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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

my restrictions

I was told to apply for reinstatement here on March 1st. I am hopeful that enough time has passed and my actions since my probation will allow me to be a fully functioning member of the community again.--Levineps (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of these restrictions are you finding to be a major hindrance to working in wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be off "probation" so to speak and be able to edit categories again. I made some mistakes and I am sorry they happenend.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, your judgment with respect to editing categories was suspect, to say the least. Can you point to something that indicates that your judgement has improved? Certainly the incident a month ago didn't show that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have abided by my restrictions of not editing categories and using the summaries. Since that incident a month ago, which was a honest mistake, I have been a positive contributing member of the community. I think I have served my time.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions being -

Levineps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from creating new categories, and re-categorizing either existing categories or articles. Levineps is required to not mark his edits as minor, as he has used this flag disruptively. He is also required to use manually written edit summaries for all of his edits, outside of the talk space. He is not allowed to remove warnings or notices from his talk page, or anywhere else they are posted. A 1RR per day restriction is also imposed, due to his disruptive reverting. If he fails to comply with these requirements, he will be blocked indefinitely and his edits can be reverted without question. Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. He is also reminded that he can appeal this sanction only via a formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom.

The restriction were imposed via this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also pertinent: User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake I made over a month ago and I explained it there and I have had no reported incidents since.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely unfamiliar with this situation but just took a quick look through the previous discussions and the editor's recent contributions. Levineps: have you made or attempted to make use of the suggestion that you can use talk pages to request category maintenance? I think the thing that would immediately make me convinced of your ability to use that functionality responsibly would be some evidence of your having tried that route. I haven't found any yet but I didn't dig all the way through the past month's worth of your contribs :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not attempted to do this via talk page as I don't think this is the most effective use of my time when I can directly be helping out.--Levineps (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page, it would be better for you to avoid editing categories, moving/renaming articles and that sort of thing for a while. There are an infinite number of improvements that can be made to content, and good research and writing is needed everywhere, so there is plenty to do without working on this administrative/organizational stuff. If you disagree with an article's cats or name, you can always say so on the talk page; if there is a consensus to change it, other people can do so. These types of changes should always be made with caution anyhow. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are plenty of ways to help out and I agree I shouldve used more caution. I was told to reapply at the first of March, so I feel that I have already served my time. I am sorry if you disagree.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you were told to re-apply on March 1. Can you provide a diff for that, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

[1]- Resolved: User will re-apply in March. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)--Levineps (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that link. In that discussion, User:BrownHairedGirl wrote: I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. But isn't that, essentially, what you've said here? "I've served my time, I don't want to be on probation anymore." Since your restrictions are indefinite, there's no question of whether you've "served your time" or not -- the indefinite part means that the restrictions stay in place until you can show that they're no longer necessary.

Can you make a clear and cogent statement of why you were placed on restrictions, and what has changed since then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats essentially what I am asking to edit categories again. I was placed on restrictions because I was careless and made stupid comments when confronted about this. I learned that this was not the best possible course of action. I believe I have grown as a person from this experience and will not repeat the same mistakes I made.--Levineps (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I'm reading this correctly, from your talk page, then you seem to have been responsible for this SNAFU, and looking at your log, you seem to have changed your focus from moving categories to moving articles. Since your judgment in renaming categories got you into trouble, why did you think it would be a good idea to start in renaming articles? What was gained, for instance, by renaming "List of Penn State residence halls" to "List of Pennsylvania State University residence halls"?

I think there's a case to be made here not for lifting your restrictions, but for extending them in such a way that you're limited to editing article and not doing any meta-work in regard to rearranging things. I would suggest that an admin take a closer look at your move log, because from the comments on your talk page, it seems to me probable that the majority of your moves were done without discussion or consensus.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think thats a bit harsh, I feel that I deserve a second chance. I have abided by the terms set by me. Everytime I have gotten feedback on my talk page, I have followed it.--Levineps (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly "harsh" to be restricted to editing articles, since that's what the encyclopedia is all about, the content of the articles. The rest of the stuff surrounding it is very necessary, but not central. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Levine, what has changed since the last time you asked besides the calendar? Auntie E. (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good question and I have already answered that question I believe above. May I ask you if not now when should I reapply? I think now is a perfect opportunity to put all this behind us.--Levineps (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not one of exact timing - it's that your page moves do not show that you really understand the problem that led to the restrictions in the first place. Get to where you understand that, and show that you do, with talk page discussions leading to consensus - then ask for removal of restrictions. LadyofShalott 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's history, I would think it inadvisable to lift any restrictions on him right now. "Parole" is an option on WP, but an editor must prove him/herself worthy of this; it's not automatic because you just became eligible for it. Waiting out the restriction and then reapplying without displaying evidence of true understanding of your restriction seems like "going through the motions" to me... Doc9871 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe I should be re-instated. I understand the reasons I was banned as I have said here and before. I can't change the past, but believe I can be a more productive member in the future. Again please accept my apologies for my past behavior.--Levineps (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that you "sincerely believe" you should be "reinstated"; there's no question there. Have you truly demonstrated that you should be, though? It doesn't seem to be going your way right now, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's true as anyone can tell from reading this, your absolutely right and there's really no need to remind me.--Levineps (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor who says about discussing changes, "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time", has predicted his future approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you can cherry pick a quote here and there from everyone. What I was trying to get at is I would rather be directly involved the leave suggestions on a talk page.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I would rather be a millionaire. I'm not, but I can still edit wikipedia articles, and so can you. That's direct involvement. Why are you so hung up on categories and specific names of articles? Those are of minor importance compared to actual article content. And your unwillingness to discuss with others indicates you intend to return to what got you banned from categories in the first place. If you make some useful suggestions on the talk pages, it would help your case. But I get the vibe that you simply waited out the suggested time and figured you would automatically get to create categories again, the way you want to, rather than discussing with other editors, and then you'll be right back here again. How would that be "an effective use of your time" or anyone else's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I were a millionaire to, I guess its good we agree on something. How has not making suggestions via talk page "hurt my case." Thats one of the most ridiculous arguments. I have hurt the community by not doing this and I think if you think deep inside about this, you would agree with me. On a separate, if you look at my talk page, you will notice I have respond to comments. I never take anything for granted so I didn't just figure I would be able to again. Please take a look at the whole picture and you will see I interact with others as I have here.--Levineps (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain again how you have "hurt the community". I'm not following that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I omitted the word NOT(Just like the person below here misspelled believe). It should have went like this, "I have NOT hurt the community..."

OK, so it's, "I have not hurt the community by not doing this." I don't get that either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I bleieve that the mass of article moves you have made since your restriction, as well as the statements you have made here, show quite clearly that you have absolutely no understanding of why those restrictions were put in place. You seem to believe they were instituted strictly because of your talk page demeanor or general failure to communicate, but that is far from entirely the case. The underlying problem was your lack of judgment concerning re-naming and re-arranging categories, the same lack of judgment you continue to exhibit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I might not be articulating it as well as I should but I didn't realize I needed an attorney for this. The reason I was banned was because of my poor judgment with regard to the editing of categories among other thing. I realize this, understand, and wish it hadn't happened. This is not a fun experience at all. I have learned from this by not making the same mistakes, reviewing feedback from other editors, and taking a closer look at my own edits among other things.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely agree with Bugs above: you thought you could "serve your time" and then return to what you were doing before. I think you'd be far better off if you forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter -- and found some other way of contributing to the project, if you're really interested in doing that. That's something you can do right now, and would demonstrate your value and, I would hope, your good judgment. At the moment, I'm just not seeing either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you expected me to give up, you definitely picked the wrong person. To quote the Gloria Gaynor, "you think I'd crumble, you think I lay down and die, oh no not I." There is no quit within me. I believe that I should be allowed to contribute fully again. I think saying "sorry" a million different ways hasn't done any thing nor has explaining my actions. However, I am not giving up on this without a fight (a civil one I should add).--Levineps (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were the culprit who left the talk pages of the snafu named above [2], which it seems you were, I'm for adding page moves to you ban as well. There was no logical reason for doing those moves, and it shows you are not yet ready to be trusted with options than can cause major headaches. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

irrelevant bit

Urgent Comments Requested - The last part of Levineps's edit above is,a possible lega` threat against WP, and should fe dealt with ackordingly... Doc9<71 ([[User talk:Doc9871|talk]U) 07:06, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) �::Wow, didn't mean to set off a$firestorm. Is tdis wikipedia's equivalent of "ymlling fire in a$crowded theatre"" I didn't know$my first amendmant rights were zevoked.--Levineps (talk]U) 07:11, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) 2Are you daft or(joking? He said(a civil fight nct a legal one. W[User:Heironymo}s Rowe|Heironymcus Rowe (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) S[Mea culpa]]... Hoc9871 (tmlk) 07:37, 2 Iarch 2010 (UTC) No worriew, we all make mistakes!--Levineps ([[User talg:Levineps|talk]U) 07:41, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) 6:::Thanks for ubderstanding! I misread it that you meant a "ciril" action or liwsuit, and I feal pretty damned stupid right about now. Sorry 'bout that again(:> Doc9871 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2010 (UXC)

I've no prior involvment in this, so can probably view things objectively. A number of points:

• Levinsep sees nothing to be gained by proposing changes and gaining feedback rather than proceeding on his own.
• When pressed on the question of, "what is different," Levineps cannot quite answer clearly and becomes excited. This suggests to me that there is no real change in behavior.
• From the discussion it seems clear that Levineps' troubling behavior has spread from categories to articles.
• "I am not giving up on this without a fight," makes it sound like Levineps has been wronged or injured somehow.
• Seeks to become "fully functioning" again. Almost as though he were crippled by the restrictions.
• There is such desperation to have the restrictions removed. Sees no value in the many other things he can be doing.

Mix it all together and squeeze it dry, and I think you are left with the realization that Levineps does not have sufficient insight into the undesirable behavior to prevent its reoccurence. I feel that nothing is lost by continuing the restrictions for an indefinite period, and much to be lost if he proves the community mistaken by a lifting of the restrictions. Beyond My Ken puts it quite well, that Levinsep would "be far better off if [he] forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter. Dlohcierekim 08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above summary. I will note that I had a brief look through the user's contribs, and beyond the questionable article moves (although there are some good ones in there), there is quite a bit of good gnomish work going on there. I would suggest that if Levineps is interested in being an asset to the project, he continues on with that sort of work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose lifting restrictions per BHG and BeyondMyKen. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support extending restrictions to include page moves. - Kittybrewster ☎ 05:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also oppose and suggest closing. And suggest that Levineps try vandal-fighting or something that doesn't require collaboration. And because he doesn't see the need to respect the opinions of editors on the talk pages of the articles' titles he unilaterally alters, I support extending the ban to article moves without prior consensus exhibited on the relevant talk page. Levine needs to learn to work with his fellow editors. 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) posted by User:Aunt Entropy
• Oppose lifting the ban, but support extending the ban to include page moves. It's clear that the problems caused by Levineps' recategorisation have simply been displaced to article-moving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Did you mean to say lifting (Not listing)? –xeno^talk 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I did indeed, and have now corrected it. Thanks for spotting mi typo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "my" typo. But I wasn't expecting differently from you, so not surprised at all from you. I have not made as many "moves" as I did categories. Exactly when will you get off my case?--Levineps (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given your previous history, you really should have known better than to make any page moves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to that as religiously followed the guidelines set out by me and that was not one of them. I am very proud of the page moves I made and acted in good faith.--Levineps (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your good faith has not been in question, and I do not doubt your pride, but that is irrelevant. I don't think you're really getting it, as you don't seem to be understanding what people are telling you. You followed the restrictions (but not "religiously" as the earlier incident shows), but even after all this discussion you still show no understanding whatsoever at the reason those restrictions were imposed, which had to do with your poor judgment in the moving and re-arranging of categories. Having no insight into that, you jumped right in and began moving and re-arranging articles, the core of the encyclopedia, and considerably more important than categories. If the community didn't want to to move categories around, why ever would you think it trusted you to move around articles?

In any event, the community called you on your bad judgment once, and seems inclined to call you on it once again. I believe it will need to see some token of better judgment from you before it considers allowing you to do that kind of work once more. That doesn't mean that you should bide your time and come back and make yet another request in X months time, as if by right. You really are going to need to demonstrate some semblence of clue about what's going on here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good summary of the problem. I don't that Levineps' remark above asking "Exactly when will you get off my case?" demonstrates a huge degree of clue. Levineps still seems to think that the problem consists of some bad people being horrible to him, but it's highly improbable that everyone commenting here is motivated by some sort of malice against Levineps. It's not true in my case, and I don't see any reason to suspect it in anyone else ... and Levineps still seems to be a long way from grasping the principle that since Wikipedia works by consensus, he needs to ensure that his actions have consensus support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you say with a straight face its not true in your case, every comment you have made has been negative. You never look at the positive contributions I have made or pointed them out. Why don't you work with me instead of against me. Also, why do you spend so much time on my case, am I that fascinating for you?--Levineps (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Levineps, I spend very little time "on your case". A few short post in this thread take only a few minutes, and is a valuable investment of time if it helps avoid a repetition of the hours it took to play my part in cleaning the mess you made of the category system.

As to "why don't I work with you?", have you forgotten that I was one of a number of editors who did try, repeatedly, to engage in dialogue with you on you talk page (see here), but like the others I got absolutely nowhere; no response at all from you until your edits were bulk-reverted, when you denounced me for "vandalism". You still haven't shown that anything has changed since then, and that's why I support keeping the ban on you until you can show that you really have started working with other editors. My support for the continued ban is preventive, not punitive: if and when you can demonstrate that your approach really has changed, I'll support your return. But the more you protest that you are being persecuted, the less I'm inclined to believe that you understand why this ban was needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a conflict of interest in your case and I would like it if you recused yourself from all my cases. When I make comments on your page, you delete them after all.--Levineps (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Based upon the above discussion, I agree with others above in keeping the restrictions in place and adding page moves. --Kbdank71 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to that as religiously followed the guidelines set out by me and that was not one of them. I am very proud of the page moves I made and acted in good faith.--Levineps (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't: Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. You admitted above that you have not done this because it is a waste of your time. All you have religiously done is sat on the sidelines and waited for March 1st (and even that was not done religiously). As others have said here again and again, get consensus for category and article renaming using talk pages. Only then will I change my mind. --Kbdank71 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear from my earlier comments, I think we should keep existing restrictions in place and extend them to page moves. Levineps, if you want to do category or article naming work, discuss it on the talk pages and get consensus for proposed changes. LadyofShalott 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch--Levineps (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Levineps, it seems you are not really helping your case at the moment. No one is personally attacking you or has anything against you(not that you are alleging such things, just seems to be the general gist of your latest comments in my opinion). The community has reservations about your ability to make the right decisions concerning moves of cats or articles, based on your past actions with such moves. Arguing here now will not change this concensus, but will probably drive more of the community into the entrenched position of not giving you those abilities back. Please be patient, your restrictions were left open ended, with the provision that they are lifted when the community feels they are no longer needed, not a jail sentence with a definite date to end incarceration. Your best option at this point would be to follow the advice given above for talk page suggestions and gaining concensus. If you show an acceptable track record, the sanctions may be lifted in the future. I hope this helps, good luck. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Both Proposals I don't think the user is ready to get back to cats yet, and I also think that the user had an expectation that renaming articles should have been avoided. I think applying some good faith shows that Levineps wants to get to the point of being a good editor. This person has the right idea just some poor execution. I do think that Levineps should be reminded about civility and assuming good faith in others. this removed comment is certainly not in the spirit of the project. In summary lets not prematurely sanction this user for the article renaming until there is a problem.--Adam in MO Talk 08:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that Levineps wants to get to the point of being a good editor. The problem is that despite repeated pointers from many editors, zie has shown no sign of understanding one of the critical aspects of how to be a good editor, i.e. discussing proposed changes to seek WP:CONSENSUS. Near the top of this discussion, Levineps dismissed seeking consensus for proposed changes, saying "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  That's not true, saying it is not "the most effective use of my time" does not mean I do not want to get consensus from others. I am simply saying, I feel less useful that I am restricted. As a result of my probation, I have used the talk pages much more now. I think being restricted has made me have a great appreciation for wikipedia community. I know I was non-responsive in the past and while I respect your opinion, it's just flat out wrong in this case in terms of consensus.--Levineps (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could provide some diffs that would demonstrate consensus building you have participated in.--Adam in MO Talk 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  "...And Bingo was his name-O!" - Solid evidence of consensus-building goes a lot further than, "I've done my minimum time and I therefore should be released." Showing this evidence to everyone is even better. Saying and proving are so very different... Doc9871 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• So I think we have consensus for an extension to the sanctions. I am going to to edit the terms box on the user page to reflect the new terms re: ban on page moves.--Adam in MO Talk 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (again)

