has done so since - and found two or three slips, including one case where the source seems to be wrong.

It is the last two I called fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly so. I specifically said that there was no map source, and I still say that. As I said: "The claimed source for this file has no map, just numbers." So I do not consider that a source. I never used the word impossible. That word appears on the page only once and was used by someone else. As is, there are several errors in the map (a few countries in Africa also seem incorrect). I think this type of no-map source sourcing is error-prone, based on old technology and we have seen how errors appear when it is used. In general PMA, you have used the words lie and fraud several times elsewhere, so please do not deny your affection for said words. There is no reason for using such words. And I maintain that I was absolutely right to question the map's accuracy. History2007 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominating a page for AFD while tagged with construction

AFD closed. 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Paul Carrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page was nominated for deletion by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) 7 minutes after it had been moved into mainspace from userspace by the editor that had been working on it, Ash. Epbr123 (talk · contribs) nominated the page for deletion while the page was tagged by Ash with the {{construction}} tag. No effort was made by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to contact Ash and discuss the matter prior to nominating for deletion, or waiting for the work to be finished and the {{construction}} tag to be removed by the editor that was working on the page. Three editors at the AFD page have called for the withdrawal of the AFD for these reasons. So far, the nominator has failed to withdraw the AFD. I am one of the three calling for withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator, and as such I will defer to the judgment of other administrators regarding this. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The Afd process is designed to be fair in situations like this. An admin there will eventually review the article. In the meantime focus on making the article better and there should be no worries. Beach drifter (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Epbr123 (talk · contribs) was also the nominator for the first AFD on the same page. I see no reason why discussion was not first attempted on the article's talk page by Epbr123 (talk · contribs), especially in light of the fact that the page was tagged with {{construction}}. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what administrative action is needed here? An article being tagged for being underconstruction is not a block from doing an AfD. Epbr123's not asking the user to move it back to his user space or discussing it before hand might be seen as slightly rude, but certainly nothing worth administrative attention. The numerous calls for withdrawal are not very valid, IMHO. The article was not created "seven" minutes ago, it existed and was deleted before (and AfD you yourself closed as delete). The user has worked on it in user space, so it existed long before its move to article space. AGFing would result in Epbr123 clearly feeling it still does not meet notability requirements and WP:PORNBIO is hotly disputed at the moment. Further, I'm a little surprised that you find Epbr123's actions wrong, yet say nothing of Ash restoring the article only FIVE days after it was deleted in that AfD. No DRV was done, and no additional notability shown. I'd say a CSD and restore to his user space would solve the issue quite nicely. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The actions by Ash were not inappropriate as he had consulted with the deleting admin from the prior AFD (myself), and there were no objections. Cirt (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has agreed to withdraw the nomination, if the page is moved back into userspace [64]. An apology is due on my part, as I should have advised Ash to make sure every single sentence on the page is sourced not just to sources listed at the bottom of the page, but more specifically to in-line citations. Cirt (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Another update, AFD was closed by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) [65]. No objections. :) Cirt (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Complaint As the article creator, I am extremely unhappy with this compromise which had nothing to do with me, or any other contributor, but was effectively a quick private negotiation between two administrators, in particular to make Epbr123 feel better about their apparent anti-porn-article deletion campaign and a hastily raised AfD. If there is reason to expect that the article can be improved, then it can be improved while in article space. The grounds for removal have been "special" for no reason apart from potential reasons of effective censorship. As the subject of the article is a well established gay porn film director and the second most credited gay porn actor in the history of gay pornography, there is every reason to expect that notability is already established by applying the WP:GNG guidance. There were no specific BLP concerns that would need speedy deletion and the grounds for the original AfD were PORNBIO which was manifestly incorrect for a specialist genre film director which falls under ARTIST. Rather than resorting to unique non-consensus processes in order to make Epbr123 happy, I suggest the normal AfD process is run for a full seven days, in article space, whilst the article is adjusted until any issues (at least those with some sort of credible rationale) are addressed by a real inclusive consensus process and not by a gentleman's agreement between a couple of admins. Ash (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no "private" dialogue, see above diffs. Everything was noted in updates here. I'll defer to other admins regarding the rest of this. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not reference private dialogue, just a private negotiation. By that I meant that you did not reach a consensus just an agreement between the two of you which you then forced on everyone else. As an aside, I note that you were having a "private" dialogue on Epbr123's user talk page about this matter, so to say "everything" is here above is not strictly true (this is not a complaint about your chat, just clarifying the facts). Ash (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please work on further improving the page in your subpage userspace instead of continuing to complain, which serves no constructive purpose. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as nobody seems to care I'll just shut up and you can consider the matter resolved. I guess that I was wrong to ask for the AfD to end properly or expect a preference for a consensus building process over individual admins making the decision on what is allowed to exist on Wikipedia based on their personal preferences. Thanks for putting me right. Ash (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I was even contemplating helping you and working with you to further improve the page in your userspace, but this sort of tone and demenaor and sarcasm is very disappointing. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: Issue is marked as resolved, but I think it's more of a ceasefire. Both sides have good points, but the frustration lies with actual contributors like Ash and myself, who spend most of our time defending our work rather than creating it. For outsiders who may be reading this, censorship is a HUGE problem in WP:WikiProject Pornography. This debate is a mere "tip of the iceberg". -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As this ANI was raised to deal with Epbr123's nomination whilst the article was tagged under construction, and has been resolved, I will raise a DRV for discussion about the non-consensus article deletion which ignored the open AfD discussion. Cirt is disappointed with my tone, which rather misses the bigger issue of a mis-use of a consensus process by more than one admin. As for my frustration, I am not an admin and if some tone flavours my prose this is hardly a serious issue though Cirt is welcome to raise the matter on WQA as an proper forum, rather than deflecting and apparently not hearing my complaint. I have struck the offending comment and I shall try hard to filter my natural sarcastic tendencies. Ash (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to this too. The page was moved by Cirt after Epbr123 agreed he would withdraw the nomination if the page was userfied. What I did NOT see was any group consensus (besides unconditional withdrawal of nomination) or Ash's permission. He/she's clearly objecting to these actions and I do as well. Also I asked Cirt to explain his/her closing statement on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan and he twice completely evaded the question (see User talk:Cirt). Do we need an ANI on this issue as well? -Stillwaterising (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say one ANI was enough for the moment to ensure better behaviour from all parties; with no prejudice for appropriate response on future issues. As I suggested above, I have now raised a DRV to specifically discuss the issue of the article deletion. Personally, I have found Cirt approachable and amenable to discussion. Polite persistence is probably the way forward as everyone involved claims good intentions albeit that their viewpoints are at loggerheads. Ash (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There is not much else to discuss here. The matter is now currently at DRV, under Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_15#Paul_Carrigan. The tone and harsh attitude displayed by both Ash (talk · contribs) and Stillwaterising (talk · contribs) above is most inappropriate and disheartening. I have offered to Ash (talk · contribs) that I would be more than willing and actually love to help out and pitch in and work on the User:Ash/Paul Carrigan page in Ash's userspace and improve its quality there myself. However the tone by Ash (talk · contribs) and Stillwaterising (talk · contribs) is not encouraging of positive collaboration in the slightest. Cirt (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Serendipodous "contemplating suicide"

Serendipodous (talk · contribs) has posted at User talk:Spartaz#Sorry saying that s/he has been contemplating suicide. Per WP:SUICIDE, would some administrators take a look at this and take the necessary action? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suffer from clinical depression. I contemplate suicide at least once a month. Serendi^podous 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's problem. The user is welcome to edit constructively at any time they wish, but their life is their own. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If the user is actively contemplating suicide, then they need to call their local police and have themselves admitted. If they can't, per WP:SUICIDE, we can. A checkuser is available (if you can find one) to get their IP address and make the call themselves. I must also stress to Serendipodous that if you are contemplating suicide, also per WP:SUICIDE, you account can be blocked (not by me, not an admin) as it has been done in these cases in the past. If you are feeling that down, I recommend going into your local hospital and having yourself admitted and getting the help you need. Wikipedia can't do that for you, but we don't want to see anything happen to you either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the importance of this issue, but WP:SUICIDE is merely an essay, to be used a resource but not enforceable policy. Shouldn't WP:SUICIDE be ratified into policy ASAP? Also, contemplating and threating suicide are two separate things, IMHO. -Stillwaterising (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party protests, 2009

This article is a bit out of control. It's getting edits like "To demonize, discredit and make fun of the TEA Party Movement, Progressive's have began referring to them as "teabaggers" The term teabagger is American slang for a particularly disgusting homosexual act. Such is the level of sophistication of Obama's Elitist and ACORN astroturf thugs. Also, Obama's Educated Elitist thugs,,," and right now "Despite attempts by International and Progressive elitists to use propaganda to demonize and discredit " (is that code for something?) . I think the article should be included in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw this at WP:RFPP. Fully protected for one week. Other admins feel free to change it, if there is productive dialogue and/or dispute resolution at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a start and many thanks, but I'm not convinced it will be enough. We'll have to unprotect it at some point, and I think it can justifiably be put under probation, which will provide more tools to keep it under control without full protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user socking?

N0th1ngwow (talk · contribs) first appeared immediately after Cladu1u (talk · contribs) was blocked, and is editing several of the articles which Cladu1u edited before being blocked. These edits may be perfectly correct, but I have no idea if they are or not, since I don't know anything about Eastern European footballers and stadiums. Could somebody take a look? Woogee (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK. As for the contribs, they don't seem obviously vandalistic, though perhaps not specifically in line with the MOS. GlassCobra 09:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Escalating IP problem

My edits on the List of heads of state of Yugoslavia and Yugoslav Prime Minister articles have managed to attract a highly disruptive IP user (94.189.../95.236...), and the problem is now escalating as the IP has apparently decided to spread his own brand of (completely unsourced) POV to a number of articles. I'd like to request aid in resolving the issue. I'd honestly prefer a range-block, since semi-protecting the articles only made him "seek new battlegrounds" for the edit-war. The appropriate course of action is naturally up to whomever lends a hand. The effected articles and templates are:

• Template:Yugoslav Prime Minister
• Prime Minister of Yugoslavia
• List of heads of state of Yugoslavia
• Kingdom of Yugoslavia
• Template:Politics of Yugoslavia

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute here? I don't see that the IP's edits are prima facie disruptive or vandalistic. You seem both to have broken 3RR at least [66]. What is this about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose community ban of User:Monshuai

Monshuai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an extremely aggressive Bulgarian ultra-nationalist with a severe case of WP:BATTLE mentality. Virtually all his articlespace edits are tendentious, usually consisting of Bulgaria-related antiquity frenzy or aggrandization of Bulgarian scientific achievements, with a particular obsession with John Vincent Atanasoff. Examples below:

• Bulgaria antiquity frenzy:

[67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] Some more recent examples in the same spirit: [81] [82]

• "Aryan" origin of the Bulgars:

[83] [84] [85] [86] [87]

• Thracians:

[88] [89] [90] [91]

• Bulgaria Science & Technology:

[92] [93] [94]

• John Vincent Atanasoff:

[95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]

• Various other articles:

[106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]

• First Bulgarian Empire:

[116] [117] [118] [119] The last two in particular, are extremely disruptive, as the article was put under page protection. The minute it expired, Monshuai rams these edits against all consensus in a deliberate attempt to inflame the atmosphere, and to drive home a point ("This is my house!").

He frequently uses extreme hostility in edit summaries, routinely threatening users so as to intimidate them and have his way: [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125]

A particular favorite tactic of his consists of threatening an article that he thinks his opponents hold dear ("If you mess up my article, I will mess up yours"), again as a way of intimidating others. For example here [126] he is mad about the use of the word "disintegrate" with respect to the First Bulgarian Empire, so he goes and makes a POINTy edit to Byzantine Empire [127], while at the same time lying that he has the consent of myself and User:Cplakidas to make this edit [128]. Here he threatens similar retaliation about the articles on ancient Greek city-states, hoping to intimidate me [129]. Here he does the same with User:Cplakidas [130].

When there is a clear consensus against him, he engages in interminable rants and filibusters on article talkpages, waging a psychological war of attrition with maniacal tenacity in the hopes of wearing down his opponents. Virtually the entire archive of Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff is a monument to Monshuai's maniacal tenacity. Other good examples include [[131]], [[132]], [[133]], [[134]] [[135]]. Examples with diffs:

[136] [137] [138] [139] [140] (gloats after Martijn Faassen gives up in disgust), [141](attacks Martijn Faassen for returning), [142] [143] [144]

• John Vincent Atanasoff

[145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151]

• Bulgaria lede - Recently, he has gone on an unstoppable ranting spree to have his antiquity-frenzied way here

[152]. Following this innocuous comment [153] by User:man with one red shoe, note how he deliberatley and utterly contorts his opponent's words, screaming "racism!" (a favorite tactic of his)[154] and playing the victim. Again, an attempt to intimidate. Continued trolling: [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]. He even fights with reasonable Bulgarian editors, as here with User:Tourbillon: [162] [163] [164] [165]. Nothing registers with this guy, it's all hostility, all the time, against everyone, always.

Recently, he has embarked on a campaign to sabotage a discussion on First Bulgarian Empire by filibustering the page with interminable rants about sources, threatening users, off-topic rants, and threats to other articles: [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177]. To a large extent, he has succeeded: After a promising start, the discussion has gotten side-tracked and bogged down in the mud. I am convinced that as long as he is allowed to participate, this discussion will get nowhere.

Most disturbingly, his psychological attrition warfare against his opponents WORKS: [178] [179]

Trolling other users' pages is another favorite tactic of his: [180] (tit for tat mr hellas), [181] ("this discussion will go on foerever if it must"), [182], [183] (kookery on Alison's page), [184] (I will not quit playing the race card), [185] [186] [187] (I will assemble multinational team of admins), [188] [189] [190]. Here, he wants an apology from User:Alison over an honest mistake, and won't let go: [191] [192] [193] [194].

Administrators are not immune to his loony threats either: [195] [196] [197] [198]

A particularly illuminating example is this discussion with Cplakidas, where he tells him he has 23 sources [199]. When Cplakidas asks to see them [200], he tells him to find them himself [201]. When Cplakidas asks again [202], he tells him "no free lunch" [203]. When Cplakidas justifiably feels insulted [204], what does Monshuai do? Plays the victim and feign offense [205]. This, against one of the most patient, civil, AGF users out there. I have never seen anyone get in a discussion with Monshuai and ever get anything out of it or not end up regretting it. It is impossible to reason with this guy.

He has been the subject of a community ban proposal before [206], but incredibly got away unscathed even though he had even created a CU-confirmed sock Janelle4elle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) dedicated to sabotaging the discussion at John Vincent Atanasoff. There is virtually no rule that this guy hasn't broken. There are two reasons why I am pushing for a full, indef community ban. One, he has shown zero sign of improvement over the years. Consider his very first edits to Bulgaria [207] and Talk:Bulgaria [208], with his most recent [209] [210]. At John Vincent Atanasoff, he's been at it for years [211] (Dec. 2007) [212] (Oct 2009). Similarly, an indef-topic ban is a non-starter: As the above examples illustrate, no articles are immune, even those that are way beyond the scope of WP:ARBMAC. Any attempt at discussion is completely futile and will only end in grief for the other party. No, only a full, indef community ban will work against this guy. He has been disrupting wikipedia long enough, time for it to end. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user that they are being discussed. However I believe this ban discussion is more suited for WP:AN. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Or WP:AE per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, if the requisite warning has already been issued.  Sandstein  22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support this request, whether as a full community sanction or (simpler) as an Arbmac matter. This user has been an utter waste of time for much too long. To Sandstein: yes, he's been previously both warned and blocked under Arbmac, and he's been perfectly aware his recent behaviour has been highly contentious, so that should be no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're right, it appears that Bulgaria is in the Balkans and therefore within the scope of WP:ARBMAC, and he has been warned, so conceivably a full Bulgaria topic ban could cover it. Judging by the request above, this appears to be the sort of situation that case was intended for, though of course we haven't heard from Monshuai yet.  Sandstein  22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Athenean here, good job getting all those diffs. This guy doesn't seem like he's worth the effort. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not reviewing that many diffs for free, but this reply was over top. Screaming racism for saying that Bulgarian ancient history isn't as notable as Greek ancient history? C'mon, [213] 18,000 gbooks hits; [214] 600 hits. And speaking of "Thracology", editors are invited to read the article on protochronism; there's something about Bulgaria and "Thracology" towards the end. Pcap ping 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In this post I will present evidence that double standards unbecoming of Wikipedians are utilized in article editing. My goal from the get-go has been to identify inconsistencies and report them in discussion pages. I use sources to back my statements in an attempt to present the full story, and not just one facet of it. I have maintained that as human beings we share in each other's history, and the achievements of one group is not mutually exclusive with the achievements of another. All people share the historical wealth of one another's aggragate contributions (through the positive effects of cosmopolitanism and globalization) to the formation of a global civilization. This also means that the history of anyone modern nation (a product of the post "Treaty of Westphalia" period) or historical state/culture (of the past) should not be suppressed nor presented using different standards from one article to another because that is disingenuous, partial and unethical. There must be equality, and there must be singular objective standards for everyone. No nation, no person, no editors should have more or less rights. Not here, not anywhere.

In my humble opinion the goal of this organization is to maintain objectivity and fairness. One example of the opposite for this ideal is the double standards that have been applied to the Bulgaria and Greece ledes. It is imperative that this informational gradient be neutralized. On one hand I was told by Future Perfect at Sunrise that it is peacocky to mention the Bulgarian territory's Thracian heritage, but somehow it is not peacocky to have the following sentence in the Greece lede:

"Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of ancient Greece, generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization. As such, it is the birthplace of democracy, Western philosophy, the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama, including both tragedy and comedy."

As of a week ago, Future Perfect at Sunrise had edited the Greece article 22 times since March 2/2009 and never once stated that its lede is peacocky. Please compare this to the lede element that I proposed as part of Bulgaria's general lede:

"The territory of Bulgaria was once home to prehistoric and ancient civilizations. The country is composed of three regions called Thrace, Moesia and Macedonia. During the period of classical antiquity the Thracians, Ancient Greeks and Romans each contributed unique cultural elements that sculpted its heritage."

Please also compare this to portions of the ledes in the following articles: Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Italy, England, China, Iran, etc...

Upon showing this, Man with one red shoe stated the following:

"Also, it's a matter of notability, I'm afraid to say this, but "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians".

I noted that it is indeed racist to state that the country's territory is OCCUPIED by Bulgarians. First, Bulgarians are not on someone else's land. Second, Bulgarians like all modern nations are composites of multiple ancestral groups regardless of their modern national name. As an example, the fact that modern Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Egyptians etc are officially Arab does not mean that their links to their to pre-Arab heritage is severed. It also does not mean that they are occupying someone else's territory.

Man with one red shoe then stated that Bulgaria's ancient heritage is not notable because people around the world would not have heard of it. He used Japan as a specific example. I countered by providing the following sources:

-http://sofiaecho.com/2009/07/16/756602_golden-thracian-treasure-returns-to-bulgaria-from-japan

-http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=100803

In fact the latest exhibition of Bulgaria's ancient heritage in Japan averaged over 20,000 visitors per day, and a record performance of 45,000 visitors in the peak day. The Japanese are also quite familiar with the Varna culture of Bulgaria, as the Varna Necropolis treasures were on exhibition for 7 months in Japan in 1982. That Bulgarian exhibit in Japan was called, "'The Oldest Gold in the World - The First European Civilization' with massive publicity, including two full length TV documentaries. In the 1980s and 1990s it was also shown in Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Israel, among others, and featured in a cover story by the National Geographic Magazine. Varna necropolis artefacts were [also] shown for the first time in the United States in 1998 and 1999 as part of a major Bulgarian archaeological exhibition, Thracians' Riches: Treasures from Bulgaria."

I also provided the following text published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: http://members.multimania.co.uk/rre/History-Seven.html

Finally, I discussed the National Museum of Bulgarian History, of which 1/3 of the exhibits are of the country's ancient heritage: http://www.historymuseum.org/collection.php

Man with one red shoe then went on to write on my talk page whilst telling me not to write on his. I noted this was hypocritical. He also swore on my talk page using the word "shat". Some people may find this funny, and to be honest I am not disgusted by it either, but I don't think using any language that refers to human excrement is appropriate on a person's talk page. I stated this and his response posted in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts was, "I wanted to say "shit", but then I remembered that some Wikipedia admins are morons, I don't know why I censured myself, is not in my habit, in any case I remove myself from this discussion I don't want ever to discuss with this guy." Since he said this I have no longer been conversing with him.