Resolved

 – Socks blocked, DNFTT Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retaliated against his block off wiki on the youtube channel he has with two new videos, here and here, and in at least one case calls out ALR. I thought someone should be made aware of this, just in case no one noticed it yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to police the internet or to support the National Health Service. He is indeffed I presume? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing we can do but ignore him and hope he gets bored. deny him recognition. ;HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole 'call to arms' thing is a little worrying. We might want to keep an eye on the articles he is calling on people to go and storm. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Worth keeping an eye on relevant pages however, at 9:25-9:48 on the first video he calls for others to help him out on Wikipedia. Other than that though, best to ignore and move on rather than let a fuss be kicked up. --Taelus (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The pages are indeed being watched (and RAF Rudloe Manor is still protected for now). Any meat-puppetry can be dealt with as and when it surfaces. EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of views those two videos have, I wouldn't worry. Youtube, allowing the people with important things to say, say them without fear that someone might actually listen--Jac16888^Talk 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an unfortunate situation, as he truly doesn't understand why he was blocked nor why his edits were reverted. Granted, there are instances where people attempt to whitewash controversial information in articles here, but there's no government conspiracy in this particular case to redact his edits as he believes. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

From one of the Youtube postings: "Its clear to me Wiki is just a stitch up government job. The two main antaginists against me are military and freemasons." OMG you guys, I had no idea you were all military and freemasons!!! Please don't repress me! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I swear, this guy sounds like the Sanders vandal. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah don't screw with us; we'll shoot you and make walls from your corpses. Or something. I dunno. Whatever masons do. HalfShadow

Oh, man, those videos are comedy gold! Though I do feel sorry for the specific users who are the targets of his conspiracy theory–induced harassment. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously nobody ever told him that the candy sucking during the video is really annoying. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or that posting a video on YouTube isn't likely to get you a response more intelligent than 'Ernk ernk, I eat poo'... HalfShadow 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, one person has attempted to help him, as professed under the comment section. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm writing to the bloody government, bastards haven't sent my money yet. Rather the other way round, in fact, since I note from my payslip that they have stolen thousands from me again this month. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, now I'm pissed. Where is my check? Is it only UK editors who get paid by the government? And as an admin I think I should be granted some serious status with the masons. Grand Wizard or Imperial poobah or whatever system it is they use, which I should already have been informed about since I am apparently working for them. And I want my very own tinfoil hat with tassels denoting my rank. Now dammit. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, I actually work for the Ministry of Defence and I haven't got my cheque! Is this payment only for MoD employees who are Freemasons as well? If so, how do I sign up? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The second youtube video was posted on St David's Day and there seemed to be some hint of a Welsh accent. Curiouser and curiouser. Mathsci (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Update I've just declined his latest unblock request/rant and revoked talk page and email access. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would everyone mind looking at some concerns/links I've posted at Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor#AMSCPC. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose block - I favor unblocking Truthseeker. First - Truthseekers666 has a few friends who watch is videos. No big deal. The other hundred viewers are Wikipedia administrators pissed that they haven't been called out yet. Second, his "call to arms" has been described as a DNS - but that's gross hyperbole. He asked his friends to look into the situation possibly edit the article. He doesn't ask his friends to vandalize the article. I've counted two people who may have joined the discussion as a result of his "call to arms". Big whup. Third, he has been willing to engage in dialog - especially with editors who assume good faith. His talk page history clearly shows that he's trying to understand our policies and how he can work within them to get his point across. He makes all the usual WP:BOLD mistakes new editors make, but if we didn't put up with that, then we wouldn't have any old editors, would we? Sure, he's a conspiracy theorist nutter, and I as a Freemason am bound by blood oath to marginalize him, but as far as conspiracy theory nutters go, he's pretty tame, and I think he's willing to work within the rules just as soon as he fully grasps them. And to that end, he needs our help, not more paranoia. Rklawton (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you were aware of part of the reason for the block, the thread has been archived. He posted an appeal on the commons account ALR asking for more information from others about me. That account isn't mine but someone else drew it to my attention, not realising that it isn't me, although quite useful to know. That has been removed through OTRS as far as I'm aware.

I've already commented elsewhere that I've never worked at Rudloe Manor, although I was in a nearby location and lived in Box, about 5 miles away from the site towards Bath, for a couple of years. I'm also aware of some of what these "alien hunters" did do to some of the site security staff at Rudloe; pepper spray, postal harassment etc so while it's not a significant threat, there is the potential. There were three groups that routinely tried to break into Rudloe and nearby locations, one of which wasn't a big issue, the other two were.

ALR (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread is still growing after Fences and windows closed it, I have commented out her/his edit. My only input into this contentious issue is that if RAF Rudloe Manor has been the center of the RAF's investigations into UFOs, mention it -- even if this is only a wide-spread misconception in the UK. If this is not the case, & Rudloe Manor has nothing to do with UFOs (especially the ones from other planets, although if they simply investigate miscellaneous phenomena which can not be satisfactorily identified there's no harm making that distinction), then please remove Timothy Good's book from the list of "Further Readings." I think that association is notable if it is something in the public attention. (And if it is an assertion limited to the tedious rantings of a few who Need To Get a Life, then please remove all reference to it.) Once this is done & when all posts to this thread cease, then this matter can be closed. (FWIW, I'm assuming F&W was acting in good faith & simply made a mistake about the status of this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's widespread, then someone should be able to dig up some reliable sources that address this widely heard of story. I would have no objection to including references to the subject in the article. What I wouldn't want to see are a bunch of links sending unsuspecting readers off to terribly unreliable sources. I'm thinking we could use Area 51 as our model (based only on my quick scan of the article's table of contents). Rklawton (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was actually nothing to see and the thread had descended into silliness. Account fairly blocked, person making toothless threats on YouTube, case closed. You lot can go on talking about it if you must. Fences&Windows 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any threats on YouTube at all. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So, calls to meatpuppetry don't count in your book? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've lived within ten miles of Rudloe Manor for the last twenty years, and my only comments are "WP:OR" and "WP:REDFLAG". There's bollocks, and there's this, which make crop circles seem plausible. Close this farrago, please, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia using reliable sources Rodhullandemu 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To F&W: sometimes one must endure a little drama on WP:AN/I in order to avoid a lot of drama. Seeing how this thread has continued to grow, the drama hasn't ended. Sometimes the best thing to do with threads is to simply sit back & wait for them to get archived. (And again, for the record I have no interest in what ALR's off-Wiki identity is, & an attempt to learn what it is, whether ALR is a Mason, or whom ALR voted for in the last election is reasonable grounds for blocking -- if not banning.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So, ZERO threats on YouTube or on Wikipedia, and ALR outed himself. Truthseekers666 expressed his opinions about his experiences editing here on Wikipedia - but that's not against policy, and it isn't causing any problems here. In fact, what he has to say on videos is just an extension of his dialogs here. By explaining himself in a media in which he felt comfortable (video in this case), he was giving us what we needed to know to help set him straight on our policies. If more of us had assumed good faith and taken the time to explain our policies, I don't think we'd here on AN/I. So in the final analysis, Truthseekers666 didn't make threats, he didn't say he planned on editing against policy, and he didn't out ALR, either. So tell us again why Truthseekers666 was indef blocked. Rklawton (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This may help. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't help. The diff was oversighted on commons, and the YouTube videos which mention ALR are a far cry from harassment, and those are the only two justifications presented in your link. Keep in mind that ALR told Truthseekers666 he worked in the RAF at RAF Rudloe Manor - which actually translates to ALR having a conflict of interest in this matter (or it translates into baiting if ALR wasn't being truthful). I've been following this matter from the outset with an eye toward blocking Truthseekers666 as yet another conspiracy theory nutter. However, unlike the usual assortment, Truthseekers666 has been willing to engage in dialog and has taken an interest in learning what is and is not appropriate. This is not the sort of editor we indef block. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify what Truthseeker interprets as outing myself. I stated that it didn't matter whether I'd worked at three places, Rudloe itself, Henlow which is now the HQ of the RAF Police or the DIS which is another organisation that he was burbling about. He's expressing that as confirming that I've worked at them. It was a rather misguided effort to illustrate the primacy of the content policies, unfortunately I didn't bank on the fairy tenuous grasp of the english language and how this group tend to twist everything to support their own theories. As you may be aware the conspiracy theorist fraternity prefer to focus on individuals, rather than evidence, hence his enthusiasm to concentrate on my credibility, or otherwise, rather than present evidence; He's convinced himself that I'm paid by MoD to censor Wikipedia.

I'll state again, I have not worked at Rudloe, although I have worked nearby. There are about 20 military establishments within 15-20 miles of the place; RAF, Army, Navy and predominantly Civil Service. I have been in the all ranks bar in Rudloe, once, I've driven past Henlow, that's about as close as it gets.

He stated repeatedly that he wasn't wanting to edit in accordance with policy, arguing for the inclusion of partial primary sources, rather than credible secondary. fwiw I'm not sure there are many, if any, since it tends to be the preserve of the conspiracy theory fraternity.

As I've already stated, whilst this is not a significant personal threat, there is a risk to me.

I'd also suggest that it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that anyone in MoD has a conflict of interest in writing about MoD related topics, particularly stations or establishments that they've never worked at. There are some 200,000 uniformed personnel, and a similar number of civil servants in MoD. There are about another 100,000 civilians directly engaged in delivery to MoD locations.

ALR (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, as one of the few non-admins who saw that post, and the person who asked for a deletion and block on Commons, what happened is this. Truthseeker666 vandalised the page of a commons user called ALR by posting a request that other people find out the real life identity, location, occupation etc of en:wikipedia's ALR, dig up any dirt on him, also find out whether "our" ALR was a Freemason - because Truthseeker is convinced that the opposition to him is a military-masonic conspiracy. That's a permablocking offence. There's no ifs and buts about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ALR, although your clarification is helpful, please don't feel you need to justify yourself here. Rklawton's reading of events is out of step with Wikipedia policy in this case. There's no doubt that Truthseeker was on a fishing expedition, and you haven't outed yourself by any stretch of the imagination (any more than I have by revealing on my user page that I currently live in South Wales, and from the beach photo in the Swansea area). Rklawton, note that Truthseeker had WP:V, the difference between primary and secondary sources, WP:ELNO, and WP:RS explained a number of times, and dialogue was underway when they shot themselves in the foot with the attempted outing. I do agree that we could have been more courteous to them at times (myself included), but that's the only thing in this episode that I think we need to reflect on and learn from. EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So we goaded a new user until he broke a big rule and then indef blocked him? I never saw the outing page (why would he do this outing on Commons and not Wikipedia, anyone know?), so that's affected my view - nor have I read any policy against "outing." Got a link so I can catch up? Rklawton (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I just read WP:OUTING. If Truthseekers666 only asked for information about ALR, then it doesn't fit our definition of outing. Our definition is comprised only of publishing accurate or inaccurate (known as attempted outing) private information about an individual. Because we should not confirm information as accurate, we should refer to all such activities as "attempted outing" so as to leave doubt about accuracy. Attempted outing is NOT the same thing as attempting to learn personal information about an individual. Attempting to learn personal information may comprise "harassment", but that's not an automatic indef blocking offense. Rklawton (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we didn't goad him into breaking a rule and then ban him, the problem was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. He's engaged in systematic self-promotion, tendentious editing, WP:FRINGE issues, WP:OR, WP:C violations and is generally impervious to Clue. I have no problem at all with him requesting an unblock once he's given some indication of understanding what Wikipedia is for (and that not every attempt to resist fringecruft is the result of sinister Masonic plots). Guy (Help!) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Curious as to why "attempting to learn personal information about an individual" editor is helpful to WP, yes? Would this information necessarily benefit the improvement of the encyclopedia? "Asking for information" about other editors isn't normally necessary at all, you understand. There are administrators with checkuser who can verify any problem editors. Please, if I've jumped into something that I'm wrong about, let me know. I'm sorry, but I don't like the looks of your last argument at all, Rklawton... Doc9871 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't appear to have a rule about requesting information - so it doesn't justify an indef block. Also, I was not aware that anyone ran checkuser. If this has been done, please provide a link to the checkuser case. Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again @Rklawton, posting "he's definitely someone high up in Tesco and I'm pretty certain he's a a closet dressmaker" is attempted outing, even if the allegation is bollocks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tesco" and "dressmaker" were obvious jokes and not an attempt at outing. Especially in light that he usually repeats what ALS has already told him. If you'd post a link, it would help. While he doesn't use our vocabulary, his concerns are along the lines of ALS' conflict of interest (having admitted working for the RAF at the location in question, it appears that the COI concerns are valid). And while it's true that he's butted heads against a lot of our POV pushing related rules, the CLUE charge isn't valid - as some of his more recent edits have shown appreciation for patience and advice regarding how to edit constructively. Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually point to where I've admitted anything?

I'm also starting to become somewhat disturbed by this persistent suggestion of a COI, which I've addressed several times, yet is continuing to be mentioned.

ALR (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not tell Truthseeker you worked at Rudlow Manor? If so, then I retract, but I want to hear it from you first. My point about COI isn't that there is a COI but that if you did work at Rudlow, which Truthseeker says you have claimed, then it's fully understandable that he would be concerned about a COI and would wish to discuss it. Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already discussed it upthread. I used the comment that it doesn't matter if... as a means of indicating the primacy of the content policies. He's interpreted that as an admission. I've already stated several times that I did not work at Rudloe.

ALR (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reread Truthseeker's last week's worth of edits. The editor was clearly trying to work within the system and learn how to contribute usefully - especially following his first block. During this time following his first block he did not engage in *any* OR, POV, RS, or 3RR related activities. Instead, he was clearly seeking to understand how to work within the rules and fully demonstrating he was trying to get a clue. Second, I have seen no evidence that Truthseeker vandalized a page in Commons. More importantly, he denies this accusation, and so some evidence is important. Third, the vandalism (apparently a request for information about a user) was not an "outing" as described by Wikipedia's policies and as claimed by other admins, (and they need to retract this claim). Fourth, while cross-wiki harassment is a blockable offense (assuming Truthseeker really was responsible), a first offense doesn't rate an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rk, I suggest you bow out of this particular race. Truthseeker wasn't just "requesting information," it was encouraging other users to dig up dirt on ALR to discredit him. That is why it's considered outing. Second, if you can't see the Oversignted edits on Commons, how can you say it wasn't an outing at all? And finally, a first offense most certainly can result in an indef block. Indef does not equal permanent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also contest the assertion that he was trying to work within the system; I think that was true only to the extent that he was trying to find a policy-based argument that would convince editors to keep his primary source-based original research in the article, and didn't want to accept that there was no way it was going to happen unless he produced reliable secondary sources. EyeSerene^talk 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else here think Rklawton is acting kind of odd. Like he's actually trying to 'out' ALR also, by throwing up a whole pile of stuff and seeing what sticks????? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I Second that emotion. I don't want to cast any stones but it seems that he would have moved on by now. Nefariousski (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given my edit history of fighting and blocking conspiracy theory nut jobs at every opportunity, if you perceive my behavior as strange, perhaps that's reason enough to go back and revisit Truthseeker's edits following his first block. I don't think defending a user with multiple points amounts to "a pile of stuff" - and attacking my behavior does little to justify the block. Rklawton (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My Great Grandfather was a Freemason. I had his apron in my possession and a while ago I sold it on Ebay to a private collector in France. Clearly, the nation of France is behind this vile conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our natural bodily fluids. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the real Rklawton may have been abducted by aliens XD. Seriously, you are acting as if you believe that ALR actually is working for the MOD to cover up the truth about Rudloe Manor, and this justifies Truthseeker's attempts to find out who ALR really is, and it's very strange, because all ALR ever said was that he has been in the area - not anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish people would stick to the facts and not mock user RKLawton. What RK has stated is that user truthseeker was trying to find out what position of authority or knowledge user ALR had in order to back up his ability to alter information on Rudloe Manor. User truthseeker seemed concerned that a user who is simply known as ALR who alludes on his page that he has a connection to or interest in the military may infact not be military at all. If this were the case then user ALRs opinion would carry about as much weight on Rudloe Manor as anyone else. However if ALR did work at Rudloe Manor provost service then he would indeed be in a good position to know if the type of information on the Rudloe Manor page was correct. Sticking just to the facts here, truthseekers asked what was ALRs "authority" to know these things and could user ALR prove he knew these things first hand. User ALR alluded in a deceitful way (sorry but this i how it seems) to say that it did not matter if he did indeed work for provost or rudloe manor of Intelligence staff. This suggests, deceptively, that user ALR did infact work for those departments. This would tend to make truthseeker then back off and have to accept his word on things. Now we see above user ALR agree he made these statements but they are infact all not true as he had only worked near these facilities and "drunk in some bars" near Rudloe Manor and is in no position or no official rank to know their true functions or secret workings. This exposes a problem with user ALRs motives. So truthseeker was right to have pointed this out. As we are meant to work away from PRIMARY which would have been what user ALR was apparently offering his personal feelings on the editing of Rudloe Manor page is based on what backup? User truthseeker was correct to point this out. It is not outing. For example if someone claims to possibly be prime minister and then starts posting about the UK government on WIKI I am sure many would ask the very same questions that truthseeker did, for the person to prove they are really the Prime Minister. RKlawton is therefore doing the sensible thing in pointing out these discrepancies. RKLawton should not be mocked as if he has lost his senses. Far from it I think he shows a lot of sense on this discussion. Back to truthseeker. His manner of dealing with things was at first awkward and aggressive but I am sure we all made a lot of mistakes on Wiki when we first came on board and truthseeker was starting to fully understand the process of wiki editing. He was making offers to provide SECONDARY information for the page and should be allowed to continue under guidance and coaching. I am saddened to see a lot of mocking of his position as a UFO researcher. I understood Winston Churchill, the Royal Family and some American presidents have either seen or have a keen interest in UFOs. If no evidence is provided that he vandalised Wikicommons then this should also be disregarded as a reason for his ban. J from Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.174.121 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Truthseeker666. You know, socking really isn't the best way of trying to get your block reversed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your intepretation of what ALR said is based on what he said here, not what he said in the original page, Elen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.174.121 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Besides just because your wiki admins does not mean there are not bigger wiki admins. I have been banned from emailing anyone on Wiki so cannot take up my points in any other way. What do you expect. Kick a man when he is down and keep kicking and then try some stabbing and if that doesnt work some punching. This is how Wiki works. To hear you all mocking anyone who even slightly brings up the fact truthseekers might be correect is sickening. You really should listen to yourselves before mocking those who are interested in UFOs.

Truthseeker asked to be unblocked several times and was promptly denied each time. Since all his Wikipedia edits following his first block were oriented toward figuring out how to work within bounds, I think an indef block was uncalled for, his request for unblock unfairly denied, and my request here for a review here treated inappropriately. The only possible evidence that Truthseeker might have rated a 2nd block can be found on another wiki and it isn't accessible to admins here. Since block reviewers did not have access to this edit or evidence that he even made it, they can't possibly know whether or not his 2nd block was justified - yet they denied it anyway, and that's plain wrong. I'm always happy to block unrepentant conspiracy theorists - per my block record, but I'm not happy about the indef blocking of anyone who consistently shows an interest in learning how to edit constructively. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still on about this. Look, in case you haven't realised, Nuclear Warfare is an admin here and on Commons. He saw the post, and would have blocked Truthseeker in both locations if another admin hadn't done it here at the same time. I saw the post. It warranted an immediate indefinite block - and it doesn't matter what else Truthseeker was doing at the time. If Truthseeker wants to come back, he can stop socking, recognise what he did wrong, and then maybe he'll get a standard offer.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need the formality of a WP:SPI filing, or can we cut the red tape and ban 88.110.174.121 as a sock right now? If it isn't already obvious by the posts above, the language of a Truthseeker revert here is quite similar to a revert by the IP here. Block, mark this section resolved, and move on IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jac16888 took care of it. — Satori Son 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

, "ellen of the roads is asking that we simply take her word on things that evidence exists and that Nuclear Warfare is aware of why Truthseekers666 was blocked. RKLawton asked specifically for the evidence, please provide it. Otherwise how do we the users know with transparency that anything has done which is worthy of being blocked for? " 86.159.115.107 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)86.159.115.107 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also All this business of the "Call to Arms thing" and Truthseekers Youtube channels really should have nothing to do with Wikipedia its a seperate channels and people ,...However PIs**d off they are should have a right to voice their opinions in whatever way they want . Truthseeker seems to think he has a point and therefore has been unjustly blocked, after talking to him and reading what has gone on here I believe he has a point and I think that there are some people on here jumping on points and comments he and other users have made too harshly, Wiki has a no Bullying policy but I see users getting banned and admin getting away with it. Seems unfair and unjust, This IS just my opinion and I am probably going to get jumped on myself for my comments. 86.159.115.107 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.115.107 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseeker, what you don't seem to realise is that the commons admin deleted the page, as the fastest way to get rid of your edits. This means that anyone who is a commons admin can still see your deleted edit. This is why no-one has any sympathy with you. Now stop socking or you'll never, ever have a chance to edit Wikipedia again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseeker has fellow UFO fans. Unless you have evidence that the IP is a sock, and keeping in mind that his block also blocked all IPs he's used, you shouldn't make sock accusations. Next: I would VERY much like a Commons admin to review the edit - since none of the Wikipedia admins who reviewed his block were able to (yet denied his request without actually reviewing the evidence themselves - an act that is highly inappropriate). This admin should tell us two things: 1) did the editor violate our outing policy (or did he just request interested parties to look into a potential COI - which is NOT outing by our standards), and 2) what is the evidence that Truthseeker was the person who made the edit? The last I heard, Truthseeker denied vandalizing any page on Commons. With these questions answered, we might see this matter resolved with consensus. Rklawton (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Rklawton; the block only autoblocked the underlying IP at the time. It's child's play for a blocked user to evade his block on a dynamic IP. In fact, I reduced the block on the IP above from indef specifically because it's a dynamic IP (British Telecom). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here keeps hear Rklawton ask for proof Truthseker did vandise pages and you deny giving thd proof which more than likely means there is.none. Also many adminz are being rude to Rklawton who is alzo an admin. Why?

firstly I would like to say that I am AMSCPC not truthseeker I am not a puppet used by anyone or am I pretending to be anyone my IP address is 86.159.115.107 if you want to check the logs. All of this talk here seems a bit out of hand now it looks like anyone who agrees with truthseeker or questions the Admin here are frowned upon, case in point would be RKlawton who has decided to be reasonable and listen to truthseeker and try to resolve the issue but now seems to be himself to be attacked by other users and admin on here.

By reading I can see that both Truthseeker and RKlawton have asked for evidence and proof that truthseeker did vandise pages, as yet no one seems to want to give proof of any kind. I understand this is a private page BUT!!!!!! accusing someone of doing something and then NOT providing the evidence to back up the claims is wrong, you either have proof or have not.......if you have proof then please show truthseeker or RKlawton if you dont have the proof then then state the reason truthseeker seems to have been banned, Because after reading through this it seems like that admin here (not all admin) are happy to do and say what they like as long as they are not questioned.

This statement "Now stop socking or you'll never, ever have a chance to edit Wikipedia again.[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]" (did I say statement sorry I meant threat) if its true then fine no argument, but is there proof ????? if so why has it not been presented I know some people on here think I am truthseeker lol this is NOT true I can prove this, you have my IP address so compare it.

This ""Threat" is not the only comment on this page that is page that is out of order

"Anyone else here think Rklawton is acting kind of odd. Like he's actually trying to 'out' ALR also, by throwing up a whole pile of stuff and seeing what sticks????? Elen of the Roads"

I mean RKlawton chooses to listen and suddenly "POUNCE" he is froewned upon and made out that he himspef is trying to cause trouble.

The way this reads is dont comment and agree with Admin. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." REALLY ??????--AMSCPC (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting AfD

I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) as a temporary measure because of renewed off-site discussion about it, this time on reddit, Y Combinator, FriendFeed (and probably a few more places). Everything that could be said about that topic has been said. If an admin wants to make a different decision, he can do so based on that AfD and the previous one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm, which was closed under similar circumstances just before the 2nd one opened. Together these have about 125Kb already. There's no point in having another insanely long repetitive discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM (175Kb). Pcap ping 00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I love your reason for closure. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something... but... how can you have a speedy no consensus? If there is no consensus it should be left unclosed. Whilst canvassing does seem to be happening, how can consensus ever be gained if discussions are speedy closed? Personally I would allow it to run, and have it closed after a full 7 day period. It may be a tough close which takes ages to trawl through, but dodging the issue by closing discussions due to canvassing isn't really a solution. Please do fill me in if I am missing something here. --Taelus (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR. If you just plan to count votes, there's not going to be a consensus. If you just plan to read the arguments, you can do so already, they're already in triplicate at least. Participants there disagree on what's a reliable source for open source software. You can choose to buy one side or the other of the arguments, but having them repeated ad nauseam won't make the discussion any easier to parse. Feel free to reopen it if you think consensus is likely to emerge, but I just don't see how that's gonna happen. (This is the 2nd week, as the previous AfD was closed just before this one opened.) Pcap ping 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having participated in the AfD for JWASM, I would say that any action that prevents another AfD from going the same route is a good one. What a waste of electrons that was. -- Atama頭 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... But the close result of the previous AfD was to restart the process, thus it just strikes me as odd to close the second nomination early. I won't re-open it however, probably best for administrators who were involved in the previous close to take a look. --Taelus (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something too. Meatpuppets don't get to muddle AfDs into no consensus. I'm having a quick look and I'm not seeing anyone arguing for keep actually providing anything credible and based on policies or guidelines to actually keep it. This is pretty cut and dried. The only source that seems discussed at the top was written by a member of the project. So either they provide significant coverage by reliable third party sources, or its deleted. This is the equivalent of showing up at an AfD and screaming "KEEP - I'M WEARING BLUE PANTS!!!" admin - "hmm..there seems to be serious opposition to its deletion". I'm going on record as saying this is a terrible close which basically rewards someone for off-site canvassing. There wasn't a single shred of evidence provided to defend keeping that article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one else has gotten to this in an hour or so, I'll give it a whirl (I'm busy for a bit). I'm completely uninvolved. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Keep: Typical Wikipedia Faggotry" comment sums it up best. Nefariousski (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm undoing the speedy close and making a stab at determining consensus. I should have it by April 1 ;) -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's best to let the AfD run its course and then determine consensus. I realize it's likely the same opinions will be trotted out over the next couple of days. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever closes it will see a lot of "it's teh notable because I says so" and a lot of "there are no reliable independent sources". Only one of these is a compelling argument :-) Guy (Help!) 08:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I almost feel like we need a policy or guideline for this kind of stuff. It comes up on a fairly regular basis where we get some non-notable something, and they run to their forums or teh blogs! and rally the troops and it turns into a storm of garbage. I think there comes a point where any objective reasonable person can realize that side just has no point and it needs to be shot and put out of its misery for the good of everyone involved.--Crossmr (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• We do have a policy, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. "It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion to sway its outcome. Such comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but may be tagged with {{spa}}, noting that a user "has made few or no other edits". In extreme cases, a deletion debate can be semi-protected." Fences&Windows 13:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't really do much though. I still turns into a dramafest as countless people who have never edited wikipedia or who haven't edited in a long time come out of the woodwork to make the same argument "Wikipedia sucks, this is totally notable, #$## you, keep it!". I think when its very obvious this is happening, an admin should just have a look and see if they've provided any evidence at all and if not, short circuit the process, cut the drama before it gets out of hand, delete it, salt the earth (because they often get recreated by a meat puppet) and be done with it. We've already seen them rewarded twice for their behaviour so obviously the current process isn't working. They got a new deletion discussion, then they got an admin who came along and made an early no consensus close based on their "MY PANTS ARE BLUE KEEP!!!!!" arguments.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So now it's also old wikipedians who get shut out, if it were up to you? Oh dear. I'm an old wikipedian... I'm getting kind of worried here. :-/ Who *will* you still listen to, if they tell you they think maybe some processes are getting a little out of hand? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I listen to the sources which people have failed to provide. Yours or anyone else's assertion that it is notable without providing sufficient sources just isn't sufficient. I've been in several of these AfDs before where technology/internet related subject had a number of fans but no sources. It always goes exactly the same way. They start posting on their forums, irc, twitters, etc getting everyone to bombard the AfD which no evidence of anything simply attempting to disrupt it and overwhelm it. However none of that does anything to satisfy the policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how a topic that is considered non-notable can rally so many people to its defence. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Imagine the consequences if a deletion discussion makes it into to the dead-paper press.

• What is so interesting about it? Social networking trends are epidemic. If a YouTube video of a dancing cat can get hundreds of thousands of views just because someone mentions it on Twitter, rallying shouts like "the Wikipedia deletionists are at it again" or "you need to put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts" can certainly attract some attention. — Rankiri (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the fuss we used to get before we blacklisted YTMND? Every single meme was edit-warred in multiple places. Not just YTMND either, here's one that's been in place for over four years: [3]. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you're arguing that something can be non-notable, even if large numbers of people are passionate about it? I'm not sure I can accept that as it appears self-contradictory. Am I missing something? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:N and WP:NOT. It stands to reason that encyclopedia articles must not be based on fleeting fame or hearsay sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:N and Wikipedia is not paper actually are in balance with each other. In cases like this one, I think current best practice for Notability somehow breaks down and fails to work properly. What can we do to fix that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take that many people to make a drama fest on wikipedia. So even if it looks like a "large" number of people like something, it doesn't mean its notable. See WP:BIGNUMBER its why we require reliable sources to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, just because there's smoke, there doesn't need to be fire. But still, I'm starting to see suspicious amounts of smoke around. I'm just worried we might be going about things the wrong way, somehow. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're worried because it is very clear that the subject you have such an interest in doesn't meet the requirements that its going to end up deleted. Sorry, we don't change the policies and guidelines because the specific case you like doesn't cut it. We've created one of the only verifiable an objective ways possible to measure notability. Anything else you or anyone else on the AfD have proposed completely ignores allowing anyone to independently verify the claims or demonstrate any kind of objective notability.--Crossmr (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "Imagine the consequences if a deletion discussion makes it into to the dead-paper press." How about 20 of them?[4] The sky didn't fall. Fences&Windows 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Raptor Jesus may disagree. — Rankiri (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it means we can write a notable, reliably sourced article about the deletion discussions, even though we can't have an article about the subjects ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy Problem

We can all agree that there needs to be some rules for notability. Like WP:N states, having a page for every garage band that starts up isn't feasible.

This is not the case in this specific situation or with many of the other informative pages that have been deleted. There's nothing on this particular page that is wrong or misleading, just that there is no traditional media coverage of it. It will probably never be covered by traditional media. This doesn't mean it's a "flash in the pan" any more than contentious and hence media-covered projects like OpenOffice are.

The wiki entry is informative, neutral, unbiased and fact-based.

When such good encyclopedic entries are up for deletion, there must be something wrong with the system. That's what's causing the current outrage, and for people who have supported Wikipedia with time, effort and money the discussion-stifling methods and censorship tactics some Admins use seem particularly offensive.

There are likely several acceptable solutions to this problem, but I don't have any experience with the Wikipedia bureaucracy, so I don't know the proper procedure for getting a policy changed. Can someone suggest the right way to go about this, please? --Wicked247 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two discussions at the talk for WP:Notability: here and here. There is also a somewhat old RFC (now re-opened) here. It will take a bit of reading to get up to speed: I recommend starting with an overview at WP:PILLARS, with study of the WP:N guideline and its WP:V policy. Essentially it's the discussions above that conceivably could change the current situation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ArneBab

He seems responsible for the 2nd, even more massive round of off-wiki canvasing links here. See what happened to #User:Mclaudt above. Pcap ping 01:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you keep closing and restarting the discussion, the canvassing will never stop. Let it run its seven days, let them complain because they refuse to actually provide a secondary source, close based on actual policy not votes, let the slightly more sophisticated complain to WP:DRV and lose there, and then finally, let the craziest whiners start vandalizing and get blocked. Then some blogs will be out ranting about the horrors of wikipedia because their random obscure thing isn't kept here. It's the normal pattern and what can be expected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sensing assumptions of bad faith on both sides, once again. This is very similar to what happened at the Foswiki AfD. The fundamental problem is on our side: The General notability guideline is an approximation for identifying articles that (1) are worth having in an encyclopedia because enough people are interested in them, and (2) can be written neutrally. It's good for most purposes, but in the case of open source software there are special circumstances that make it harder to prove that enough people are interested and easier to write a neutral article without significant third-party coverage. (The article Dwm gets 100 hits/day, Foswiki gets 50 hits/day. That's not so much less than e.g. MediaWiki and significantly more than Erwig and Naman Keïta or any other random article which has no notability problems at all.) The German Wikipedia takes them into account, we don't.