I will present more on this topic as this discussion evolves. However I will now move on to the discussion regarding the First Bulgarian Empire and Byzantine Empire.

Please note that Athenean has edited both of these articles. His premise seems to be that it is peacocky to say that the First Bulgarian Empire was one of the most powerful of its time and for a time the cultural centre of Slavic Europe, even whilst sources have been provided to back this up. At the same time, he believes that is quite alright to include the following line in the Byzantine Empire lede:

"The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe..."

He has also maintained that within the First Bulgarian Empire lede, the Bulgars must not only be mentioned but in fact defined as Turkic. Some of the other editors found this to be very strange, as it is not customary to include such detailed ethnic information in the lede while excluding mention of other ethnic groups also involved in the social dynamics of the time. Thus I stated that if it is acceptable for one ethnicity to be mentioned, then all other ethnicities involved must be included as the state in question was multi-ethnic. The Turkic Bulgars conquered the territory from the Byzantine Empire, established themselves as a ruling elite and were gradually over a period of three centuries assimilated by formerly Byzantine populations (primarily Slavs). In other words, it would be unreasonable to include one detailed element of history to the exclusion of other components that complete the picture. Furthermore, I asked them if they believe the same standards should be applied to the Byzantine Empire article. After all, its roots are Latin, and further enriched by Vlachs, Greeks, Coptics, Georgians, Armenians, Arabs, Persians, etc... Unfortunately they neglected to answer this even whilst they continued to insist that only a partial informational element be applied to the Bulgarian article in question.

Let me also mention that I have supported my statements with academic sources. Here are just a few of the sources I have used during said discussions:

1)- (Hammond, 1976) Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas‎ - Page 67

2)- (Ference, 1994) Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history‎ - Page 61

3)- (Cramton, 1987) A short history of modern Bulgaria‎ - Page 2

4)- (multiple authors, 1980) Academic American encyclopedia, Volume 10‎ - Page 556

5)- (multiple authors, 1993) Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 1‎ - Page 750

6)- (Medieval Academy of America, 1950) Speculum, Volume 25‎ - Page 529

7)- (Setton, 1974) Europe and the Levant in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance‎ - Page 617

8)- (Dobson et al, 2000) Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1‎ - Page 1581

9)- (Shashi, 1992) Encyclopaedia of humanities and social sciences‎ - Page 1207

10)- (Obolensky, 1994) Byzantium and the Slavs‎ - Page 9

11)- (Stoyanov, 1994) The hidden tradition in Europe‎ - Page 109

12)- (multiple authors, 1989) Library of Congress Classification Schedules D History General and Old World‎ - Page 181

13)- (McCarty et al, 1999) Masks: Faces of Culture‎ - Page 133

As for the power of the First Bulgarian Empire here is what the "Encyclopaedia Britannica, A New Survey of Universal Knowledge, Volume 4 - page 37" has to say:

"The national power (of the First Bulgarian Empire) reached its zenith under Simeon (893-927), a monarch distinguished in the arts of war and peace. In his reign, 'Bulgaria assumed rank among the civilized powers of earth.' His dominions extended from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, and from the borders of Thessaly to the Save and the Carpathians. Having become the most powerful monarch in Eastern Europe, Simeon assumed the style of 'Emperor and Autocrat of all the Bulgars and Greeks' (tsar i samodrzhetz usem Blgarom i Grkom), a title which was recognized by Pope Formosus."

I have added a number of other sources regarding other points of dispute.

With regard to the Bulgar conquerers being assimilated (therefore a portion of a complex ethnic amalgamation):

14)- Graboïs, A. (1980). The illustrated encyclopaedia of medieval civilization. New York: Mayflower Books., p. 148

15)- The South Slav journal: 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. (1989). The South Slav journal, 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. London: the journal., p. 4

16)- Ference, G. C. (1994). Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history. Detroit, MI: Gale Research., p. 61

With regard to Tervel being the first foreigner to receive the title Caeser:

17)- Ostrogorski, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine state. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press., p. 143

Regarding the First Bulgarian Empire being a cultural centre of Slavic Europe:

18)- Sedlar, J. W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. A History of East Central Europe, v. 3. Seattle: University of Washington Press., p. 426

19)- Hussey, J. M. (1990). The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford history of the Christian Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press., p. 100

20)- Encyclopaedia britannica: A new survey of universal knowledge., Volume 4, Part 4A. (2009). Chicago: Encyclopaedia britannica., p. 37

Athenean responded to this by telling me that I did not include page numbers and therefore the sources I provided were not valid. The reality however is that I provided page numbers for each of the 20 sources from the very start and anyone who looked carefully at what I had written would have been able to take note of this. Thus Athenean's attempt to disregard the sources provided in my post was neither objective nor ethical. Soon after, Alexikoua stated that the Encyclopaedia Britannica source is unacceptable, as he claimed that tertiary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. However this is strange when he had previously said nothing of the Britannica source used to reference the Turkic ancestry of the Bulgars. He also accused me of creating source chaos because I was apparently using too many sources to prove a point, even though again he said nothing of the nine sources used to reference the Turkic roots of the Bulgars.

Kostja and Gligan defended what I posted and said the following:

"So, it is a chaos of sources when he [Monshuai] proves something that you don't like but it is not chaos of sources to put nine references that the Bulgars were Turkic people. If Britannica is not valid, remove only that reference and do not use it as an excuse to remove all. That is not constructive at all. -- Gligan (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)"

Kostja added to this by saying, "I should add that tertiary sources are permitted, especially high quality ones like Brittanica:

[215].

Kostja (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)"

Now before this discussion moves on I must ask that only neutral administrators who are not involved nor ever have been involved with Balkan related articles analyze this predicament. I believe that all people (myself included) are liable to subjectivity and therefore an external and maximally neutral perspective is warranted. In this case it seems that editors and an administrator who stem from this region, in particular a country of this region, are attempting to cast me in negative light. What I think is strange is that every time I proposed to take this issue to WP:ANI they disagreed. However once I presented 20 reliable sources (shown above), they rushed here. Ironic, especially when I'm the person who has backed statements with reliable academic sources!

I believe that it is fair that I be scrutinized as you deem necessary. After all, I do not hide the fact that I am fallible and thereby I adhere to the philosophy that my personal defects be discussed openly. Though I strive to learn as much as I can about the world, I, like everyone else, have limitations. Said another way, this is certainly a valuable convention whereby individual and collective fallacies that are embedded in the virtual fabric of this encyclopaedia can be exposed, interpreted, categorized and improved. That applies to everyone who is a part of this community including those that use double standards. Therefore I will answer your questions and continue to provide sources to back my statements whilst utilizing (as I have recently done) deductive, abductive and inductive reasoning to elucidate my premises, rather than just give my opinions. From the onset this is what I have done in talk pages whilst facing countering statements that are not backed by such references. I also think that the other involved parties be scrutinized under the same lenses of maximal objectivity.

I am now going to discuss a comment made above by Future Perfect at Sunrise. He stated that I have previously been blocked by WP:ARBMAC. This is not true. I have been blocked once (for a 24 hour period) in the 3.5 years that I've been here. The reason being was that I made the mistake of revert warring, something I no longer do (hence backing my statements with sources in discussion pages and only making edits when backed by internal article links and reliable primary, secondary and encyclopaedic tertiary sources). Unfortunately at the time of making said transgression (3RR-24h), I believed that all theories about the Bulgars' ancestry be included in the article, as there did not seem to be absolute consensus amongst academics regarding their origins. I was under the impression that Dr. Peter Dobrev's Iranian-Bulgar theory was properly referenced and peer reviewed. However after studying the issue I came to the conclusion that his theory was not supported by a majority of the academic community and therefore most of the evidence pointed to the (Hunno-Bulgar) Turkic theory being correct. In other words, through intense research and education I came to view the Iranian hypothesis that I previously supported as being what Wikipedians refer to as a fringe theory. Therefore I stopped supporting its inclusion and all my edits hence forth were in favour of the Hunno-Bulgar Turkic theory. I have also read about the theory proposed by Dr. Shin Yong-Ha that the Bulgars originally stem from the Korean Peninsula as the Bu-Yeo culture that then migrated to the region presently known as Greater Mongolia. It seems Dr. Shin's premise directly ties to the primary theories about the Bulgars' Altaic (Turkic) origins. In other words, there is growing evidence that the Bulgars stem from central regions of north-eastern Asia. In light of this I was the one that made the edit that the Bulgars originate in the steppes of Mongolia.

I must also ask the following question. What is Wikipedia's policy toward users who wrongfully accuse an editor of having a sock puppet? It is not acceptable for people to say such things without there being repercussions, especially when that issue was already investigated. I was also accused of being a sock puppet of Lantonov. This seems to be a favourite strategy of users who cannot disprove your premise and sources and therefore resort to undermining your credibility by connecting you to other editors. If need be I will find the discussion where this was already discussed (anyone who has access to it please feel free to post a link as it is also in WP:ANI) and I will ask that action be taken against those who are currently using this as a way to undermine my efforts to include numerous sources for the articles in question.

Thank you for your time and please feel free to ask me any questions relating to the issues at hand.--Monshuai (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the ban. To my opinion Monshuai should not be banned. He might be persistent but also he always tries to provide reliable sources and furthermore I think that there is something like double standards between Bulgaria and Greece. What I think is that Monshuai should be advised to use the talk page more often and if his edits are disputed not to edit the article itself but to discuss in the talk page with neutral users (not at all linked to or interested in the Balkans) involved as mediators. I think that recently he is doing exactly that. He really does not deserve to be banned if not at least because of his efforts and the fact that he always provides sources. --Gligan (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support the ban. I recently participated in the discussion in First_Bulgarian_Empire and the behavor of the specific user was really disruptive using hardcore wp:own 'strategy'. While the rest of the users tried to reach a appropriate version for the article's lead, User:Monshuai boycotted all the efforts finally adding a version which was even more unecyclopedic than the initial one [[216]]. (the -cn- tag is prevailing)

Characteristically:

• completely ignored User:Gligan's version: [[217]] which I found a good one.
• also completely ignored User:Cplakidas arguments [[218]] [[219]]. He readded his extreme lead version about Tervel being named Caesar, although he didn't provided a single argument for this.
• insisted on removing that Bulgars, were a Turkic tribe, contradicting User:Gligan's version again [[220]].