The general public doesn't understand the GNG, and it doesn't know about our off-site canvasing rules. Experience has shown that both are surprising to open source software developers, i.e. to some of the people most likely to become valuable editors once they have found their way to Wikipedia. The current situation is optimised towards attracting and then alienating these people. Hans Adler 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was going to wait until the end of the AfD discussion but I guess it doesn't matter now. In particular, see [5] ([6], [7]) and [8]. Some of these messages were posted three days ago when the user should have already been aware of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not saying that all the canvased/canvassing people are angels. I am saying that at least half of the fault for these incidents is on our side and it's up to us to fix the problem. Think of it this way: Suppose the article Dutch Wikipedia was nominated for deletion based on the (hypothetical) argument that all press articles about the Dutch Wikipedia are indiscriminately about the English and Dutch Wikipedia as if they were the same thing. The only thing that would prevent a drama similar to what we are seeing with open source projects is the fact that the editors of the Dutch Wikipedia have a much better idea of the norms of the English Wikipedia than do the members of a typical open source software community. But it's not their fault that they don't understand our norms, and it's in our interest to educate, not punish them. Hans Adler 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I only disapprove of the actions of this particular user, not the ones who were dragged into the discussion. As an active participant of both WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm and WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination), he should have known that his attempts at off-site canvassing weren't appropriate. And it's not like he even tried to sound neutral: his last message on [9] violates WP:PERSONAL (I'm entirely indifferent about this but see User talk:ArneBab) and is tagged with biased "!fs attacked". Personally, I'd welcome an influx of new users who were reasonable, but the problem with cries for help such as these is that they generally bring in ones who are not. [10], [11], [12], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I find it strange how much of those editors have accounts long ago registered, largely inactive for months or even years and just popping in for that article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it strange at all. Open Source programmers write free software, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. A lot of F/L/OSS coders will likely have wp accounts on general principle.

Alienating your natural allies is probably a bad idea. So even if we agree that policy is perfectly correct, we still have something of an obligation to explain it to these people. This isn't siegenthaler; but if continued, this trend is likely to have rather nasty consequences. Can we figure out how to be nicer? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked ArneBab indefinitely. He's been here since 2004, so it's absolutely inconceivable that he doesn't know votestacking on AfDs is unacceptable. Blueboy96 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh. Maybe don't do that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To wit, I don't think an indefinite block is warrented, by a fairly large margin. Please unblock. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it. Two complete messes of an AfD. He absolutely should know better and this massive disruption on their part. What happens when the next AfD comes along that he doesn't agree with?--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it too. I don't see how open source communities are special enough to warrant kids glove treatment that we wouldn't provide to others. Frankly, I'm somewhat tired of all the arguments in AfD and on article talk pages that nobody should even be allowed to edit articles about open source software unless they're developers themselves. It goes against the whole spirit, the whole purpose of Wikipedia. When we have people creating Sourceforge projects, then creating Wikipedia pages to advertise their products (generally with positive POV, as expected), then trying to own the articles by reverting edits they don't like, then bringing in meatpuppets when the articles come to AfD... Why should we be kissing their feet? -- Atama頭 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... we're a prominent member of that community. Anything we say or do in this context reflects back on us. Why should we cut off our own nose to spite our face? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes cutting off your nose is the best thing to do. -- Atama頭 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that comparing the good faith attempts at participation by the 3rd parties (from Y-Combinator, Reddit, etc) is crossing some sort of line that probably shouldn't be crossed. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support an indef block, but if he requests unblock in a few months and it seems legit it seems reasonable to do so on a trial basis. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You support an indef block because some AFDs didn't go right? :-O --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No. its supported because someone tried to game the system and disrupt the process. --Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Meatpuppetry is intolerable, it sabotages any attempt to reach consensus in a discussion. -- Atama頭 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus between who and who in this case? Who does wikipedia serve, and who has rights to contribute to wikipedia? Meta:Founding principles. I agree that forms of puppetry are not good. On the other hand, if one of the the communities we live in symbiosis with attempts to participate and bring procedural issues to our notice, we would be wise to listen. Because if not to them, then to who? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Between the users of this community. Canvassing does not create a consensus view because it attempts to stack the consensus in favor of one side. He disrupted the process, and he's been blocked to prevent it from happening again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Page Protection tools

I have left Wikipedia. I think I have the right to say this on my user page, and mention why. However, because I left pretty much solely over abuse heaped upon me by Durova, her friends keep deleting the message, and have now protected my user page. Here's the message:

This user has left Wikipedia due to harassment by Durova which attempted to prevent free discussion of her featured picture candidates. Long story short, polite criticism of her work there was met with disproportionate attacks, and, thinking back, I realised that more subtle forms of this bullying had been going on a long time. Having had it made very clear that noone cared about harassment by her, I have left Wikipedia. Evidence available through e-mail to anyone I trust to have my e-mail.

Durova, meanwhile, is evidently constantly complaining about how few people capable of working with historic material there are.

The incident in question involved her repeating "Fuck you, troll" on Skype over and over, because I politely pointed out in a FPC that one of the images was upside down, this looks like a mistake, and even if it wasn't, it's not something that you should go without mentioning. I offered ways around this when she began berating me over it, such as offwerin two versions, so that people don't have to turn their monitors over, which is much easier with a book.

She continued to berate me, threatened me, and then began acting to remove all connections I had to people that might give me material for Wikipedia that had any connections through her, even in media where she doesn't do things.

This was not the first time, I doubt I'm the only person she's bullied into doing what she wants, or into deleting comments about her restorations that she disliked.

I don't want anyone else to get into the position I was put in, where they are bullied and harassed for months for not living up to Durova's ideal of perfect yes-man, all the while being used for propaganda purposes by her. And whenever I complained about ANYTHING that was being done to me by anyone, she swooped in and encouraged people to close the thread, because I hadn't talked to her first.

I supported her goals, incredibly strongly, but, in the end, the goals were less important to me than getting out of a relationship where, days after telling her I had just experienced a massive personal crisis, she was brutally attacking and bullying me over trivial matters.

Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova notified. I don't know the circumstances of this conflict, but in any event, retired or not, expressions of derision with a specific editor on one's userpage are usually removed per WP:UP#NOT. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:03, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Some diffs would help. Otherwise it's a fishing expedition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Shoe. :( Not great to see you under these conditions, but hey anyways. Some diffs: [13], [14], [15]. As per Equazcion it's not unusual to remove this kind of stuff. Plus your last edit prior to this was this vandalism of a Signpost story about Durova. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Equazcion. Let's call this water under the bridge; this goes back five months. If Shoemaker wants the semiprotection taken off his user page I've no objection. Shake hands and let bygones be bygones. Durova⁴¹² 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the rant is inappropriate. Feeling harassed and being harassed are very different, though the difference is not obvious to the victim at the time (I have had both, with on-wiki disputes escalated to off-wiki crank calls and the like). To say that they left because of a dispute with a named user is fine, left due to harassment with no name is OK, but the Wikimedia Foundation's resources are not really here ot be used to pursue grudges from beyond the grave. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say, if Durova, does not mind, take protection off. I more worried about the user than his user page. The user is clearly very upset, and needs some understanding and help. Durova, I would like to appeal to you please. I know the two of you used to be the friends. Maybe it is possible to have a talk or to have a meditation to bring Shoemaker's Holiday back to Commons and to Wikipedia. If I could be of any help to bring the two of you together, I will be happy to do so. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for being considerate, Mbz1. He's welcome to return at any time. I'd work with him onsite or maintain polite distance, per his preference. Although yes, I would prefer if the personal attacks stopped. Let's put it in the past. Durova⁴¹² 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Via Skype? Woogee (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. So Durova forgives me for... her having harassed me off the site. But I'm welcome to return to being harassed any time. How kind of her. 86.138.86.138 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• What?! *The* Shoemaker's Holiday hounded off Wikipedia? The world is going to hell in a handbasket. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shoe, buddy, you really need to calm down. I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of what happened between you and Durova, but I do know I've seen you get really angry over small things before (like whenever people would start trolling you about global warming denial and things like that). If you want to edit Wikipedia, awesome, come back and the project is better for it. But if not, what exactly do these occasional returns complaining about the same issue accomplish? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is another example of a contributor feeling unappreciated & suffering WikiBurnout for all of the hard work she/he has contributed to the project. (And if you agree that this phenomenon exists, then you might consider that Larry Sanger is the first significant example of this phenomenon.) Without taking sides, I have to wonder if any of us (including me) had extended more appreciation for SH's contributions, matters would have reached this point. -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have said what it was: Durova had been continually hounding me over tiny issues: writing an article on sound restoration for the signpost, when she wanted to do one; making a joke page with another contributor she disliked, and then, when I politely pointed out a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination, here, she cursed me out for 15 minutes on Skype, said "Fuck you, troll" about 10 times in said conversation - I'm not exaggerating, people have the log, and, indeed, it was posted to Wikipedia for a while, until Durova had it oversighted in direct violation of WP:OVERSIGHT. (Oh, sure, the oversighter in question claimed the policy didn't reflect standard procedure, but they could have edited it any time in the last 5 months to make it permitted. That they never did means they were clearly ignoring policy, or had no consensus to act in the manner they did.) - In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice:

• To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Wikipedia grant, which was necessary for me continuing work.
• To keep me from working on Tropenmuseum items.
• An implied threat to keep my name out of a Tropenmuseum exhibit, for which she had got large numbers of us to do major restoration work. Of course, this exhibit was never talked of again once she got access to archives she wanted, because she's a manipulative little bitch that way, but we didn't know that at the time.

In short, this was harassment, threats, and was part of a chain dating back about 2 months, if not farther. Durova is completely unrepentant, as seen here. Note that the harassment was explicitly in order to subvert the Featured picture candidates voting, by suppressing politely stated dissent. I might have gotten around this, but when I pointed this out, it was made very clear that noone wanted to hear anything wrong about Durova, and I was explicitly told no evidence could convince anyone of any wrongdoing by her.

If you want me back, Durova needs to face consequences for her actions, or at least be warned, or, in a far more unlikely event, Durova accepts wrongdoing, apologises, and promises never to use harassment to suppress free commentary of her restoration work again. Barring that, I'm NOT coming back. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, had she merely pulled this stunt at a neutral time, it might've been bad enough. What she actually did was pull it three days after I had confided to her a severe trauma that had just happened to me. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I highly doubt most of this. Since she's been nothing but nice to be despite any disagreements we've had and given what I've seen from you, Shoe, exploding at the slightest provocation on numerous occasions. Again, I don't know the details (despite your yelling at me on my talk page that I know the full details), but this was supposed to be an ANI thread about page protection, not a far-reaching conspiracy to deny you a scanner or whatever. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You were there for the discussion when the event happened, as far as I'm aware. Why not ask on Wikivoices whether anyone remembers when Durova went crazy? Because I made a point of putting people into that conversation so I'd have independent backup of what I was saying. If I recall correctly, Juliancolton was one of them. Why not ask him? This isn't a conspiracy theory, if you had the log you'd see that Durova revelled in taking back every half-baked promise she had made regarding me in the previous six months, just to rub it in.

For the record, my scanner broke, which I used for almost all my Wikipedia Featured Pictures work. I knew it'd be a while before I could afford a new one, so Durova stepped in and promised to sort out funding. about four months passed without a word from her, until she brought it up again to rub in my face what I lost by daring to politely question her FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'll go post the log somewhere and give a link. Hold on. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

<link redacted by Rlevse> Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoe, without getting into the merits of the ongoing long term issue btwn you and Durova, your links to the blog are merely exacerbating the situation, stop it now. I've removed them from the current versions of the pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a victim of harassment who is having the harassment denied to have been that bad. This is a situation where providing the evidence is my only recourse. How is that "exacerbating the situation"? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 08:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Baseball Bugs above, WP:DIFFS provide the evidence. Provide the evidence, please, as you have indicated you must, and you might have a case. No "evidence", no case... Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any "Skype" evidence "off-wiki" should be submitted to admins willing to look at such evidence (a checkuser admin would be the best choice). If you can't submit evidence you've been harassed on WP with significant diffs, I don't think "claiming" harassment without solid evidence is good for any case you may have... Doc9871 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So, if the harasser is sneaky, keeps a semi-good public image while privately harassing you severely about Wikipedia, and on-wiki actions, the harasser gets off scot-free? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 11:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sneaky"? What "image"? You are casting allegations with no direct evidence. Support your claims with diffs for "on-wiki actions" (which anyone could do if the evidence is there). Off-wiki actions are far more difficult to prove, especially when it concerns edits on WP... Doc9871 (talk)

Oh, fuck Wikipedia. I gave Wikipedia a last chance, this is what happens. Requests that I dig through a year of history for diffs from before I left to show the rare tmes her harassment spilled onto Wikipedia itself, instead of being on Skype. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shoe, when did you "give Wikipedia it's last chance"? You came back after months to complain about page protection, and then after getting a handshake and everyone agreeing lets just let this be water under the bridge and move on you start exploding about a completely different subject. And during none of this have you actually done anything on the project. Tired of a user? Here's an idea, don't interact with them. BOOM. Done. Drama, in a case like this where Durova is very clearly not doing anything to you on site, is something you are entirely bringing on yourself. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Durova is claiming copyright in the log in question, I'd like to ask directly and explicitly:

Durova, is the chat log posted by Shoemakers' Holiday an accurate record of a conversation between the two of you? — Werdna • talk 08:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sanam001 requesting redressal of grievience

This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123 in Malayala Sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution. [16]. The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here [17]. I realize that it takes two to create edit wars and there seems to be active recruitment of content disagreeing users to initiate edit wars with me by User:Anandks007 :Neither am I able to take the dispute resolution to formal mediation while simultaneously being dragged into edit wars by User:Anandks007 and User:Suresh.Varma.123 in bad faith.I have been continuosly trying invain to address the root cause [18] What options do I have to redress my grievience and stop this mobbing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear admins, first of all it is very difficult to assume good faith when facing racial abuse from someone. User Sanam has been pushing POV in articles related to my caste (Nair) for more than 3 months now. Wiki users like me have repeatedly asked Sanam to refrain from POV pushing and sort out the issue through the Talk page, but so far he ignored our requests. This is not my personal opinion, but the opinion shared by more than half a dozen other users as well. Sanam is repeatedly inserting the derogatory word Sudra in to Nair related articles, although users like me put a lot of evidence against this desperate act by him. Even yesterday one of the users put evidence against his racist views here. But rather than responding to the questions asked to him, he was again and again avoiding them and using diversionary tactics. We don't have anything against Sanam in personal, but the ethnic abuse he is hurling at us is making a lot of users like me quite angry and emotional. Well... I don't have much more to talk about this edit war going on. But if any admin happens to review the edits made by Sanam, then he will understand what is his real aim. Axxn (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a few things to what Anand said above.

• The word Sudra is a pejorative word like "Negro" and "Kike" and is seldom used nowadays in newspapers or media of any kind. For example, during 1910s and 20s, Black Americans were termed as Negros by a section of the non-Black population. But this usage was termed racist and was discontinued. Similarly, Nambuthiri Brahmins used the term "Sudra" to describe each and every Hindu caste as they thought common people will pollute them by their touch. Nambuthiris are around 0.01% of the Indian population, and there fore, 99.99% of the Indians became Sudra. But this orthodox Nambuthiri definition was deemed racist and remained out of use in most of India. If you go to the Sudra wikipage, you can see that the vedic definition is used rather than the Nambuthiri definition. Therefore, you can never find the word "Sudra" in any article relating any Hindu caste here in wiki. Still user Sanam insists that this derogatory term should be added to the Nair article. (Nairs are regarded as Kshatriya by most of the Indian historians, as can be seen from the links provided in the Nair talk page).
• User Sanam is unwilling to listen to others and this makes other users like me quite frustrated and angry. The biggest advantage he is having is that he is online 24 hours a day, as he does not have any other work. But common people like me reach home quite tired at around 9 o'clock in the night after having done work for 12 hours continuously (I am a blue collar/ semi blue collar worker and does not have net access at my office). And when I reach home, all I find in wikipedia are posts made by Sanam abusing my caste. Whatever we write in the talk page gets swamped by tons and tons of lecture typed in by Sanam. (Also, he always uses the bold character, which is sometimes removed by other users).
• Even after all these efforts made by other users, user Sanam still argues that we are not willing to take the issue to admins. (Actually we have done so at least 3-4 times). The real reason is that as people having a job to worry about, we are not being able to devote much time to wikipedia. Even now this futile argument is costing people like me quite a lot of energy and time.
• Another factor is that Sanam accuses others of being emotional and trying to lynch him. When someone is abusing someone else racially, the abuser will have a huge advantage over the victim. It is the emotionality. The victim will get quite emotional and start doing things which he will never due under normal circumstances, while the abuser will stay calm as he has nothing to worry about. If the admins check some of his earlier posts in the Nair and Ezhava articles, then they will be able to find the racist language he used.
• The sources he is citing, like those by the Kanippayyur Nambuthiri reminds me of the propaganda by Joseph Goebbels against the Jews during the Nazi rule.
• The most important thing which I was trying to convey through the talk page is that even by Sanam's own definition, the interpretation he gives out is completely wrong. I had posted it a few times in the talk page, but Sanam was never willing to discuss it.