Well, actually that is the proposal of Athenean; mine is below and is almost the same with my suggestions put in bold. I also insist on removing that the Bulgars were Turkic (that is mentioned below and is not good for a lead - as if to put Slavic Bulgarians in every lead) and removing Danube Bulgars Khanate (1. - Not applicable for the whole existence of the state; 2. Not the only possible name - it is also called Bulgarian Khanate and Danube Bulgaria; 3. It is out of context - I have put the term in one of the first sections where it is explained why is that term used sometimes.) --Gligan (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that the rest of the Bulgarian users are really willing to discuss the issues, most of them Assume good faith, but Monshuai's extreme edits lead to nothing but creating battlegrounds. Since it's not the first time he tries to initiate a battleground his ban should be the only solution. Very good job User:Athenean.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, this phrase by User:Monshuai isn't a really good approach: [Now before this discussion moves on I must ask that only neutral administrators who are not involved nor ever have been involved with Balkan related articles analyze this predicament.] meaning that we have also non-neutral administrators here. We should better avoid such comments without giving appropriate explanations. Also giving 20 source in lead is contrary to [wp:lead], they sould be mentioned in the appropriate sections of the main text.Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean are you willing to discuss the use of double standards? As shown in my statement above, all my comments and edits were backed and continue to be backed by reliable sources, something that you tried to disregard. I also ask, what punishment should there be for Athenean after accusing me of having a sock puppet when this is not only a lie but something already investigated and disproven? I believe this is evidence that due to an inability to discredit the sources I have provided said user has attempted to tie me with other editors. Consequently I must ask, how many reliable sources did he provide to back his statements in the First Bulgaria Article discussion page? Everyone can look at the edit history of the article and see that he repeatedly removed credible sources. As Gligan said to Athenean, he was being unproductive.

So please try to discredit the sources if you have a problem with the statements I have made in the First Bulgarian Empire discussion page, because no matter what you say about me I am not the one who wrote those books. In other words, however you try to attack me, the sources I use remain credible.

@Alexikoua, with regard to Tervel, how can you say I didn't provide a single argument when in fact I provided many including a source about his precedent? I will once again post that source:

Ostrogorski, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine state. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press., p. 143

I'm also not sure what exactly you mean by us having to avoid comments about non-neutral administrators. Administrators are people, and as such are not completely neutral. However neutrality can be maximized when administrators that are as Gligan puts it, "neutral users (not at all linked to or interested in the Balkans) involved as mediators."

I also invite everyone to read the primary comment I posted above, including the sources I have provided.--Monshuai (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. By any means, User:Monshuai can be qualified as disruptive. Certainly he has made constructive edits in the past by introducing sources to some statements (even though this has led to onverinflation of articles or sections); but considering the number of recent and rather destructive ones (such as the aforementioned by User:Athenean), a bit more severe measures should be taken. Talk pages are being flooded with enormous amounts of words, and why ? Because somebody does not agree about a single word in a head section, or because the given article doesn't follow the exact same model of another, and many other such "issues" that are certainly not worth the sizzles.

Playing the "double standards" card or any tricks like that won't work, because the user has persistently refused to aknowledge other opinions and impose his own, as seen in the discussions of Bulgaria [221], and First Bulgarian Empire [222]. It's not about facts or sources here; we're talking about the "article ownership" attitude and lack of understanding to any change that doesn't reflect Monshuai's point of view. Any logical proposition by other users gets drowned by Monshuai in a storm of random arguments and accusations about "misjudgement" (or anything like that) [223]. All of the users he has argued with, have been neutral, and none of them tried to impose a biased point of view. No matter at what level we discuss this, there is a general consensus about the negative essence of Monshuai's actions. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tourbillon says that I pretend to have "article ownership", whereas in fact of the last 500 article edits of the Bulgaria article 106 are by him. In comparison I have made 11 of the last 500 edits there. In other words, his edits comprise 21.2% of the edits/reverts, while mine comprise 2.2%. So as you can see, rather than just make edits like Tourbillon, I discuss issues in the talk page. I also use sources to back my statements. I also want to note that on Tourbillon's user page he states that he does "NOT care about democratic principles, supports authoritarian rule, and is against democratic fanaticism." Is that the kind of neutrality he speaks of? Is that what Wikipedia principles are? Unlike Tourbillon, I don't like the authoritarian control he values, including his self-righteous proclamation that he and other involved users are neutral. Human beings, especially those involved in specific issues, are not neutral (including me). I however can admit it! Finally, unlike him I am for democratic principles especially the right to share one's view and to use sources to back it. --Monshuai (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The number of edits I have made to the Bulgaria page have seen an introduction of sources, removal of unsourced information, reduction of the enormous size of the article, and so on. I never stated my opinion there neither have I imposed it, nor have I argued with at least 5 people to prove them I'm completely correct (so, ironically, my "un-democratic values" have shown more understanding towards other opinions than yours). The few edits you have made, have brought you here - so I'm not sure whether I should be a subject of discussion here at all. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who said I claim to have article ownership, whereas based on your edit history it is you who dominates said article. Also, I believe it is fully democratic to intellectually debate with as you say "at least 5 people", unless of course you consider the opinion of at least 5 people to be reflective of a democratic majority or worse yet the authoritarian regime you support. Based on your views about authoritarian rule and your NOT caring about democratic principles, it is clear why you maintain the Bulgaria article as you see fit and thereby have attempted to stop me from sharing statements backed by sources in the talk pages.--Monshuai (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations are once again hollow - because apparently you do not make a difference between "number of edits" and "essence of edits". Nobody has a limitation on how many edits to make; if an article had a number of (neutrality, factual accuracy, verifiability) issues, they were to be fixed. As I did, and nobody reverted the changes I made. My edits have been constructive, yours - mostly destructive. I have discussed freely page content with other users - you have rejected their opinions. So please do not talk about me, we are discussing your actions here. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are deflecting scrutiny of your values and actions, which is unethical. In other words, you have the right to say anything about me, but I don't have the right to point out what you yourself admit to think and likewise what you do? You also say that no one has a limitation on how many edits they make. There is also no limitation on how many statements one makes in a talk page, especially when they are backed by sources and when one is using that talk page in order to avoid a revert war. The fact that you do not want me to discuss you is also undemocratic. Remember you came here to discuss me before I even had a chance to know about what was being said and therefore before I could defend myself, whereas the only time I discuss you (or others) is when you have full knowledge of my comments.--Monshuai (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Proofreader77 Indef Block consensus review.

ProofReader is currently blocked. He was originally blocked for 48 hours and then recently this was extended to indefinite. With the utmost respect to User:Gwen Gale I think this is a bit extreme. The user is blocked and is doing what he normally does in his blocks, gather documentation and talk about going to ARBCOM. However it is on his talkpage.....and if admin simply WP:DENY or salt his talk page during his block the issue is solved. I also didn't see justification for the block lengthing and find it somewhat punitive aalthough it may not have been meant that way. I'd like to have the community discuss to gain a Consensus on if this is a way we want to go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The indefinite length is wholly preventative. If Pr77 carries on with wikilawyering, trolling and months-long threats to take flocks of editors to arbcom, which are meant only to frighten others from dealing with him, his talk page should be shut down too. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support the indefinite block, which does not necessarily mean "permanent," and agree with Gwen's comment above. The fact that the user "is doing what he normally does in his blocks" speaks to the general problem here, namely that Proofreader77 has engaged in troubling and at times bizarre behavior of a disruptive nature in the past. There is no sign of that stopping, and it's already wasted a lot of time. This latest incident that led to the initial block was discussed here. Personally I have severe doubts that Proofreader77 is contributing in good faith, and given past incidents I think an indefinite block is completely appropriate. If there was any indication that the behavior was going to change then certainly an unblock would be worth considering. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

He's said he was taking people to arbcom before. To my knowledge he never has, let him vent his frustrations. If you think that salting the talkpage will help great but a indef for documentation for something he fels is unfair. It isn't paticullarly disruptive if you ignore it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not lengthen the block to indefinite because of his sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Blocks, including indefinite blocks, do not require consensus to impose; they however generally require consensus (or ArbCom) to overturn. So far the blocked user himself has not yet made an unblock request, so an ANI discussion is probably premature. That said, I am not quite sure why the block was increased from 48h to indefinite. Just because of the weird wikilawyering on the user talk page? A block won't stop that.  Sandstein  22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To Hell In A Bucket, I respectively disagree and think Proofreader's behavior is quite disruptive, though the issue goes well beyond what was posted at that editor's talk page. As I said at WP:AN, I would have supported an indef simply because of the behavior discussed there and the past problems. Almost every comment I've ever seen from Proofreader77 involved mockery, jokey poetry, or drama-mongering (often all three combined). If there is something else I'm missing let me know, but the positive contributions would have to be pretty strong to outweigh what seems a clear path of disruptive editing, the reasons for which are difficult to comprehend. We're all volunteers with limited time and one of the things we need to get a lot better at collectively is saying "you're not helping, rather you're wasting our time with this nonsense, go away now" to people who are here to play games and stir the proverbial pot rather than help write and maintain the encyclopedia. I think that's where we are at with Proofreader77, but I'm serious when I say you should let me know if there are a bunch of positives I'm missing which should cause us to reach out to this editor and try to deal with the problems. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have my differences with Proof. He can be irritating and I was invovled with his first block. Yes he is a bit eccentric with the poems and such, but as you point out we are all volunteers and he has made monetary contributions for us to be here. I'm not suggesting this gives him carte blanche in anyway to be disruptive but it is something to consider. He's been here a few years and does have wiki's best interest in heart. If you can point out how he doesn't I'd be interested in knowing but if that is my base premise on Proof I simply understand he has a unique way of expressing himself to the community and I'm not the person who has to like it. He does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs)

The fact that Proofreader donated money could not be less relevant, and indeed from what I can gather in the past the user was essentially threatening to not do that anymore (or take it back) if something did not go their way. That's not good. My point is not that Proofreader does not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart—perhaps they do (I have no idea). My point is that the evidence of disruption is extensive and ongoing. We can't accommodate people who maybe are trying to help but who in all their time here go after others, disrupt conversations, and generally waste time and piss people off (if everyone has a problem with how they communicate, that's pretty relevant). We have behavioral norms so we can work together, and people who can't follow them should not be here, just as is the case for organizations (volunteer or otherwise) in the real world. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Threatening to go to arbcom" as justification for an indef? Asking for a proper block notice is wikilawyering? Pathetic. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, if Proofread77 has made good contributions recently that would suggest we should keep them around I'm very much open to hearing about them, all I've seen is disruptive editing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support If this was only about the threat to go to ArbCom, I would oppose. However, this user has a history of problematic edits to Wikipedia and user talk space. I don't see this changing, and the only unblock I would support would a limited one for him to finally file his long promised case against anyone and everyone. AniMate 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So if you cut your finger with a paper you amputate the hand? That doesn't make sense....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you keep cutting your fingers off, it might not be a bad idea though. He's consistently disruptive. We don't need an editor like that. AniMate 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef Block I browsed over the myriad of links prior to this, and I definite agree that Gwen Gale was out of line. However, i'm not sure why he was blocked in the first place, and i'd be happy to get more information on what exactly happened here. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Pr77 has a history of being problematic and refusing to get the point when blocked. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but maybe a month or so away from the project might help him get the point. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support ...reluctantly. The rationale would seem weak normally, but he adds those freaking little "documentations" things in places other than his userspace, wherever something happens that he disagrees with. Proofreader has consistently shown himself to be a non-constructive presence at this encyclopedia. He's a dick to everyone, and the incident] with User:Rodhullandemu, that originally sparked the exchange that led to the block, is just the latest example. If he wants to vent, he should write an essay in userspace or something, rather than continually remind everyone he comes into contact with about how badly everything works around here and that eventually he plans to do something about it. It's enough already. I'd support unblocking him if he said he'd stop with that crap, though I'm not sure if he has the ability to understand what exactly the problem is. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:06, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
• About bloody time. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support As said by others already, the user has a history of being problematic, and given the threats for arbcom and the general...stubbornness(?) I would almost call it contempt (per arbcom threats)...he shows when people tell him he's in the wrong, he doesn't seem to have the right attitude for an encyclopedia at the moment. However, also as stated above, indefinite != permanent. I would also like to see him actually file an arbitration request as he has long been promising rather than holding it as a threat over everyone's heads. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - NLT generally exists to prevent users from coercing other users to do what they want. Arbcom is essentially our court system, and 77 was threatening anyone who he had thought wronged him, or disagreed with him with with a potential case about their own actions. Yes, NLT was aimed at the actual court systems, but the fact remains that 77 was using Arbcom to get other users to stop discussing his poor behavior. If this block remains, he'll hopefully someday realize why it is bad to act as he has been. Why it is bad to threaten users to get what you want. This kind of stuff shouldn't be allowed(threatening with arbcom to coerce). Long deserved, good block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral One of the things that I think everyone needs to remember here is that while forceful, he still has his points. I think in a sense, he has been disruptive, and does in fact deserve a block. Comments, Allegations, etc. seem to only stem when he is backed against a wall and he wants to force his way out. We, as Wikipedians, need to remember the difference between reality and the online world. He, in essence, has not shown he can differ between the two. I support a block, but I oppose an indef block. While disruptive, he has shown that he can be a constructive editor. I think that one of the larger underlying issues is that there may have been bad faith blocks made in the past, and there is still a grudge being held there. If there is, ArbCom cannot help him there. That is the past, and as such, he needs to get over it. If he has such an issue with Sysops on Wikipedia, then he shouldn't edit here. If he continues to try to make a point, I think that an Indef block might be acceptable, as the disruption could possibly be more than on his userpage and talk page. Continuously crying and saying "I'm going to ArbCom" or "I'm collecting evidence for ArbCom" only shows that he is not willing to accept a penalty for his actions. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked this above and really would be interested in any information, but on what basis do you conclude that Proofreader "has shown that he can be a constructive editor?" I don't doubt you and am not familiar with Proofreaders' every contribution, but I've scrolled through the last 1500 edits (which go back to late December) and do not see a whole lot there besides talk page comments and notes in drama forums. It seems the only article this editor has created is Fang Xingdong which is about someone who has a web site with a name like Proofreaders' own web site. My point is that I'd be much more inclined to work something out with this editor if there was evidence they were really helping out the project, but I just have not see that, or at least not anytime in the recent past. If there is something I'm missing, which is quite possible, please let me know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support He's been disruptive, and his constant threats of going to Arbcom are just threats to frighten off other editors. Now, he can finally have time to file that long-awaited Arbcom case, and see what they think. And for the last time, no one should care how much money he's donated. Dayewalker (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef Block. It's to extreeme. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any diffs for blockable behavior, or any significant discussion prior to the block. It's hard for any uninvolved editor like myself to see why this account was blocked indefinitely. Folks should really do a better job of documenting blocks for non-obvious reasons like "trolling".   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The block is for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruption of what?   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How did he disrupt the encyclopedia? Can you please explain more fully with diffs? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, and for the first and hopefully last time in my entire life, I agree with DuncanHill and Doc Quintana. This is not the first time I have seen Gwen Gale use admin tools in an abrupt way when another admin has already dealt with the situation. This is a terrible, terrible block. Tan | 39 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose as per Tan. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - With Gwen Gale's almost refusal to provide any form of diffs for this block and where she directs at the bottom sub-section to go to her talk page (when there she direct users to this ANI thread), I see no reason for an indef block when there are little to no diffs and lots of questions. Request an uninvolved admin roll the block back to the previous 2 weeks 2 days until Gwen Gale can produce some diffs on why this has to be an indef block, otherwise it just looks like punishment than a block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It was actually 2 Days. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

HellinaBucket is correct and I will change that. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose- Proofreader was a bit obtrusive but nothing imo worthy of an indef.Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• 'Comment Proof has not, at this moment, requested an unblock. PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Indefinite is a very nuanced tariff, mostly it is "forever" but sometimes it is "for as long as necessary" - if this was "for as long as necessary" then I would support, but the response above indicates that most people would want it to be "forever"... and I do not see the disruption being so severe as to require that. I also have some dealings with P77, and while eccentric do not raise to the level of disruption - I also think that having someone with a different perspective, one who makes others take the trouble to rationalise what they are doing, is of a benefit to the project. Such an individual is Proofreader77, and I think a fairly long but finite block is all that is required in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Question For Gwen Gale

Could you provide some diffs explaining why an indef block is necessary here? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I already answered this on my talk page. When I asked you to take this to ANI, I was thinking of any further input you might have. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't answer this at all, you just said look at his contributions, which number around 15,000. Can you please answer the question? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way, click on any 20 of his contributions from the last one or two months and the pattern straightforwardly shows up. If you don't agree, that's what this thread is for. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, stop beating around the bush and give us some diffs or this looks like admin abuse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. If I had administative powers, I would revert the indef block at this point. I am not sure about the 48 hour block, but I am definitely sure now that the indef block is inappropriate. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I say I have my differences with Proof but I had my own block extended at one point in this same manner. Proof documentating a case for arbcom is his own thing. That is his business Christ if the shoe fits wear it, if not brush it off and have confidence in your own actions and his documentation will lead nowhere. It does sometimes appear to be a bit crusader but if he feels there is a issue he can appeal to Arbcom. Blocking him for preparing his case is ludicrous and can be seen as a appeal to fear for both sides. Per the blocking policy unless he commits another infraction while being blocked that he has previously been warned for the original block should never be lengthened. Most of this can be immediately cleared up with a specific diff that violates a referenced policy, thus justifying the need for extending the already proscribed remedy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Some folks here really ought to do what Gwen is suggesting, even if you think it comes across as a brush off—click on any set of 20 diffs from the last couple of months and determine if you think this is really a user who is here to help, or to have a bit of a laugh and waste time. It's one thing to object to an indef block, but there's a reason this editor has been blocked three times before, and why they were blocked for 48 hours just prior to this (which related to an incident where they were basically taunting a fellow contributor). I'll look and throw together some diffs, but it's not an exaggeration to say you can click at random on this user's contribution's list and find little but problems. I'd like to see those opposing the block explain what Proofreader77 has contributed to the encyclopedia. This is a serious question and I've asked it several times without having it answered—indeffing this account seems a no-brainer to me since I've seen nothing but low-level (and sometimes high-level) disruption from it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the next block could be indefinite but this is out of procedure. After the remedy is handed down by the blocking admin the editor must offend another policy. One of the references to legal threats above is a joke. We start using our own policy as legal threats is absurd, what is next blocking for a ANI thread threat? Let's look at the current institution of the indef block as to what offense warranted it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't lengthen the block for legal threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To Hell in a Bucket, Wikipedia is not for process wonkery or "procedure" for the sake of it, it's an encyclopedia. Do you think Proofreader has done anything to help that endeavor of late? I haven't seen it, and when I asked you for evidence above you provided none other than "they gave us some money." I have seen an extraordinary amount of disruption which wastes the limited amount of time we all have. If it's important to folks that we have a big pow-wow and analyze diffs endlessly before doing absolutely nothing and letting Proofreader pursue their agenda of writing poems, threatening ArbCom cases, and toying with other editors then so be it, but y'alls can handle it next time when Proofreader gets unblocked and starts disrupting the project again as will inevitably occur. Honestly, at times it's necessary to apply a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE, and surely common sense suggests this person is an obvious net negative to the project. Not one person has suggested otherwise as yet which is telling. Probably some admin will come along and unblock, but as far as I'm concerned future disruption by Proofreader is on the shoulders of that person and others who have commented here in support of the unblock out of fear or "admin abuse." Indeffing disruptive accounts protects the project, which is what admins are supposed to be doing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As regards contribs, here's the bigger picture, which I add without comment. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, what did you lengthen the block for and provide diffs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NeutralHomer have you looked at Proofreader's block log and contributions history? Do you see anything in the latter in the last couple thousand edits that suggests this is a person who is here to help us, rather than make odd comments and have a go at various people? I'm asking in all seriousness, because it seems plain as day to me that this account has done nothing but edit disruptively for quite some time, which is in and of itself a reason to indef block. And I will try to add some diffs here, but seriously go click on some things at random and see for yourself. It's good to understand the context before crying admin abuse. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