I don't have anything more to say about this. I hope the admins will take a neutral and unbiased decision. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Sanam001 (talk · contribs) and Anandks007 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring. I would encourage Sanam001 not to try to get around 3RR by logging out in the future. In addition, I have protected the page for 1 week. Discuss on the talk page. Follow WP:dispute resolution procedures. If you have references that establish the present-day offensiveness of the term, supply them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple google search (Sudra + derogatory) is enough to ascertain the present day offensiveness of the term, as can be seen here (Note.6), here, here, here & here. And regarding the colonial POV pushed by Sanam, I have put up a section here to prove that his points are not even supported by the biased sources he is putting up. (As ususal, he used diversionary tactics and never directly answered the questions asked to him). Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his recent meatpuppetry is here [19]. I am myslef a nayar and being classified as sat-sudra has never been a shame for me but rather a matter of my natural dignity and has never affected my judgement of analysing anthropological material pertaining to my own community. I beleive in a POV free nayar image. The usage of sat-shudra in the specific context of the Kerala-society is not derogatory, it simply means clean-serviles by hereditary profession and includes lpeasants, soldiers, land-holders and even the ruling elite- vis a vis – a sudra king (see Ref1-[20]. Ref2- [21] )

No one here asked about your ethnicity. You are stating ten times a day that you are a Nair, and at the same time you are hurling racial abuse on Nair community. The term Sudra is derogatory in any occasion, and government of India never uses this term and considers it usage to be racial abuse. In fact if you call any one "Sudra", then most probably you will spend some time in prison for racially abusing that person. Only your anonymity is preventing other users from taking legal action against you. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The effort is by a cabal who are a subset of my own community armed with inadequate information trying to supplant the natural dignity of my community by peacocking to generate a POV nayar image. This same subset of individuals accusing me of using the term without understanding the terminology in the specific cultural context of kerala is simultaneously actively engaged in incorporating the same epithet on to other sub-divisions of my community !!!. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20. User: Anandks007- – [22] User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [23] If their definition for the term is derogatory why are the incorporating it on other clans within the same community ? I hope you understand the wider objectives of these set of users.A few references along with authors background is given to administrators to the legitimacy of term Malayala sudra and for the maintenance of the original version of the article which includes nayar in this category.

1. It is mentioned in other encyclopedia by Author- Edward Balfour- Balfour's works on collating information about various aspects of life in India led to the publication of the Cyclopaedia of India, the first edition in 1857

His documentation

“the malayalam sudras of which the better class are called nayars (or lords) are the bulk of the respectable population-the landholders, farmers, soldiers, officials…….…”

Link for verification: [24] In addition specifically within the context of Kerala society, it simply means depressed ritual status although in pan Indian scenarios the word has been sometimes mis-used by caste fanatics for discriminatory puposes. The word sat-sudra in Kerala society needs to be understood within it own jurisprudence.

2. Author- Edgar Thurston- He wrote the seven volumes of "Castes and Tribes of Southern India"; these volumes are the standard reference on the subject

His documentation

“The original Nayars were undoubtedly a military body, holding lands and serving as a militia, but the present Nayar caste includes persons who, by hereditary occupation, are traders, artisans, oilmongers, palanquin- bearers, and even barbers and washermen. The fact seems to be that successive waves of immigrration brought from the Canarese and Tamil countries different castes and different tribes; and these, settling down in the country, adopted the customs and manners, and assumed the caste names of the more respectable of the commu- nity that surrounded them. This process of assimilation is going (Ml even yet”

“The Travancore Nayars are popularly known as Malayala Sudras — a term which contrasts them sharply with the Pandi or foreign Sudras, of whom a large number immigrated into Travancore in later times”. Link:[25]

3. A spurious peacock claim exists in Wikipedia called Malayala Kshatriya with a version stating that Nayars are known by the term Malayala Kshatriya in an effort to peacock. The content of Malayala Kshatriya stating Nairs as part of it is debatable when you read in detail those manuscripts in its entirity . References and manipulating the interpretation of the inference of the reference to make this spurious claim.

A. In support of this I provide Author- Walter (M. R. A. S.) Hamilton- The east india gazeteer vol 11

“The next most remarkable caste are the Nairs, who although Sudras are at once the chief landed proprietors and principal military tribe of Malabar”

“All Nairs pretend to be soldiers but they donot all follow the martial profession, many practicing the arts of husbandry, accounts , weaving, carpentry………………….”

Link:[26]

B. The following PhD thesis from the Department of History at MG university. It describes Nayar regulation Act, Travancore Kshatriya Act etc and provides extensive information of the legal distinction between the two communities Nayars and Malayala Kshatriya. POV pushing of Nayar image as Malayala Kshatriya,

The PhD thesis is titled History of Social legistlation in Travancore state'

Link: [27]

In addition they intent to push a POV image of the entire nayar community as ruling elite. Nayar is an umbrella term for a variety of distinct lineages professing multiple professions. Furthe references.

1. Changing kinship usages in the setting of political and economic changes among the nayars of Malabar by E Kathleen Glough in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 82, No. 1 [28]

2. The internal structure of the nayar caste by C.J Fuller in the Journal of anthropological research 1975 [29]

3.Nayars of Malabar by Fawcett [30]

I am still open to dispute resolution and have provided two neutral options The caste-terminolgies are either to be totally abandoned to avoided. Kindly see my neutral solution. [31]. However instead of addressing the neutral solution of completely removing all caste-terms both sudra and kshatriya (in all forms and derives) I am faced with meat puppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User Sanam is using a very specific, orthodox definiton of the word Kshatriya (according to Brahmin POV) to claim that Nairs are not kshatriyas; this is clearly wrong and a POV from user Sanam001. Here is the (general) definition of Kshatriya according to Enclyclopaedia Britannica:

"second highest in ritual status of the four varnas, or social classes, of Hindu India, traditionally the military or ruling class.

The earliest Vedic texts listed the Kshatriya (holders of kshatra, or authority) as first in rank, then the Brahmans (priests and teachers of law), next the Vaishya (merchant-traders), and finally the Sudra (artisans and labourers). Movements of individuals and groups from one class to another, both upward and downward, were not uncommon; a rise in status even to the rank of Kshatriya was a recognized reward for outstanding service to the rulers of the day. The legend that the Kshatriya were destroyed by Parasurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, as a punishment for their tyranny is thought by some scholars to reflect a long struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers. Brahmanic texts such as the Manu-smrti (a book of Hindu law) and most other dharmashastras (works of jurisprudence) report a Brahman victory, but epic texts often offer a different account, and it is likely that in social reality rulers have usually ranked first. The persistent representation of deities (especially Vishnu, Krishna, and Rama) as rulers underscores the point, as does the elaborate series of ritual roles and privileges pertaining to kings through most of Hindu history. These largely buttress the image of a ruler as preserver of dharma (religious and moral law) and auspicious wealth. In modern times, the Kshatriya varna includes a broad class of caste groups, differing considerably in status and function but united by their claims to rulership, the pursuit of war, or the possession of land " [32].

The Nairs clearly match this definition; here are some refs describing the Nairs as a Noble/Ruling/Military/Kshatriya caste:

• Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 5 By Asiatic Society of Bombay,Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Bombay Branch page 40: "... to aid the Kshatriya (Nair) rulers,..." [33]
  
• Three-quarters of a footprint: travels in South India By Joe Roberts page 221: "... a Nair (the Malabar equivalent equivalent of the Kshatriya)..." [34]
  
• Fragments of a life: a family archive by Mythily Sivaraman: "... headed by his majesty with Nair (kshatriya) officers" [35]
  
• Indian classical dances By K. C. Balakrishna Menon page 32: "After the decline of Perumal rule in Kerala, the Nayar Kshatriya rulers became powerful" [36]
  
• Comprehensive Dictionary of the World, Volume 5, Part 1 By Thomas Wright page 428: "The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras." [37]
  

User Sanam001 is using books based on colonial era POV & a very specific, POV definition of the word Kshatriya to assert his claim. He absolutely refuses to acknowledge evidences shown to him by other users. This is intolerable & can't be accepted by other (honest) wiki users. The use of the word Kshatriya in Nair wiki article is not at all a peacock contrary to what user Sanam001 claim. Please have a look on Nair talk page and take the appropriate decision.90.46.32.29 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If the administrators are willing they are most welcome to send my earlier mentioned citations to reserach articlles, PhD thesis claiming nayars as sat-shudras as well as the citations of User: Suresh.Varma.123 and IP 90.46.32.29 to an expert committee to make an evaluation of whether nayars were classified as sudra or kshatriya. (I can even prepare a specific more elaborate collection towards this on request). The internet and wikipedia are being widely manipulated [38] for pretentious propaganda and this specific issue of Nayar being Kshatriya is a classical example and should not be acceptable in an collaborative collective information resource such as Wikipedia.For instance the encyclopedia brittanica ([39]) does not use the term Kshatriya to define nayar unlike the peacocking of the above editor. Interestingly, these individuals accusing me of using the derogatory term sudra is simultaneously actively engaged in incorporating the same epithet on to other sub-divisions within the nayar community !!!. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20.

By User: Anandks007- – [40]

By User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [41]

You can clearly see that I was reverting your section blanking, as the article was reverted to an earlier version. The term Sudra was added to it by a different user and needs to be changed to a more politically correct term (Most probably to Kammalar, which was the term used for artisan classes). But as editors like me are busy in fighting your edit wars, there is no time to properly modify the article. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If their definition for the term is derogatory why are they incorporating it on other clans within the same community ? I hope you understand the wider objectives of these set of users. Infact I have made a neutral solution offer where the word sudra is not used at all provided nayar and all nayar related articles avoid the peacocking with the term kshatriya or any sentences that may infer so and removing the name of my community (nair) from under the malayal kshatriya article. Meaning a caste terminology free definition of the community- but these offers have been not even been entertained by these users making their motives very clear [42]. Anyways I would like to re-focus on the primary issue of my reason for beseaching the administrators notice board – (1) addressing the content dispute at the level of formal mediation by experts in the field (2) addressing the meat-puppetry perpetrated on me by user Anandks007 [43] recently. I would also sincerely wish that if at any point in future time that i may get to a point of being blocked permanently by an administrator due to strategies of these concerted users, then the blocking administrator may sent my entire edit summary and data to any part of wikipedia foundation that may be interested in taking up studies on how to improve the wikipedia system from cabala related problem. I sincerely wish that my experiences may be useful for improving the regulatory practices that can be developed in future.--Sanam001 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really cheap tactics to earn sympathy. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the users are wondering about the "wider objectives" of your edits. See the list of users who have protested against your POV pushing (Suresh, Anand, Keraleeyan, Zero.vishnu, 116.74.15.88, Linguisticgeek, 90.46.32.29). Most of these users who have protested against you are editing Wikipedia for many years and are disturbed by your attitude and behavior. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I urge the admins to issue a topic ban to Sanam, as he has started edit wars on at least 25 occasions on the same set of articles. Axxn (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what i am implying.If you carefully read my above post in good faith you will understand the need for (1) formal mediation of this dispute by experts who will judge my citations and yours without any prejuice (2) Avoid coccussing tendency of a community of users with well established agenda to mis-represent information on a web-based encyclopedia (3) The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So do go through the middle solution I have recommended least i am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article whether the disagreement is with 1 or 10. Remember that it takes two to cause an edit war and meat puppetry is strongly discouraged by wikipedia--Sanam001 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User Sanam001 placed an {{adminhelp}} on their talk page; I nulled it, and advised that the matter was already noted here.  Chzz  ►  04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate attention.--Sanam001 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How this edit war started? - This edit war was started about 3 months ago, when User Sanam posted derogatory remarks about the Ezhava community here. His aim was to create a Nair-Ezhava edit war (happening frequently here for the past 5-6 years) and very nearly succeeded as a number of disruptive edits happened within days of this incident in Nair related articles and the talk paage itself like this one. However some of the users were able to convince them of Sanam's real intention as seen here, and the edit wars immediately stopped from their side. It was after this incident, that Sanam began vandalizing Nair related articles. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The wider intentions of these users is to generally peacock all nayar articles with a varna terminology -Kshatriya. Even more dangerous is their intention to attach the epithet kshatriya to certain sub-divisions of the nayar society and sudras to other sub-divisions see Nair subcastes . These actions have been perpetrated by the following users. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20.By User: Anandks007- – [44]By User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [45] .A malefied motivation is further suspected due to the non willingness of these users for my invitation for a neutral solution to avoid completely any varna terminology in all nayar related articles !!!!. I have been voluntarily refrained further edits on these articles for more than last 24 hours, simply assuming good faith and providing these editors the opportunity to focus on the primary issuees- as the following remains still unaddressed (1) formal mediation of this dispute by experts who will judge my citations and yours without any prejuice (2) Avoid coccussing tendency of a community of users with well established agenda to mis-represent information on a web-based encyclopedia (3) The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So do go through the middle solution here [46] I have recommended least i am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article whether the disagreement is with 1 or 10. Remember that it takes more than one to cause an edit war and meat puppetry as perpetrated here [47] is strongly discouraged by wikipedia.--Sanam001 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User Sanam001, you are refusing to answer to our questions and you want us to accept your POV ???... Who are you ???... FIRST PLEASE GIVE YOUR ANSWER TO MY LAST QUESTION (see Nair talk page).90.46.156.230 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war started once again by Sanam. Axxn (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for user:Vexorg

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vexorg to save space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please wait until this notice goes to the top of the ANI page before timestamping. –MuZemike

Tendentious editing; trolling

After existing more than a year without being edited even once, the Swiftboating article has been targeted by a tendentious editor: 68.35.3.66 (talk · contribs). He is intent on reversing the actual meaning of swiftboating. While all reliable sources note the term derives from the unsubstantiated charges, political attacks, innuendo and smears launched against John Kerry during his 2004 US presidential campaign, this editor insists just the opposite. His very first edit summary at the article explains his opinion:

• 12:23, 8 November 2009‎ (all of the charges were substantiated either by video of Kerry's anti-war activities or statements of fellow veterans)

Simple content dispute, correct? No. He has been asked by numerous editors to provide reliable sources to justify his edits, but he has refused - and instead just continues to insert his edits. When he is confronted with multiple reliable sources refuting his edits, he dismisses them as biased, opinions or unreliable (but refuses to check with WP:RSN) - and instead just continues to insert his edits. His edits against consensus have been criticized and reverted more than 20 times, by multiple editors and admins:

• Snowded (If you carry on edit warring against consensus then I will ask for the page to be semi-protected)
• The Four Deuces I agree with Snowded. The article is about swiftboating as a concept. This is not place to debate the merits of the campaign against John Kerry.
• Verbal It's well sourced, correct, NPOV, and appropriate. Keep per snowed et al.
• Gamaliel (consensus appears to be solidly against your removal, so there is little point to your edit war and its associated hostility.)
• Xenophrenic I've returned wording that is supported by the cited source. The changes you made were not supported by the cited sources.
• Bazzargh Performing the obvious search, it describes the Swiftboating campaign as 'fact-free' on page 14.
• Andrew c You have made WAY, WAY too many reverts on that page. WP:BRD suggests that you make one bold edit, and if you are reverted, you should NEVER re-instate your edit, without gaining a new consensus on talk (you past that point weeks ago, so our patience wears thin).