His blocks were for being annoying more or less. This doesn't mean we show him the door. Look at his contribs, 40% in articles? So what he's annoying ignore him, don't make it a personal issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, it isn't shouldn't (and isn't) your place (but thank you for doing so) to add those diffs. If Gwen Gale wants this block to be upheld, she needs to be forward with the diffs, give as much information as possible on what she though this block was needed to be indef. So far, she has been vague, withholding and kinda rude when it comes to answers on most questions about this block, which makes me question if the block is even needed in the first place and whether Gwen Gale is acting in good faith (yeah, I am going there). When an admin refuses to provide any information on a block they have made, it is our duty to overturn it until they can do so, willing or not. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruption isn't allowed because it drives away helpful volunteer editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, please stop giving bromidic boilerplate answers and explain yourself. It's great that Bigtimepeace is fighting your fight for you, but maybe you could summon up the energy for more than a sentence? There's clearly concern here. Tan | 39 01:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with anything in that post, Tan. So far as I can tell, you don't seem to think Pr77 is likely to be disruptive after 48 hours. I think otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So your answer to everything here is to simply state, over and over, that any pertinent facts are so blindingly obvious that there is absolutely no need to explain yourself, other than making sure you say a variant of the word "disrupt" many, many times? I think I'm going to overturn this indef block. Tan | 39 01:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're angry. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Call. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok what disruption did you extend the block for? sometimes everyone makes bad decisions but if it is as clear as you claim it to be it should be little matter and effort to show the offense warranting the extention. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You should look at hist past 2000 edits stretching back a couple of months or so (only 99 edits in article space). A vastly different pattern. He needs to go back to article writing. A project and/or user talk ban should help, temporarility at least. Pcap ping 01:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no disruption on this contribs, I seen him being an annoyance at the most, but that can be ignored easily...overturn the block and let's move on. Gwen Gale hasn't given us any motive to keep this block at indef. Overturn back to 2 days or even time served and I highly recommend Gwen Gale be taken before ArbCom for this. This is a definite bad act and not becoming of a respected (and she was to me before this point) admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Some editors think Pr77 has been highly disruptive and others don't think Pr77 has been disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What that sentence right there shows me is you have zero reason for your extension of this block to indef. I have definitely lost all respect I had for you over this incident and believe you need to turn in your adminship immediately if you can't use it better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given my reasons, you disagree as to the level of disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you have given extremely vague reasons with no evidence to back it up. That is not what a good admin does. Sorry, but you haven't swayed anyone with your vague answers and no evidence. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that this user's conduct should be requested for comment. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, who are you to recommend anything, Mister Fifteen Edits To Their Name? In fact, the fact that you seem to know your way with wikicode makes you smell somewhat sock-like.HalfShadow 02:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the swastikas on my UTF-8 system. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to participate in discussion regardless of edit count or how new they are right? 卐 The Main Edge 卐 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

• An involved party should just file an arbitration case, please. It's clear there's not going to be consensus here, and far too much repetitive argumentation. Besides, Proofreader77 indicates on his talk page that this is what he wants. Pcap ping 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Link, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • [224] Pcap ping 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Filed [[225]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed

Based on the refusal of the extending admin to back up block extention by policy, we should revert to the original 2 day block. Proofreader77 should be admonished he is on thin ice and the community would like to see the Arbcom case filed or dropped. Dragging on is unacceptable and it can lead to indefinite blocks in the future if the disruption warrants it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per above.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever. I'll support so long as everyone freaking out about the indef gets a trout slap once the account is again indeffed in the future (after it's wasted a lot of time in the interim) either here or at a long, stupid ArbCom case (and that will happen). This is a triumph of process wonkery over basic common sense as to what kind of contributors we want around here, but we often do a terrible job of applying common sense in these kind of situations. It should also be noted that Gwen's block (and I don't even know Gwen) was supported by 8 people immediately, so the idea that it was wildly out of process and inappropriate is absurd—it apparently did not have consensus, but that does happen from time to time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Sure Works for me. Diffs next time though. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Done

I reinstated the original 48-hour block per the above. While I feel that it would be a delicious irony to simply let it be without explaining myself (perhaps stating the term "inappropriate" a lot, in lieu of anything else), I'll say that admins should not simply extend blocks - especially to indefinite - without having a strong argument to support themselves. As it became painfully clear that Gwen Gale had no argument prepared and isn't likely to prepare one anytime soon, I reinstated Fut. Perf's original block. Tan | 39 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You did so without consensus and your rationale, as put forth here, is mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Given your penchant for handing out indefinite blocks after admins have already meted out shorter blocks - with nary an attempt to discuss it with the admin first - I'd say that it's you that's short on consensus. Tan | 39 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see consensus above for a permanent block. Did you miss it? And are the opinions of other editors of no value compared with that of the blocking admin? Does the expressed wish of the community mean nothing to you? Rodhullandemu 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

8-8 is a consensus? Since when? Did I miss it? Are the opinions of the eight dissenting editors of no value compared with the other eight? Tan | 39 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about numbers, it's about strength of arguments. Whereas one or two of the supports might reasonable be discounted, so equally can one or two of the opposes. The remaining opposes are largely based on lack of evidence to upgrade the block, whereas the remaining supports are based on longitudinal assessments of this editor's disruptive behaviour- and that, to me, is the distinction. There comes a time when an admin is duty bound to take action to protect the encyclopedia (remember that?) against negative influences. I'm not convinced that a case has been made either that Proofreader77's recent (i.e. going back to December) behaviour has been of net benefit to the encyclopedia, or that previous blocks have been effective in making that point to him. Taking a longer view, I don't necessarily see that situation improving, although that is up to him, and I can confidently predict that we'll be back here before long. Rodhullandemu 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'll confidently predict we'll be back here before long. I hope I'm wrong, as I often am, but I'm also confident in my stance in this block. Gwen had every opportunity to explain herself, and instead opted to, well, not explain herself. An admin had already assessed the situation and plotted a course of action. For another admin to unilaterally (save the irony comments) lengthen the block (from 48 hours to indefinitely, no less), without any discussion, explanation, reasoning, etc. is simply wrong. Look at her attempts to deflect responsibility above; it's astonishing. Tan | 39 02:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on IRONY, Gwen you claim Tan has changed the block out of process, yet you fail to explain how your original modification was based on. Can't you see the hypocrisy? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'd just point out Sandstein's comment above, that indefs don't require consensus to impose, but do require consensus to overturn. I'm not seeing said consensus here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:05, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  There was no evidence for the block in the first place, so the block was nothing but punishment, which is not allowed. Tan's overturning of the indef block was a good call. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Regardless, the question of whether the indef was indeed inappropriate should be left up to consensus, not the unilateral decision of you or an admin. I don't see consensus here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:10, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

  Well, it has been undone, so it doesn't matter. Hell in a Bucket below makes a very good point (you should read it). This entire thread should be marked as resolved and closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also look at the fact thaqt most of the issue is personal dislike and annoyance. The proposed action doesn't protect him if he fucks things up, just gives him enough rope to either get himself out of the corner he is in or hang himself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Overturning was fine given the reaction (even though it's a dumb outcome), but eight other people supported the block almost right away. It's wrong to suggest that this was something horribly bad on Gwen Gale's part, she extended a block of an obviously problematic user, a lot of people agreed, but just as many or more disagreed, so the block was overturned, and now the user can continue to create problems. Like I said it's dumb, but beyond that there's nothing to get worked up about here. Let's hope Proofreader does not waste too much of our time in the week's ahead, but I won't hold my breath. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Call it principle. I'm willing to listen to a whole lot of "I told you so" if it means that admins are required to explain their indefinite blocks (in the face of concern) with more than Gwen mustered above. Tan | 39 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We can only hope he makes the right decision you are correct. But next time the case would be lock stock and barrel if he gives a justifiable offense and then it wil be moot. The ball will be in his court. Maybe the thread will make him see some different perspectives. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To Tan39, there's no doubt that Gwen could and should have explained better, but there was no rush to unblock either (indeed none was requested), and you might have let the conversation continue since there was arguably just as much support for the block as non-support. It's obvious that some of those who were asking for an unblock were just not familiar with the background, or the fact that Proofreader recently e-taunted another editor who expressed anger at a comment and explained he had experienced recent trauma in real life (hopefully you know what I'm talking about since it started the whole incident). Honestly to me that was worthy of an indef block all by itself and I said so at an earlier thread on AN, which is maybe even where Gwen got the idea. It's a difficult question round here when it comes to a choice between doing something "on principle" that might result in a shitty outcome or being not strictly process-bound in the interests of doing the right thing. Given that you brought to the table your own past problems with Gwen's admin behavior (and obvious anger over this affair, which comes out in your sarcastic comment after unblocking), I don't think you were the right person to decide what to do here. I do appreciate you taking ownership of the unblock though, and hopefully you'll be the first one to deal with future problems from Proofreader so the rest of us don't have to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• If the block is only 2 days again, can an admin at least please give Proofreader some kind of official notice that once the block expires, he's not to continue with his arbcom threats or "documentations" or else risk being blocked again? I realize he says he'll be filing imminently now, but who knows exactly when he actually will. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:28, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with this as indicated above. A little article creation or work would do him good in lieu of a Arbcom case. If he does choose to do so then it is over and he will have his behavior jkust as closely scrutinzed as those he accuszes of impropriety. Sometimes better to let sleeping dogs lie. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin warning should come from Tanthalas39 who did the unblocking. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, can an admin please issue a formal warning to Proofreader regarding posting his "arbcom documentation" crap? He seems to still be at it. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:23, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I suggest dropping Tan39 a note and asking him to do it if you think the warning is needed—it's best if it comes from the unblocking admin such that the warning is basically part of the unblock (i.e., "your unblock is in part contingent on you not doing X anymore"). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, here's hoping. Thanks for the suggestion. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:46, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Just to say, told you so [226]--Jac16888^Talk 11:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban from Arbcom and editing restrictions against diff gathering for any "potential" arbcom cases