Reverting his unsourced and POV edits indefinitely isn't a problem, but the editor has also begun to expand his activities into soapboxing on the article talk page about the problems with Wikipedia; attacking editors as part of a "clique"; and "characterizing" editors with intent to "embarrass" them. When I moved his inappropriate article talk page comments to his user talk page for further discussion (instead of outright delete them as the advisory template at the top of the talk page suggests), he returned them. So now I'm dropping this in your collective lap. Good luck with it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic... is lying. Most of my edits required no source or were better sourced. For example, explicitly attributing the "fact free" opinion to Manjoo, is supported by the Manjoo source of the same "fact free" statement. Note that for a long time, I was insisting on a source for the "not substantiated" statement that was originally on the page. You don't need a source to remove an unsourced statement. After considerable edit warring by the clique, they finally implicitly conceded my point that the source provided did not support the "not substantiated" statement, by switching to the "fact free" hyperbolic opinion of Manjoo from the same source. I, in good faith, admitted that this was supported by the source, and merely argued that this obviously untrue hyperbolic opinion should be explicitly attributed to its source, the author of the source they provided, i.e., Manjoo.

Note, that I edit in good faith, that I have voluntarily adhered to a higher 1RR standard, despite facing a clique and that in contrast Xenophrenic... has taken to edit warring on the discussion page. Note the lack of rigor in Xenophrenic... characterizations here. I doubt he can explicitly back up his claim of POV and unsourced edits. I assure you I can back up my characterizations of the behavior Xenophrenic... and the clique. The "fact free" POV editing by the clique, is obviously not in good faith and a violation of the spirit of wikipedia standards. I don't know if the letter of wikipedia standards can address such abuses. The clique is mocking wikipedia to its face.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over Xenophrenic...'s complaint above, it must be embarrassing how he can only quote the clique, and not examples of unsourced or POV edits, they must be hard to come by.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving each of my above points. I am sure the reviewing admins know the difference between reality and mere claims. They know the difference between "opinion" sources and quality research with citations and footnotes (see Manjoo). They can count - they know the difference between your many 1RRs, 2RRs (15:26, 12 February, 10:05, 13 February), 3RRs (04:54, 17 January, 07:00, 17 January, 07:10, 17 January), etc. They know that just because you haven't crossed the 3RR "bright line", it doesn't mean you aren't edit-warring. I reiterate my request to have an end put to the slow-burn edit warring, endless circular reasoning and personal attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain which is POV and unsourced? The "not substantiated" statement which you and the clique have since abandoned, or my edits removing it, and insisting that you provide a source? Now you have replaced it with the obviously untrue hyperbole "fact free", and revert my compromise of attributing it to Manjoo, which is the source that the clique provided. Are you just inserting a statement you know to be untrue ... to prove you can? The power of your clique is most impressive, its ethics however is questionable.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not taking the bait and I'm ignoring the attacks; letting the admins handle this. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't take the bait either, when I repeatedly requested a source for the "not substantiated" statement either. Evidently you don't have to take bait when you are part of a clique.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comment at community de-adminship discussion

User:Brews ohare has just been banned for 48 hours by User:Sandstein because Brews violated an Arbcom restriction of posting on such venues. While this seems to be a routine Arbcom ban, I see two problems here:

1) Sandstein's previous block of Brews on similar grounds and his subsequent unblocking by User:Trusilver is still under discussion at Arbcom. Is it proper for Sandstein to act again while the previous case has not yet been settled?

2) This is a more general objection. The RFC is about Admins. If in this RFC we cannot allow in some comments by editors who are under sanctions, it seems to me that the RFC omits relevant comments and is thus biased in an essential way. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As for 1, while it is still under discussion, the Committee does not take issue with any of Sandstein's recent actions, so I don't see any issue with him acting here. As for 2, Brews's restrictions as laid out at the bottom of this page state that he is not to be editing the Wikipedia: namespace; this has not been rescinded. Most users under sanction would not be forbidden from commenting there. If you feel as though an exception should be made for this case, you should file a request for amendment with the Committee at WP:RFAR. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If Brews ohare had, in the past, wanted to see that his comments would be heard and his opinion aired, he would have altered his behavior to within acceptable limits. It is the reasonable consequence of the violation of acceptable behavioral norms to have restrictions placed to curb those violations. If having his opinion be part of discussions was a motivation for Brews ohare, then he shouldn't have done what he had done to earn his sanctions. --Jayron32 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any scope for ambiguity in the restriction and I don't see any problem with the block. Brews has to learn that you can't just ignore sanctions, if you want them varied you have to go through the right process. If people don't stick to sanctions then we have no hope at all of keeping Wikipedia on the rails. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From a purely Wiki-procedural POV, there indeed doesn't seem to be a problem. However, the "ban is ban logic" doesn't lead to good outcomes without proper independent appeals procedures in which the facts of the original case and how that's relevant to the latest complaints can be brought up. The situation Brews finds himself in now is similar of that 17 year old US citizen is who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Her angry dad complained and the boy was found guilty of "sex with a minor", branded a pedophile and is now in jail for violating the restriction that bans him from being within one kilometer from schools (the dad of the girl complained when he saw the boy near a local school). Count Iblis (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? *Cringes* Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Consider e.g. the way Brews was hit with the namespace ban. That had no basis in the orginal Arbcom case and was motivated purely by a few other involved people in the SoL case who had refused to drop the stick in an effort to get him permanently banned.

Brews was sticking to his topic ban when he was editing my essay WP:ESCA with the approval of me and all the other main editors ( and he he had already contributed to this before the ArbCom case). It were a few editors involved in the original ArbCom case who were following Brews' every move, including his contribution to the essay and launching frivolous AE requests time after time again. ArbCom decided to appease these editors and agree to a requested namespace ban. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've hesitated before involving myself in this, but I have some concerns relating to Count Iblis' point number 2. The comment at the CDA RfC was completely reverted, as opposed to being indented to remove its numbering. I would have no objection to doing so if it were clear to me that this comment had been a violation of the restrictions. I have no prior familiarity with this dispute, but I read the link provided by Hersfold, and I find the wording there confusing. "Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views." The CDA poll is in no way related to physics, policies etc concerning the editing of scientific topics, or minority views about science. On the other hand, it clearly is about "policy, guidelines...polls, RfCs and the like" in general, and the wording of the restriction is unclear, at least to me, about that. The first sentence of the restrictions places the Wikipedia namespace off limits, seemingly in its entirety, but then the sentence I quoted seems to restrict that limit to science-related material. So, I'm asking, was the comment at the RfC, in fact, precluded by the restrictions? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai's restriction of 07:33, 24 November 2009, contains two independent prohibitions:

• (a) Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces.
• (b) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to [make physics-related edits].
• [Exceptions.]

In this instance, the first prohibition was infringed, not the second.  Sandstein  23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This type of harassment should be stopped--- Sandstein is an adminstrator, and needs to be held to a higher standard. He could have let other administrators deal with the problem, if there was one.

As for Brews' block--- it was never justified to begin with. The political circus is distracting.Likebox (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• As a general comment, it should be clarified that the restriction in Wikipedia namespace was brought up by Brews repeated refusal to disengage from battles that stemmed from the ARBCOM/SoL case. This was done for two purposes. 1) So dead horses would stop getting beaten. 2) So Brews could get back to productive editing. Brews giving his opinion here is clearly a continuation of the recent developments of various ARBCOM/SoL-related issues, which again prevents him from being productive. I'll have to admit I'm stunned by the level of cluelessness displayed by Brews' by trying to test the limits of his ban once again, especially after being served a ban not even one week ago for the same reason (although last time it was physics-related as well, so that was a double-violation). I have no opinion on the appropriateness of this block however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since my concern expressed above was with respect to reverting the !vote at the CDA poll, and based upon the answers provided by Sandstein and Headbomb, I now consider my question to have been answered to my satisfaction, and I have no objection to letting the reversion of the CDA edit stand. Obviously, I am not in a position to comment knowledgeably about the other issues here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer David Tombe's question to me below, it was simply that I AGF that these two users are answering honestly, which I still do. But, given that there seems to be ambiguity about whether there really was a sanction that applied to the CDA poll, I have stricken part of my comment, until I can find out what is really the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been far too much weight attached to Tznkai's phantom sanctions. To begin with, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the original ARBCOM sanctions that allows Tznkai to make any sanctions in the absence of a transgression. Hence Tznkai's sanctions are ultra vires. Tznkai was acting beyond his powers. Secondly, Tznkai expressed his intention to end his phantom sanctions in January. You can see the relevant diff here.[48] Thirdly, Tznkai doesn't write in clear English, and most people have difficulty trying to figure out what he means. Tznkai submitted this statement to the ongoing arbitration case against Trusilver, relating to Trusilver's unblock of Sandstein's last block of Brews ohare. Here is the statement. [49] Despite the fact that it is very hard to understand this statement, it should nevertheless be at least clear that the phantom sanctions have expired. The most ridiculous sentence is where Tznkai states that he was intending to lift the sanctions but that Brews didn't seem to be interested! What sort of a ridiculous thing is that to say? Who is ever going to object to sanctions against themselves being lifted? Of course Brews wanted the phantom sanctions to be lifted. It is a straw man argument if ever there was to say that the sanctions would have been lifted if Brews had wanted them to be lifted, but that he didn't seem to show any interest. Fourthly, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept Tznkai's phantom sanctions to be intra vires, there can be no possible reading of those ambiguous sanctions that would say that Brews could not vote in that poll. That poll had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physics. Sandstein's blocking of Brews was a vindictive act of bullying, and it is sad that no sooner had Count Iblis opened this thread when three apologists stepped forward to endorse Sandstein's act of bullying, and that one of those three is a serving member of the arbitration committee. And it's further sad that when Sandstein blocked Brews ohare that he chose to put up a banner to intimidate other administrators from lifting the block, by claiming that it was an ARBCOM sanction that had been breached. It wasn't an ARBCOM sanction that was breached. It wasn't even a phantom Tznkai sanction that was breached. No sanction was breached. So now we have a situation where any administrator can block anybody and claim the lie that the block is for breach of an ARBCOM sanction, and that means that the block is secured. This is a dreadful state of affairs that needs to be reversed. There is no mechanism in place to review the legitimacy of a claim that a block has been based on an ARBCOM sanction. And to Tryptofish, it sure beats me what it was that Sandstein and Headbomb said that makes you now happy that all is well. David Tombe (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to unblock

I placed this unblock request for Brews ohare on his talk page. It was declined, because I am not Brews ohare (although Brews ohare, who I have been in email contact with for a few weeks, is currently on a trip and has limited access). I place it here to get review, and if nothing happens, I will have to ask ArbCom to intevene:

This unblock request is NOT FROM BREWS OHARE. I have placed this request for him, because I am outraged by this block:

1. There is an ongoing ArbCom case involving Sandstein block Brews ohare. Why is he blocking him again? Couldn't he wait for another admin to do it instead? It doesn't look impartial. User:William M. Connolley was desysopped for this exact reason.
2. The sanctions which are being enforced are seriously out-of-date and seriously misinterpreted by Sandstein. The namespace ban, if it exists at all, does not apply to voting on these sorts of motions. The intended scope of the sanctions were clarified by the sanctioner Tznkai at the Arbitration just a few days ago. They were a temporary measure, never held up for vote, never reviewed, and instituted for silly reasons. They have nothing to do with the original case, or the original complaints against Brews ohare.
3. It is essential that administrators get together and stop abusive blocks using this template. Just because you claim to be enforcing ArbCom restrictions does not mean that you are in fact doing so.
4. I am not happy with the way things are going politically here. The template above was designed to intimidate administrators from reviewing ArbCom related blocks. I am hoping at least one administrator has the courage of conviction to undo this.

If this is not the proper place for asking for an unblock, where is?Likebox (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's funny, I spent quite a bit of time over the last few days explaining to Brews' friends that hyperbole, anger, aggression, assumptions of bad faith and assertions that the sky is falling have, in my not inconsiderable experience, very close to the lowest success rate of all ways of resolving contested issues. Seems you don't believe me. I suggest you do a little reading around, because I would venture to suggest that many admins are going to dismiss the statement you make above based simply on its tone and the number of repetitions of the same or similar stuff in recent days. You might want to give some thought to what Einstein said about repeatedly trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, Einstein never said that. Einstein repeated himself on relativity for twenty years and on quantum mechanics for thirty years. I am following Einsteins' lead here.Likebox (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When I did the original unblock of Brews, it was under the rationale that the block was excessive and under circumstances so vague that no rational person would have expected to get blocked over. I feel that Brews needs to address the heart of the issue - the namespace sanction itself, which Tznkai himself clearly said that he never intended to go on as long as it has. While this block does smell suspiciously like WP:POINT to me (it doesn't take much more than a shred of common sense to conclude that this sanction is being enforced for reasons completely contrary to the reasons it was implemented to begin with), the last block should have made it clear to Brews that his namespace block is still very much in effect and he needs to act accordingly until the sanction itself is removed. Trusilver 00:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, I concur with most of what you have written. But I do think that the validity and the meaning of Tznkai's additional sanctions needs to be fully investigated impartially, because abuse arises in the absence of clarity. See the statement that I made further up a few minutes ago. David Tombe (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are methods to contest sanctions you do not agree with. Violating the sanction because you don't agree with it and then claiming that the sanction shouldn't apply is not one of them. I note that Tznkai had attempted to communicate with Brews to work out terms for the topic ban to end in january, but it didn't work so well. (from the RfArb discussion, and the statement by Tznkai). Brews kohare knew that the sanction was still in effect from the last time he got blocked. While I have to say in my personal opinion that I would have preferred someone other then Sandstein have done the block, as we are working on the motions for that one currently, I don't see any issues with the block itself. SirFozzie (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, The issue with the block is that Brews's edit wasn't physics related in any way. Let's see a bit more assumption of good faith please. You must know fine well that Tznkai doesn't write clearly. And you must know fine well that it was a total stretch to interpret his wording such as to make Brews's edit into an offence. In fact, if we were to take Tznkai's wording literally, it would mean that Brews isn't allowed to edit wikipedia at all. And you do know fine well that those supposed sanctions had lapsed if they ever existed at all. On your other point, you are wrong. There is absolutely no mechanism in place whatsoever to defend against false interpretations of ARBCOM sanctions. In the aftermath of the ARBCOM case last October, additional sanctions were heaped on Brews by a pincer process. I'll explain it to you, as if you don't it know already. Brews could be stating opinions perfectly legitimately on policy pages. The physics topic ban would have had no application. But it only took any editor with a grudge against Brews to take offence at the fact that Brews had the cheek to be expressing opinions at all, and they would then abuse the ARBCOM process and take out an arbitration enforcement action on the basis of a false allegation, for the purpose of settling a private score. It then only took an administrator to sign the false allegation. That is how it was done, and the administrator in question would justify himself on the grounds that since somebody else had made the allegation in the first place, then it must be true. It was a case of passing the buck of responsibility between two people, so that neither would feel any guilt, as like the ten men on the firing squad. Well if I hadn't pulled the trigger, the other nine would have, so it didn't make any difference. SirFozzie, this is called corruption and there is absolutely no appeal mechanism to investigate whether or not 'Tznkai type' sanctions are ultra vires or not. And so any admin who acts boldly on such a weak premises is clearly assuming bad faith. The original ARBCOM sanctions are quite explicit that a transgression needs to occur before the likes of Tznkai can issue a decree. And Brews's opinions on policy pages did not breach his topic ban. They only breached the decrees which Tznkai himself created. That is called moving the goal posts. And SirFozzie, the fact that you can see fault in Brews ohare's activities and yet not see any fault in Sandstein's activities indicates clearly that as a member of the arbitration committee, your bias is appalling. Sandstein blocked an editor with whom he is involved in an arbitration case. There is already a precedent for that kind of behaviour indicating that Sandstein has basically put himself forward for desysoping. I would imagine that if Sandstein is not desysoped that William Connolley will feel somewhat angry. David Tombe (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)\

David, even Trusilver, who did the unblock at issue in the case currently before ArbCom, says Brews should have been aware that his sanction was still in force, and he's not surprised that Brews was blocked for violating it again. I reiterate, if you disagree with a sanction, there are ways to have it reviewed. However, violating those sanctions and then again complaining that the sanctions "shouldn't count" isn't going to be one of those ways. As for your last couple of statements, I'd say that the "dispute" in the ArbCom case is not between Brews ohare and Sandstein, no matter how much you say it is (the better to disqualify him from taking actions in the area, right?). So I wouldn't quite be holding my breath for hoping for Sandstein to have his mop revoked. SirFozzie (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Brews was under the impression that voting would violate his namespace ban. I thought that this was ridiculous, considering that Tznkai qualified just now what he meant, and that the vote has nothing to do with blocks, or physics. It also didn't occur to me that anyone would complain, and I asked him if he could vote, considering that things are close.

There is a definite dispute between Sandstein and Brews here, but I don't think Sandstein should be desysopped, just asked to stay neutral. I honestly think that there would have been no drama if he hadn't blocked in this POINTy way. It honestly never occured to me that anyone would come to the same wrong interpretation that Sandstein came to twice, especially when there is an ongoing ArbCom case. My fault for giving bad advice.Likebox (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if Sandstein hadn't been following Brews around, nobody would have noticed the "violation" of a namespace ban that didn't really exist except in Sandstein's imagination.Likebox (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I had seen it, and I wondered how on Earth brews could be so clueless. So I wondered how long it would take before someone would report it. DVdm (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, Despite what Trusilver has said, it didn't even occur to me that Brews ohare had broken his ban when he voted in that poll. My guess is that Trusilver is as yet only slowly beginning to understand the depths of this can of worms. It's time that people started to examine the raw cold facts instead of playing card games with what other people have said. Tznkai resigned from the ARBCOM audit sub-committee in January, and then about a week later he revoked his resignation. Tznkai can't write in a manner that makes his point clearly. He doesn't seem to know whether he is coming or going. He doesn't seem to know whether he believes his ambiguous decrees are still in force or not. So please stop repeating so boldly that Brews ohare broke a sanction. There is more than sufficient grounds in this case, due to the ambiguities connected with Tznkai, to assume just a little bit of good faith in respect to Brews ohare. And I haven't seen any good faith whatsoever exercised in relation to Brews ohare for a long time. As regards desysoping, I don't want to single out any particular administrators for dysoping. As regards Sandstein, I was merely drawing attention to your gross bias in seeing fault with Brews ohare while seeing no fault with Sandstein. I was pointing out how another administrator was desysoped for similar actions to those of Sandstein, yet you could see absolutely no fault in his actions. And how can you possibly say that the ongoing arbitration request is not based ultimately on a dispute between Sandstein and Brews ohare? Of course it is. That's exactly the root of the problem. Trusilver is being used as a scapegoat, but the original dispute is between Sandstein and Brews ohare. And finally, nobody needs to go through any prolonged bureaucratic procedures in order to see that Tznkai's sanctions are ultra vires. It's very simple to see that Brews ohare did not breach any rules that would have allowed Tznkai to have instigated his phantom sanctions in the first place. If there is any good faith on the part of ARBCOM, they will formally debunk Tznkai's sanctions here and now and let's end all this ambiguity. But that is the last thing that I expect to happen, because it strikes me that certain elements are having a field day hounding and bullying Brews ohare on the back of Tznkai's ambiguities. Finally, I notice that there was some over-sighting went on here last night. One of my edits was over-sighted. David Tombe (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, the raw cold facts here are that (a) Brews is under a restriction which he has been testing ever since it was enacted and (b) that every time it happens you and a few others come back wanting to overturn the sanction and ideally refight the arbitration case, which ain't going to happen here because it's the wrong venue (for either outcome). Oh, and (c) virtually every discussion is into WP:TLDR territory in minutes. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you didn't read, JzG, you don't know anything about this case. Stop commenting on things you don't know anything about. I had to read repetitive crap for hours on Speed of Light archives and ArbCom archives, and it was a pain, before I could figure out what was going on.

I can tell you for sure that Brews has never, ever tested his sanctions. He has always acted in good faith to respect them, even though they were a crock of shit right from the beginning. The reason he gets blocked is because admins and Arbitrato are lazy and don't read, and Brews was indignant about the injustice and complained a lot (alone) in the beginning. So people exploited this to make up a large volume of specious complaints against him, and since he was in the doghouse and had no friends, he gets blocked a lot.

I did not get involved in this until much later, when I started to pore over the archived material on Speed of Light. Brews was arguing a minor point (which I disagreed with) but he was arguing it correctly, and arguing it persuasively, although the text he was inserting into the article was no good. Eventually, people got tired of talking to him, took it to ArbCom, made him look like a lunatic, presented crap evidence of do-nothing diffs, and ArbCom just went along with the majority without thinking, the way they often do, especially when the defendant is representing himself, incompetently.

The reason ArbCom went along is not because they are corrupt or blind. It was because Brews was longwinded, and had too much talk-page banter, and they wanted the Speed of light drama to end. But Brews was good intentioned, and never did anything bad-faith (that continues to this day). That distinguishes him from his opponents. The reason he was so incompetent at arguing his point is because he is a scientist, and it is impossible for scientists to beat lawyers in the court of popular opinion, because they talk too much and in a way that is too full of self-doubt, while their opponents sound like the voice of God.

The issue here is that ArbCom is not equipped to handle technical content disputes, and the Mediation Cabal refused to hear the speed of light case, probably because it was too technical. The technical disputes on Wikipedia cannot be resolved by blocks. They are deep content disputes which need to be resolved by people sitting down and thinking about what to include in a hyperbole free environment. You need a technical mediation cabal for this stuff.Likebox (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised by Likebox here. Another factor that may play a role here is that Brews is a bit older than the average Wikipedian (I think about 70 years old). It makes a difference if you have been used to chatting on the internet from the age of five onwards or have been online only from the age of 60 (and only that for limited amounts of time). Just like an autistic person will have difficulties picking up nonverbal clues e.g. that he is talking too much, Brews was having difficulties seeing and acting on the not so explicit feedback that he should stop arguing so much on the talk page. So what he lacked was the ability to sense the general climate on the talk page which to most of us younger people comes naturally. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am older than the average Wikipedian, too. I suspect my kids are average Wikipedian age :-) The fact remains that, and I really can't say this any stronger, this is the wrong venue. And the people above have consistently raised it in the wrong venue, and usually in the wrong terms. This has to be considered through the arbitration process. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Likebox et al. considered what the most parsimonious explanation was in this case.

1. Brew's block is warranted, and those fighting to have it repealed every second week are only making things worse by beating a horse in every imaginable way possible (by wikilawyering, appealing to Jimbo, claiming violations of blocks you don't agree isn't evidence of disruption, ...) everyone but them thinks is long dead.
2. Every arbitrator, every reviewing admin, and everyone who does not agree with those fighting it are lazy morons who are either incapable or unwilling to exercise independent thought, and have been brainwash be the "Headbomb Cabal".

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb, The original injustice against Brews was done by ARBCOM largely at your behest. You instigated the AN/I motion which led to the damage being done on him. Therefore it's hardly surprising that you wanted him to bury the hatchet once the damage was done. Guy(JzG) you know nothing whatsoever about the case, but you are clearly one of these special kind of people who always stands by the actions of those who are in authority. You are very good at finding technical faults in the statements of those who are drawing attention to the injustices. One example is your pointing out of the fact that my statements have been too long. The problem is that it does actually take alot of words to unravel a can of worms. Corruption thrives on that fact, because it knows that there will always be plenty of people just like yourself who will gladly buy the cover story. As for the wrong venue, that of course is a classic. It is the height of folly to make a complaint to the very body that you are complaining about long after that body has been exposed as being biased. I know all about the original Brews ohare ARBCOM case because I was there myself and I saw what happened. And I can tell you one thing straight. Whatever ARBCOM does, it doesn't arbitrate. People might believe that it arbitrates because that's what its name suggests that its function is. But it doesn't arbitrate. Now let's get back to the point here. Brews ohare has just been blocked for 48 hours for no reason whatsoever. It's done and dusted. Nice piece of bullying ARBCOM! David Tombe (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has made a !vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson AFD, regarding an article that he wrote; he is currently listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as not being allowed to edit the Wikipedia: namespace. I don't know what the exact rules are in editing restrictions — is this alone enough to breach his editing restriction? Never mind that he did falsely accuse me of having some sort of vendetta against him, and never mind that he did push his "speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" mantra on us again. And never mind that he clearly thinks that his restriction is a joke (just look at his userpage). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• ETA: It says "Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block." Hmm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So should that go in a seperate ANI post or do you want to just change the title of this one? Nefariousski (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to notify him on his Talk page. Woogee (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Notify him about a discussion in a namespace he can't edit, just so… oh never mind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU has blocked Kmweber indefinitely for the violation of editing restrictions. -- Atama頭 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, was in the process of blocking myself as well. Whether he felt it was valid or not is irrelevant - ANI is the most high-traffic page for that sort of thing, and if anyone wanted to speak against the ban, they could have, and in fact at least one someone did. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As ever, I invite review - if deemed appropriate - and do not need to be consulted should another admin decide to lift or vary the sanction. To be clear, I enacted the provisions of the community restrictions and have no opinion on them (unless I commented - in which case my opinion is irrelevant). LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Give the guy a break. Don't wiki-lawyer. The article was created by him and he is the major editor. So when there is an AFD, he is an expert in saying why he thought the article qualifies. So stop the drama, use IAR if you have to, and unblock the guy. After all, you want to encourage him to write articles so stop hounding him. Ipromise (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem awfully draconian. Commenting on an AfD for an article where he's been a major contributor hardly seems like trolling around for trouble. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of community block

Proposal: Current editing restrictions are lifted. In its place is a restriction to not allow Kmweber discussion in RFA, noticeboards, and ArbCom until December 31, 2010 and restrictions after that to be based on article edits between March 6, 2010 and December 31, 2010. Ipromise (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• We've given him way too many chances. Why does he keep slipping through? It's clear that he's not here to play by any of our rules, only to wikilawyer everything to death and force his "everything should have an article, sources are optional" mantra, which is not only wrong but destructive to the wiki. His comments in the AFD suggest that he doesn't believe in the policies that nearly everyone else believes in, and in fact wishes only to refute them — and he's been doing this for at least three years, if not longer. His contributions to article space are minimal; almost always two-sentence stubs with a stub template, no categories and no references. (I asked him about this once, and he said basically that he "can't be arsed" to learn the category tree; his comment in the AFD says that he honestly believes that ONLY contentious info should be sourced if at all.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)TenPound Hammer is the AFD nominator so there is a conflict of interest. He nominated the article for deletion then tried to get the article creator blocked for commenting on the AFD. If TenPound Hammer believes the current editing restrictions stays in place, that is a valid opinion which he is encouraged to express above. But to seek Kmweber's block because of an AFD that TenPound Hammer nominated and that Kmweber created is a very mean thing to do. Ipromise (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're making false accusations. I filed the AFD because I thought the article failed notability. In no way was I doing this just to "bait" Kmweber into getting indeffed. He seemed to be keeping with the promise not to edit WP: space (even though he still calls it out a joke), so I honestly didn't think he would even touch the AFD — after all, I also AFDed one of his other articles the same day and he never touched that AFD. You're awfully accusatory, Ipromise, you know that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the false accusation? Unomi (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Tenpoundhammer. And per Kmweber,[50] keep the indef too. It might have been reasonable to seek an exemption from a community restriction in order to participate in a discussion, but he didn't go that route. Instead he declared in big red letters that the restriction didn't exist and tested its boundaries. His lightweight mainspace history really doesn't merit additional chances. Let him wait on the sidelines and participate in other WMF sites. In half a year I'd consider a return if he pledges to refrain from past problems and hasn't socked. Durova⁴¹² 04:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and seek clarification. And generally support the notion that he is able to defend articles that he is a major contributor to. Unomi (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per Durova. There are reasonable means of asking for permission to violate ones restrictions. "Hey ArbCom, can I have a temporary pass for the sole purpose of discussing this one AFD, since I am a primary editor on the article" would have been the way to go. The attitude displayed by Kmweber over this shows that he is unwilling to work within the bounds of his restrictions, nor is he willing to calmly and reasonably seek amelioration. There's a big difference in approaches, and as with lots of his past actions, Kmweber shows here an utter disdain for the community and for expected behavioral norms. --Jayron32 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The expected behavioural norms are in no way those exhibited by tenpoundhammer. Seriously. Tenpoundhammer could have been slightly more diplomatic than, by his own words, nominate 2 articles which tph attributes to kmw for deletion. He could have gone to KMW first and ask for rationales for keeping it. TPH may actually have done so on the talk page of the article prior to nominating it, I don't know, because this has been brought up *after* the article was deleted, a week *after* kmwebers initial post to the afd. TPH should be ashamed of himself, and those supporting this should consider the circumstances carefully. Unomi (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• KMweber controls his behaviour. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to comment on those AfDs. He's been here long enough that he knew he could have sought a different route. If he actually felt so compelled to comment on those AfDs regardless of his restrictions than its probably further evidence he shouldn't be here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• To Unomi: Its not that he commented on AFDs about his articles, its how he went about it in light of his restrictions. Per Durova's link, his attitude was not "I am under restrictions, how may I work around them so I can still comment at the AFDs" it was "Fuck my restrictions, I will do whatever I want when I want." The former approach would have led to no block at all; indeed it may have led to a loosening of restrictions when he showed he was able to work with others. The latter approach merits a block. --Jayron32 00:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? — I missed the discussion that led to the unblock with restriction, and here we are are: It Didn't Work Out. Support the indef. Put a cherry on top. Jack Merridew 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• You don't see a problem with TPH nominating at least 1, 2, 3 of KMWs pages and articles for deletion on the same day, without having the courtesy decency to approach kmw for a venue of response? Right, It Didn't Work Out. However you may feel about the guy, you must admit that this is pretty low. Unomi (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. I don't know what to say. Not that I need to. The Block Log speaks for itself JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Err, what does that mean exactly? Should we indef everyone that has a block log? How about this guy? Unomi (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per Jayron32.  Sandstein  07:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Right, lets block him 1 week after he initially commented on an afd of an article he was the main contributor to. Ignoring that TPH offered up 2 of kmws user pages for deletion on the same day, even though he arguably should have known that nothing had changed since the last time he nominated them for deletion. You must know this can't be right. Unomi (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since the "no Wikipedia space" restriction was placed, notwithstanding that he disputes it, KMWeber has not edited in the Wikipedia namespace until this incident. The main reason for the restriction was, IIRC, to stop drama-mongering, I don't think a !vote on an AfD on an article to which you have significant contributions is a violation of the spirit of that, and AfDs have a timetable which means that a request to vary the restriction might well take you outside the timeframe. We should consider what can be done to allow people to participate in AfDs where they have prior interest when they are under some kind of restriction; I can see why you'd want to keep it to a single comment block with not more than a couple of hundred words. But ignoring restrictions is not the way to challenge them. Perhaps we can let Kurt off the hook this time, but with a clear message that this was not the right way of going about things. LHvU is not given to capricious blocks, I think this was in good faith and defensible, but I think we could probably take a collective deep breath and step back this time. I note that Luna Santin has unblocked him, it would be better if Luna had let LHvU do it based on this discussion. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Kmweber was already given a final warning in December, here. It was for the same reason than this block: Kurt participated in a wikipedia-space page. And he gave the same reason: that he could do it because it directly concerned him. If Kurt is unblocked, he shouldn't be allowed any exception from his wikipedia-space ban.