This seems to be something he loves doing. A user disagrees with him, wrongs him, and he threatens arbcom. As far as I have seen, these threats are only used to push other users away. He cannot be allowed to continue this. I know that this is not a real legal threat, but it's just about as close as you can get. NLT was create to prevent people from threatening court action to coerce people into doing what they want or backing off. There should be a separate policy, or a modification of NLT to account for threats to go to arbcom used for coercion. This can't be allowed to continue. I, as the writer of this, obviously support.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nahh, let him file one if he desires. If ARBCOM accepts, then he had a reason to file one, whereas if they reject it, it'll make a stronger statement to him than if we ban him from filing one. However, I would support banning him from threatening other users with going to arbcom (the exception being notifying them if he actually files a case), as that's just ridiculous tactics aimed at getting other editors to "cease and desist" what he doesn't like. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Per your response above, I have downsized and made things more clear. He's basically only allowed to prepare for the case without alerting any of the involved users(as he normally does by posting it all over his talk page), and he is only allowed to alert any of the involved parties if it has been filed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

• Proofreader77 is restricted from threatening or alerting other users of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases unless alerting them of a case already filed, nor can Proofreader77 ask anyone(on or off wiki) to do this for him.
• Diff gathering by Proofreader77, or any user they ask to help them(on or off wiki), must take place on a sub-page in Proofreader77's user space or user talk space. It may not take place on his user page or user talk page.
  • Under no circumstances shall other users be made aware of this page by Proofreader77, or anyone that Proofreader77 has asked(on or off wiki).
    • This page shall not be linked by Proofreader77, or anyone they have asked(on or off wiki), from his talk page, or his userpage. He can easily save a bookmark and watch the page if he wants to keep tabs on it.
• Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 is blocked for (insert good amount of time here).

Per Ks, I have revised the restrictions and tried to outline everything. I believe that sums things up. As the writer of this, I obviously support.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Of course Proofreader77 is able to prepare a case for arbcom, and is able to gather evidence for a likely case in a subpage. However, the irritatingly high noise-to-signal ratio is a problem: please stop talking about proposed arbcom cases, and please stop repeating points that have irritated other editors. It is disruptive, and leads to total time wasting like this discussion (which will not be totally wasted if we can achieve a consensus to reign in Proofreader77's talk page drama). 07:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) signed correctly this time, sorry Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you fix your sig? I don't want to do it for you, as I think you might want to. c.c — Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases makes sense I suppose, but I don't understand the second bit about keeping diffs gathered on a separate page. Whether Proofreader links to it or not, any other editor who checks his or her contributions (which will happen) will immediately "be made aware of" it—you can't really "hide" a page you are editing. As such I'm confused as to why doing this "diff gathering" would be less troublesome at User Talk:Proofreader77/Diffs than at their normal talk page. Even the first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases seems unnecessary to me, though I have no problem with it. This indefinite block had significant (if not sufficient) support, and I think the next time there are any shenanigans there will be resounding support for such a measure. I'm not sure we need to impose any formal restrictions in the interim, and surely Proofreader77 knows they are on thin ice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the bit about it being on a sub-page, this is because when 77 posts these kind of things on their talk, they are either insulting, irritating, or threatening by their very existence, such as when 77 posted that I took 5 edits to undo a resolved tag. Stating such a thing is rather insulting, as I was just having a bit of trouble with the template. There is also no good reason to record perceived flaws as openly as 77 has done in the past. Especially when they have continually threatened arbcom, but never really gone through with it.

In case the above is tl;dr: They use their talk page as a means of an indirect threat against those that are there, or some over project page like ANI, to leave, or they would become a party in his next case. There is no need for that kind of thing here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Edges use of swastikas in signature.

Resolved

 – Blocked as a sock of Pickbothmanlol. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

collapsed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. PBML is likely playing games with us, as usual. This is his MO. Make further relevent comments at the SPI report. Nothing for admins to do here, as this is not a forum for discussing the various usages of symbols.--Jayron32 04:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Just to confirm: CU found that Main Edges, The Antifacist and Blue Eyed Zoni are PBML Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) {{Resolved}} Main Edges is using swastikas in his signature which promote nothing but visual fascist views and this must be dealt with imeddietly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Antifacist (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Click Swastika, educate yourself, and then apologize. Tan | 39 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What Tan said. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Who said I was using them in a fascist way? 卐 The Main Edge 卐 01:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) ec.I think that is also a peace symbol, he is a Buddhist, apparently. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Buddhists and Nazis, whats the difference? The Antifacist (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Wow. Are you being deliberately inflammatory? Reyk YO! 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Put them at a angle you have a case, leave them as is and they are a revered religous symbol for centuries preceding the Nazis. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It's clearly not for Nazi Germany. Trust me, that looks nothing like the Nazi swastika.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) We don't have to trust you; simply click on swastika. Antifacist, is this a single-purpose account? If so, I'll block you now and save us all a lot of time. Tan | 39 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Fuck the Nazis. The Antifacist (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Indeed; bye. Tan | 39 01:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Swastikas were also good luck symbols for aviation pilots in the 1920's and 30's.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Ironically I have reported your username as protional and disruptive. You seem to be here for a point, would you mind sharing with us what it is or if you have been here before? I apoligize if it seems unfriendly but you sure found this place and picked a specific editor out of the crowd pretty quick.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) No point. Tan has already blocked this single-purpose troll for good. Reyk YO! 01:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) FYI, learn how to spell fascist. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 01:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Given that User:Main Edges is a brand-new account, created just today, the folks commenting here seem rather certain that the purpose of the swastikas is not to be disruptive. Perhaps my AGF tank has a hole in it, but I'm not nearly as sure that is the case. I suggest that a weather eye be kept on this editor's contributions, and if they move into Nazi-related territory (broadly construed, as the local term of art has it), then perhaps the signature ought to be altered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Agree. Tan | 39 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I get the impression that even people who've lived their whole lives in India and have never met Westerners in person generally know of the other meaning of the swastika symbol and know that Westerners are often sensitive about it. Aside from that, Im suspicious because Antifacist came here to ANI immediately after creating to post about Main Edge's sig, even though Main Edges had never edited any page that Antifacist had edited. How could he even have known that Main Edges existed? Either they're socks or Antifacist is one person who just so happened to join Wikipedia almost exactly when Main Edges did and just so happened to come across Main Edge's edits and decided that all he cared about was getting Main Edges to change his sig. —Soap— 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Can we get a CU over here please?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Agree. It'd be better off if the swastika was removed altogether, but if the user isn't being disruptive with it, there's no problem. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Does nobody consider this or this an unusual action for a 'new' user? HalfShadow 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Yes it casts a shadow but consider wiki is years old now and many edit here. It's possible to do these functions as a IP. If you have sock concerns file a report but mere suspicion for profiency is unwarranted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I have nothing to hide. You will not find anything from a CU (whatever that means). 卐 The Main Edge 卐 02:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Good, because eyes are being kept on you. You're a bit too proficient, and that makes my sockpuppet sense itch. HalfShadow 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Then your good with letting a WP:CU check your IP and make sure that you are not a sock of someone, right?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sure, like I said before you will not find anything. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 02:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Checkusers don't always win; if they are the same person, he could have decided to use a proxy or a cellphone or something for the throwaway account, and checkuser would not turn that up (altough it would at least geolocate somewhat close if it was a cellphone). —Soap— 02:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) True. But I still think that this needs to be looked into a bit...--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Go ahead, I need to Pee anyways. I will be Back later. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 02:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You mean you don't have a bucket? Rodhullandemu 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What the heck did that mean?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not a CU. We need someone like J. delanoy over here.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What is a CU anyway? 卐 The Main Edge 卐 02:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It wouldn't fly if you turned up at the office and placed a swastika on your desk (rotated or otherwise) claiming you were using it in its context as a Bhuddist symbol and I don't think it should fly here. In Germany you would be breaking the law. It's of no benefit to the project to have this symbol embedded in a signature and if the editor is serious about editing, he won't mind editing without it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Yes. You need to remove this from your sig. And I'm still awaiting that WP:CU....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I disagree, regardless of this user's past editing history. I also can't say "fuck" at work without some probably serious consequences; this isn't a place of employment. If people are ignorant enough about the history of the swastika (including it's current use in Buddhist society/culture) to get offended, I say, fuck 'em. Tan | 39 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You obviously work in a very polite office then! I repeat: it is illegal in Germany. Try the "ignorant of history" defence there and see how far that gets you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC) This isn't Germany. Tan | 39 03:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) That still does'nt solve the possible socking issue....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I still don't know what CU means? 卐 The Main Edge 卐 03:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Whatever the intention, I believe the use of swastikas in a signature is disruptive. Using it at a userpage is a different matter: there the use can be easily put into proper context of connections with Buddism. But when used in a signature, a swastika has a rather different effect. The predominant public perception of swastika is as a Nazi symbol and this is what the great majority of people will reasonably assume the swastika to mean when they see it in a signature, with rather jarring immediate effect. Even if the user does not mean to cause it, the practical effect of using swastika in a signature is disruptive. Nsk92 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe if he could put links to "Peace" and "Luck" in the signature where the swastikas are, ignorant people could be enlightened. Oh, wait, he already has. Such a shame that no readers know how to click on wikilinks. DuncanHill (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Please. I have checked his userpage before commenting and I well understand that there are alternate usages of swastika that are perfectly benign. My point is that the predominant usage is as a Nazi symbol and this is what most people will assume it to mean upon seeing a signature like that. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Quoting from [227], "signatures...encourage civility in discussions". I don't see how this encourages civility when a large proportion of the Western world will - rightly or wrongly - associate this symbol with the Nazis. Look at the amount of debate it is generating here. The solution is simple: remove it, and with it any possibility of misunderstanding. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Did you even click the link that I gave you?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) WHAT DOES CU MEAN? 卐 The Main Edge 卐 03:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Checkuser. And I've created the SPI for you here. —Soap— 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Pickbothmanlol supports the swastikas. Blue Eyed Zoni (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Click the link smart one.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Someone please block User:Blue Eyed Zoni. He admits to being Pickman on the SPI. He is obviously a sock, and possibly the owner of Main Edge. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It's been blocked. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Despite its other meanings the symbol has been hopelessly associated with hate, intolerance, and genocide. It is a shame that this symbol was usurped by such evil people but that is exactly what has happened. The symbol is very likely to be hurtful regardless of any benign meaning or motivation. We should not allow it in a signature. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC) This symbol has been associated with hate. This symbol is corresponds with "thing that is auspicious". A bit different, I would think. If people cannot understand that, then they really should take the opportunity to read the swastika article. NW (Talk) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The difference is not noticeable in the signature in question (and most people are not aware of this difference). Like I said, the predominant usage of swastika is as a Nazi symbol and there is no doubt that this is what a great majority of people seeing the symbol in the signature will assume it to mean. Yes, they can click on various links and figure out that something else might have been meant, but the immediate effect is going to be quite jarring nonetheless. Similarly, I am pretty sure that the abbreviation KKK has some benign meanings not related to Ku Klux Klan, but it is not a good idea to use it in a signature anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) But there is no character for this symbol this symbol is there? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Forgetting the touchy subject of the swastika, I thought signatures were only supposed to contain letters of the user's ID, not symbols, pictures, etc. Unless the swastika itself is part of his ID??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ Much as we'd all like to debate about swastikas and the like, probably both of these accounts are problematic and there's an open SPI case. There's a good chance they will both be blocked, in which case we can put off the discussion about swastikas for a rainy day. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) There's an impressive level of cultural ignorance on display here. It seems that some people need to travel more. The symbol has not been usurped. That's absurd. Statements like "the predominant usage of swastika is as a Nazi symbol" is flat out wrong and stunningly misinformed. Hundreds of millions of people see it everyday in their environments where it means exactly what it meant long before the Nazis and misinformed Westerners took an interest in it. Nevertheless, using 'religious' and various other symbols in a signature seems like a really bad idea whatever they are, swastikas included. Are users allowed to put symbols associated with Abrahamic and other religions into their signatures or symbols that advertise corporations like McDonalds ? I hope not. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. PBML Really, is anyone surprised that PBML has nothing better to do than troll ANI, on Valentine's Day no less? Sad. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I am, however, slightly surprised at the number of more-intelligent folk who got drawn into this. I think we need a corollary to Godwin's Law: any editor employing the swastika in their userpage, their sig, or connected in any way with their Wiki-identity, then batting their lashes and pouting "but it's a Hindu symbol! Really! I mean it!" should be indeffed. I have yet to see a single instance of a user invoking the swastika in such a way who hasn't ended up indeffed, often after a long, tiring debate such as the one above. AGF is fine, and tolerance is grand, but this is en:WP--I doubt highly that there are many people here who are unaware of the Western connotation of the symbol, or that the number of people outraged at its use would likely far outstrip the number of those who have ever seen it used otherwise. What a time-sink--and on a day when you all could have been eating those nasty chalky heart-shaped candies, too. GJC 06:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Symbols in signature?

I was told by admin Alison that this "signature": would be against the rules. Is that true, and if so, how is it any different than posting other illustrations within a signature? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's your signature, i'm going to make my signature Doc Quintana (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures are not allowed in signatures per WP:SIG, but unicode symbols are allowed. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout if I make my own symbol as the Artist formerly known as...Doc Quintana (talk)

Ligatures and glyphs are allowed. As are ${\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {h}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}$ neat characters. :) -- œ^™ 07:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One could probably reproduce the prince symbol with some carefully crafted unicode and html div boxes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To OlEnglish: I'd say no, because technically that is a picture. Minimac (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the specific issue with pictures? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy

Resolved

 – Apparent misunderstanding due to conflicting world maps. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to report Nableezy's misconduct again, this time regarding this file: File:BlueLine.jpg (saved on the Commons). First, he reverted legitimate and well-explained change to a map. He is the only one who objected to the changes, and he did not explain his objection. Then, when I reverted his changes and referred to the explanations, he delivered a personal attack at me here: [228], and here: [229]. DrorK (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork is literally changing international boundaries on maps. Take a look at his idea of the the boundary between Syria and Israel. You can see from this that southeast of Yeshud Hamalaa Drork has arbitrarily annexed Syrian territory into Israel. nableezy - 08:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you didn't look at the latter map closely enough, you haven't noticed that the small triangular area is not part of the Golan Heights but a pre-1967 demilitarized zone. While this information is still relevant to the history of the Golan Heights and the Syrian-Israeli conflict, it is not that relevant to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. In any event, presenting that line as an international boundary is simply an error, and I explained that on the file's talk page. I adapted the map to show the 1923 international border (last internationally recognized border) and the actual area of UNIFIL deployment. This is also explained on the talk page. DrorK (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, you adapted what you yourself recognize as the border and dsiregarded what the UN, the US, the EU and every map I can find says is the the boundary that separates Israel proper from the occupied Golan. Your own personal belief that the borders recognized throughout the world is incorrect is not reason enough to tamper with what is supposed to be a UN map of a UN demarcated boundary. nableezy - 08:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at these official map from the UN website: [230] and here [231] (click on the tif file icon). Next time respect other people's work before accusing them of lying. You could have find these maps yourself. DrorK (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, the UN does not have that area in Syria as I found in this map. My apologies for assuming you had tampered with the UN recognized boundary. Though most other maps, including the US and EU and other states put that territory in Syria. But I apologize for over-reacting. nableezy - 08:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To Drork: Regarding the Commons edits, you may want to mention that to Commons admins if you haven't already.--Rockfang (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Zenanarh

Hi guys. I want you to block me to the end of this century. Here: [232], [233], [234]. Thanks and bye. Zenanarh (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One week block given for deliberate disruptive editing and personal attacks on other editors. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm going to message each of the editors asking them not to take the bait. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Newman Luke

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke that Newman Luke (talk · contribs) is a problemetic editor on Judaism related articles. He is busy again with a sprey of major rewrites to Judaism related articles. When reverted he repeats his edits, in stated disregard for the repeated complaints, and without engaging in discussion. I propose a 24-hour block to force this editor into discussion. I have notified him on his user talk page. [235]Debresser (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser is attempting to Game 3RR (he's just made 3 reverts), and his "discussion" amounts to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newman Luke (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I made three different edits, which is not four identical edits as in the 3RR rule. But that is not the issue. And what about you, repeating your edits? Aren't you familiar with WP:BRD? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I posted a notification about this post on WikiProject Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

Luke, have a read here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Luke's edits. He has improved the article immensely. If there are certain statements that annoy Debresser, he should address them on the talk page.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is almost nothing good among his edits. And if there were major good pieces, I left them. This is precisely the reason that he was posted initially on WikiProject_Judaism. His points of view are so far removed from Judaism, that his edits disrupt the articles. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And please, this is not a matter of my personal "annoyment". Try and keep your language NPOV. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're so interested in NPOV, define "far removed from Judaism" in an NPOV way. Explain what you mean - specific issues. Newman Luke (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I could, but I think that the WikiProject Judaism discussion is the correct place for that. Here I posted only to ask for enforcement to force you to stop making disruptive edits and bring you to the discussion table. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to explain yourself here, or your claims of "disruptive edits", then you should retract this section. You are the disruptive one, as Gilabrand notes. Wikipedia is about building and improving a series of Encyclopedia articles, not about bartering with people who claim to own them. Newman Luke (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut the Wikilawyering, and start discussing your major and contestable rewrites before you make them. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism is where that usually takes place. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want Wikilawyering to be cut out, I suggest you retract this section entirely. As for discussion, if you actually care to point out specific details you think are somehow factually wrong, or inappropriate, then I may well discuss them. As for where discussion should take place, have you never heard of article Talk pages? Newman Luke (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are posted on WikiProject Judaism already (as you are well aware). Because the problem with you is your edit pattern, and not any specific edit, that is the best place to discuss them. If anyone should have used the article talk pages it is you, preferably before making complete revisions, but at least after you were reverted. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is you who claims that. Where have you mentioned a single set of specific edits that you regard as specific contradictions of fact, or otherwise inappropriateness? Mention one - or don't you have any evidence to back up this claim? Either back it up with specific points you think are factually erroneous, etc., or stop disrupting wikipedia. Newman Luke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I encountered this user a little while ago whe he had created a set of articles related to marriage in Judaism. On even casual reading, the content is heavily biased towards a source that is almost 100 years old and was regarded in its day to be biased and informed by radical scholarship. Otherwise he cherry-picks primary sources, many of which have later not been codified as Jewish law. Around these sources he spins theories that amount to original research, only rarely supporting them with appropriate secondary sources.

The user was challenged several times over this pattern of editing. He clearly has lots of time on his hands, and I have no energy to challenge every single huge rewrite of a Judaism-related article. The bottom line is that he engages in original research, which compromises the encyclopedicity of every article he touches. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

He still continues [236], in complete disregard of this discussion and the things pointed out to him, marking his major rewrite a "minor edit" with the edit summary "fix cites". I couldn't have made the point that this editor is being disruptive in a more eloquent way. I again request that this user be blocked for 24 hours, to impress upon him the necessity to change his pattern of editing and engage in discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a minor edit, some of the cites were slightly wrong, others were duplicates, or not as well formatted as they could be. You have already been cautioned for failing to use proper dispute resolution routes - like the article talk page, and instead escalating conflicts into incivility. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. I'm sure the rest of wikipedia would appreciate it if you started complying with that ruling. Now there's some sort of comment about whether you should be blocked there, but I'm not familiar enough to know how Arbitration rulings should be applied, so I'll leave it up to others to discuss that aspect of your behaviour.Newman Luke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not poison the well. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It concluded 2 days ago, and asks you to use proper dispute resolution procedures, but you aren't. I therefore think its extremely relevant here. Newman Luke (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. And what do you call Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and WP:ANI? 2. This is not a Chabad related article. But all of this it moot. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you completely rewrote the lede, other paragraphs, and the section structure [237], it was a very major edit indeed. See Help:Minor edit about what is a minor edit on Wikipedia. So now you are lying as well. Debresser (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't change the lede or structure - [238]. I just changed the format of a few cites, and combined identical ones. Newman Luke (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to admins to be the judge of that. I have on occasion misunderstood diffs. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)