And, yes, a one week block would have been enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

support an indef. I'd seriously question the admin who unblocked without clear consensus to do so on the ultra super duper last chance.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any restrictions on Kurt from participating in AfDs and support his being unblocked. It is absurd that any article creator could not be permitted to defend the article he or she created. I also think this rather overthetop edit should be undone. Since when is commenting in an AfD, "illegal"?! We have all seen lame non-arguments in AfDs (pretty much any time someone says to delete something as "cruft") that should be discouraged, but even then, they are not "illegal". What law did Kurt break by commenting there? Even if Kurt was under any editing restrictions, he should at least be able to defend an article he created. He made two edits in the discussion, did not spam it, did not start tossing around swear words. What is so problematic there that it breaks a law or is even that big of a deal in Wikipedic rule terms? We should not toss around terms like "illegal" unless if it concerns something like actual libel or intentional copyright violations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked Kmweber at this time. As far as I can see, this is the first infraction of any kind on his topic ban, and multiple users above have expressed opinions that he should be entitled to comment in XfD discussions where he was a major contributor to the page under discussion. A warning might have sufficed, or a short block -- which he's already served -- but indef is a frankly ridiculous response here that I will not abide. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My Hero/Heroine :) Unomi (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what in this guy brings the most severe response from the system. I am disappointed by the response, especially from users whom I respect. I know he has a past and a mile-long block log but I am simply not comfortable with this latest round of his blocking cycle. He has edited sparsely since February and today when he edits to defend his article he gets indefed. I realise that he did this against his topic ban and that the article he was defending was borderline notable. But his was a human response. Please give this guy a comfort zone, on humanitarian grounds, to do something that most people take for granted: defend their own creations. Repeatedly nominating his articles for deletion is traumatic enough for him and at minimum would justifiably make him feel targeted. Getting multiple users, all at the same time trying to ban him after he reflexively ran to the AfD to defend his article simply does not pass any appearance of fairness test. Actions have to be fair and appear to be fair, in an analogous way to the virtues of Caesar's wife. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't see where you had the consensus to unblock. There certainly didn't seem to be it above.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not about editors being in agreement, it is regarding whether decisions are in-line with policy and with the 5 pillars(though generally one hopes they are one and the same), quite frankly the behavior and reactions seem to fall far short of both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, which remains a core principle. Unomi (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, KMWeber is in full control of his actions and if he isn't, he shouldn't be editing wikipedia. No one forced him to respond to that AfD. if he can't help but edit wikispace and knowingly invite drama then he doesn't belong here. If you have evidence of intent to bait, then provide it. Especially since after having his comment struck he came back a week later and did it again. That shows complete intent to disrupt.--Crossmr (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a discussion I find to be necessary or fruitful at the moment. Please reflect on this; are you holding kmweber to a different standard than tenpoundhammer? Unomi (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why because you can't argue against it? You brought it up. And yes, since he is under an editing restriction, he is held to a different standard. It is quite simple. He knowingly and without evidence of physical coercion violated his editing restrictions in an area that he had to know was going to cause drama. Can you say the same about tenpoundhammer?--Crossmr (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I find it a tad unfortunate that you didn't choose to redact your comment above or back it up with diffs on the back of kmwebers response to your comment. Editing restrictions are meant to ensure that an editor does not cause drama, it is not meant to take away a right to response(that would be against WP:CIVIL). Perhaps we should move this whole discussion to 'neutral ground'? WP:EQ refers to Ethic of reciprocity for good reason. Second of all, the standard that I was referring to was regarding presumption of intent or reasonable ability to foresee consequences. Do you believe that tph was was unable to foresee that drama and / or duress would be caused by nominating at least 3 pages attributed to kmw for deletion? Or do you believe that he was unable to control himself? Clearly tph welcomed the outcome, why else would he declare lhvu his hero? Clearly tph brought it to AN/I in order to facilitate such an outcome, as an experienced editor he would know that there was no urgency here, kmw responded to the afd 1 week ago. Consider that 20 mins after creating the issue here, having had no response, he adds: ETA: It says "Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block." Hmm.. Yet still stated I didn't explicitly ask for him to be blocked; I asked if he should be blocked.. Consider further that the 2 user pages he nommed for afd were previously closed as keep, and were stated by all involved to be within policy, why would he have imagined that this had changed?. WP:CIVIL clearly states: It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.. Unomi (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

His response is immaterial, whether his comment was struck out first or not, both were made while he was under editing restrictions. The time line of the striking out doesn't supersede the timeline of his being restricted. I find it a tad unfortunate you continue to try to dance around the issue when it is clearly obvious that he was under an editing restriction and chose the route to generate the most drama. Sorry, can you point to the part of CIVIL that says its okay to violate your editing restrictions to respond to an AfD of an article you once edited? I'll wait while you look it up. Editing wikipedia isn't a right, so there is no "right of response". tph was not under editing restrictions. If you'd like to propose some for him, feel free. I'll even give you a little toque so it'll last longer. If you'd like to read up on something you should do some reading on Personal Resonpsibility. kmweber seems to utterly lack it and you're enabling him. He controlled his actions. No one forced him. If you can't deny that or provide evidence to the contrary, then we really have nothing further to discuss here. I asked you if you had evidence that tph was intentionally baiting kmweber to provide it. I haven't seen any. If you think tph did something untoward start a separate discussion and provide evidence. But unless you can demonstrate how someone forced him to make those edits, he's got nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you truly have a burning desire to discuss this then feel free to ping me on irc, but at this point I see no reason for us to waste yet more foundation resources on ANI threads. Unomi (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"indef is a frankly ridiculous response..." Why? Is it too long, or too short? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe she meant not definite enough? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will check the restriction, then, to see whether it should have been the short or long indefinite... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can I hear just one good reason why we should keep bringing Kmweber back? One good reason? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is none. Plain and simple: he violated his editing restriction. No ifs, ands, or buts. It is not complicated. Just like some other editors whom I won't mention, he is apparently entitled to an infinite number of "second chances". — Huntster (t @ c) 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unomi has suggested on IRC that this discussion be moved to a talk space or otherwise non-WP: space so that Kmweber can reply. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. Those end up being missed. Moving to subpages never accomplished anything than to try and prevent a discussion from actually going somewhere.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The block rational seems thin and heavily bureaucratic. It's continuing proof that when it comes to getting blocked, it's not what you do but who your friends are (and as important, who your enemies are). I'm not fan of Kurt but I've rarely seen an editor hounded as much as he has been. I'd be as argumentative if I was faced with the venom he has put up with. The whole thing is a little high school clique-like. Sorry if I soiund harsh. RxS (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Trouts all around. One for TPH, one for Kurt, one for the blocking admin, and one for the unblocking admin. Really? Was this necessary? I mean, come on, Kurt was harmless and not causing trouble up until this point. Couldn't we just leave him alone? The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• I largely agree with The Wordsmith above. Kurt made two edits arguing to keep an article he created. Heaven forbid! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• He was restricted from editing anything in wikipedia space. He did, and look where we are. This is the exact reason he was restricted from doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, maybe. I don't think the content of his arguments caused the drama (which has been the problem in the past), and I don't think we properly thought through how people should comment on content issues in such cases. If the ban is designed to include AfDs on articles where Kurt has significant content edits then we should say so explicitly I think. Piling in to other AfDs and noticeboard threads is obviously not going to fly but I can see why this particular case would be perceived as it was by Kurt. The main thing is that it does not seem to be part of a pattern of pushing the limits, and actually it does not seem to have had any effect on the outcome of the debate either. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific question

What do we think should be done in the case of users restricted from editing in project space (something which is not as unusual as it once was) in the specific case of AfD discussions on articles to which they have significant past contributions? I would say this should be an exception to general project-space bans, provided that involvement on the AfDs does not become disruptive. Line by line rebuttals after every !vote is obviously going to be perceived as a problem but a single !vote with rationale would seem to me to be a reasonable thing to allow in the specific case where the user has significant prior contributions to the article under discussion. I don't want to open the door to Wikilawyering here but I do think we need to be fair to people. The point of topical bans is, as I see it, to allow people to continue to contribute to content but to keep them away from their hot-button topics. I think you could argue this either way and I think we should come to a consensus view of how it should be handled in general. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Maureenpfleming

Maureenpfleming (talk · contribs), apparently Maureen Fleming, edited her article to mess up the formatting and sourcing and to add a huge quote in the middle of the article. I reverted back to the last version, and tried to explain COI to her, suggesting she discuss her edits on the article's Talk page. Instead, she took her version of the article and posted it on her User page. Not only does this appear to be a copyright violation, since she didn't retain the article's edit history, but even if it is about her, it's fully of unsourced claims. Is there anything that should be done here, or should we just leave it alone? Woogee (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied the above to User:Maureenpfleming/Maureenpfleming and noted same to the editors talkpage (which I had *cough* unuserfy...) while suggesting they familiarise themselves with the WP ethos. I didn't mention that I also {{Noindex}}ed the page, just in case, as they can learn about that when they learn about COI, verifiability and the need to list contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that address the copyright violation and BLP sourcing problems? Woogee (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... In that the content is no longer caught by crawlers... perhaps. Also, if the account and the subject is the same individual then there is an inherent permission to use that text per WP's licensing. If they are not the same individual, then maybe it should be deleted. You could always try an MfD for the page to see if that can resolve the issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thge copyright issue within wikipedi can be handled by a talk page attribution, such as via {{copied}} which exists for that purpose. DES ^(talk) 02:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance with repeated personal attacks

User:Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me by starting a thread about me entitled "Deletion campaign of Delicious carbuncle - advice requested" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. The thread misstates my position and actions. Ash goes so far as to suggest that I am "on an admitted deletion campaign against gay pornography articles (as well as some gay articles)" which is not something I could "admit" to since it is completely untrue. This thread was started shortly after similar accusations were made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio and I asked Ash to stop doing so. This is not the first time I have asked. WP:NA is clear that such accusations offered without evidence are personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."). I have no objection to Ash making a complaint at the appropriate forum, but I consider this latest attack to be deliberately provocative and deceptive. I have taken pains to explain my actions and motivations, but Ash seems intent on assuming bad faith regardless of what I say. Can someone please deal with this seriously as I have had quite enough of these attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not very nice. I asked for advice on how to positively handle your pattern of deletions (see pattern of past deletions) and raised the question on the LGBT project page for feedback, a forum I would think ideal for such a discussion. You have responded there, raising this ANI was unnecessary. My statement about your behaviour on that forum is supported by evidence which was under discussion until you squelched the discussion with this ANI. If evidence is supplied then this does not fit the description of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

As for your statement in the January ANI thread where you attempted to gain support for your actions, saying you are not on a deletion campaign when the evidence and your own statement of intent shows otherwise is hardly sufficient to prove that there is no targeting of your deletion requests.

I am unclear if this could be considered an "accusation" if the consensus is that there is nothing theoretically wrong with targeting gay pornography articles for deletion. It would only be a statement of fact. I could substitute the word "campaign" with "programme" or "drive" if that is the problem here. My illustration that someone doing the same thing by persistently walking through Category:Christianity and raising deletion requests on articles they don't like the look of (rather than tagging for improvement in accordance with ATD) is an interesting parallel to imagine if an editor would receive more resistance and complaints about their behavior compared to the topic of Category:People appearing in gay pornography.

As for your characterization of "Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me" perhaps you would be kind enough to supply diffs of these "attacks". I must have missed the discussions where my edits were demonstrated to be personal attacks on you. Ash (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, stating that I have "admitted" to something which I have clearly and repeatedly denied is, frankly, lying. That I have nominated articles for deletion is not in question, but your statements ascribe motivations and intent which I do not have and can only bias other editors against me. You are free to start an RFCU if you wish, but otherwise, stop making any assertions about me. These are personal attacks and unacceptable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No diffs to support your claim that "Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me" then. Unless you are prepared to support your case, there is nothing for an admin to do here.

Looking at your edit history, you have made quite an astonishingly large number of contributions to ANI for a non-admin. 493 edits to ANI plus 88 to AN out of a total edit count of just over 14,000 of which just 552 have been to article talk pages. This means that you are more likely to turn to ANI or AN than attempt to resolve your issues on article talk pages. Perhaps you should try collaborative discussion on article talk pages for a change before it becomes obvious that you are persistently using ANI inappropriately? Ash (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Carbuncle, just know that not all members of that project feel that way. As long as you're doing it out of a desire to improve the wiki and not out of some sort of agenda (i'm assuming the former is the case), then keep doing it. Sometimes going through topic at a time is easiest, and not indicative of an agenda. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wordsmith, you are off-topic. This ANI was a request for admin intervention due to a claim of personal attacks. This is not a discussion about whether a program of deletions against gay pornography related articles is a good thing or not. Ash (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it relevant then: stop attacking him and making insinuations about his motives. Further AGF and NPA violations maybe blockable. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes your opinion clear. As you appear to be taking responsibility for claiming I have been making personal attacks, could you please supply relevant diffs showing where I have actually made personal attacks as per the subject of this ANI? Ash (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

here you go The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. You may be misinterpreting something so I shall explain what I see when I read this text.

What I read in this diff is a summary of the points raised in a previous ANI (created by Delicious carbuncle) and my statement "Such deletion requests are not just poor judgement, they are a deliberate and sustained mis-use of the DELETE guidelines and process". My summary of the ANI or my claim of a mis-use of the DELETE guidelines may be debatable or later proven to be incorrect but does not fit the description in PA of what might consitute a personal attack. For example a threat- I made no threat, an ad hominem attack - I made no argument based upon the person, or an unsubstantiated accusation of personal behaviour - my summary of Delicious carbuncle's edits has been supported with evidence and Delicious carbuncle has been free to challenge that evidence if it was incorrect.

I took the matter to the LGBT project talk page to ask for feedback on my viewpoint, a forum where you have already provided feedback. For my efforts, Delicious carbuncle has now claimed this was a personal attack rather than taking it in good faith as merely a genuine better alternative to her/his own suggestion of escalating to RFC/U. My words you provide in this diff appear to me to be genuine concern about an apparent unjustified deletion campaign without sufficient attention being paid to the guidance of BEFORE, the same concern that was then raised on the LGBT project talk page. Could you please explain how you the diff you have provided proves I have "recently stepped up" my "personal attacks"? Ash (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The thread you started, Ash, is divisive and makes claims which are patently untrue. We generally call this lying. Lying about another editor is a personal attack and I take it seriously. You offered no diffs for your claims, although I can certainly provide diffs to the contrary ("Serious accusations require serious evidence"). I'm not going to debate this here with you. To use your phrasing, Ash, "put up or shut up". Start the RFCU or stop making allegations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that you are claiming personal attacks and then repeatedly call me a liar in this forum without understanding the point I was making. Perhaps you should have a cup of tea and try to take a moment to consider my viewpoint.

You were free to discuss this at the LGBT Project talk page. Instead you have chosen to immediately raise this ANI rather than engage me in any discussion on the points raised on that talk page. You should note that for ANIs it is customary to provide clear diffs demonstrating the allegations, not up to the person accused to prove they are innocent first. However I will repeat the examples given at the beginning of the thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies where an open minded discussion could have been held. I provided (1) the previous ANI where you attempted to explain your rationale for deleting pornography related articles and gave a list of those you had raised for deletion up to that point, (2) I provided a link to the most recent AfD discussion where you justified nominating an article for deletion on the basis of improvement, a justification specifically against the guidance of DELETE, (3) as for diffs, I was asking for advice on your pattern of deletions, any editor can examine this by searching for your deletion nominations, a "diff" is not needed to see that. This was evidence supplied for discussion in that forum, not a personal attack.

I suggest you either calm down and discuss this matter sensibly on the LGBT project talk page or follow a mediation process as sensibly recommended by IronDuke below. You appear to be highly keen to have an argument using the RFC/U process as you have suggested it more than once, however I consider that pointless escalation. You have twice attempted to escalate matters by raising ANI's against me rather than discuss the issues. ANI is not supposed to be a big stick to be used to win discussions.

I will be quite prepared to apologize, strike any offending text and change my behaviour if I have mistakenly made personal attacks. I do not contribute to Wikipedia to get my jollies by attacking people. At the moment it is not clear exactly where such attacks are, or if your apparent anger is down to communication problems. There appears to be no reason for an admin to take any action, so using this forum seems inappropriate. Ash (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you two get a mediator? I think having someone truly neutral on the issue might help. IronDuke 18:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Delicious, you've expressed clear opposition to an RfC on your editing of Gay Porn Star Bios with this edit and this edit. But now you say, "I have no objection to Ash making a complaint at the appropriate forum", and suggest he open an RFCU. And you are now upset that Ash is "requesting advice" from WikiProject LGBT studies. It doesn't seem you are willing to WP:AGF nor WP:CONS. (Oh, and please don't accuse me of trolling again as I am interested in this topic and am simply participating, not trolling. Any such accusations would only be evidence of my comment in bold.) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clear that your interest in this topic is in aggravating any situation which in which I am involved and attempting to bait me - in short, trolling. I suggest you log in with your account and start the RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Give over, s/he is not a troll and made a fair point here. You do yourself no credit by repeatedly making such accusations and there is nothing automatically wrong with editors deciding to contribute from an IP address if they do not wish to have the benefits of a named account. Ash (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Delicious: You're welcome to do your research and discover that I do not have an account, for the reasons noted on my talk page. And why would I (or anybody) begin work on an RFC that you have clearly expressed no interest in participating in? What would be the point? There are plenty of articles that you contribute to (the majority of your contributions, in fact) with which I have zero interaction. You're highly uncivil, do not assume the least bit of good faith, and have no interest in finding consensus in a bulk of your editing. At the least, I would recommend you review WP:COOL, and again suggest you review my comments here. That doesn't sound like trolling to me...in fact, it sounds rather fair and balanced. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear friendly admins, please either take my request seriously and take some action for these personal attacks, or close this thread. I don't intend to respond to Ash or the trolling IP editor, but I see no reason to give them a platform to continue to slander me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI Mediation is the guidance for the alternative process suggested. Ash (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting you review of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:COOL, is not "slander". It's a reminder of wikipolicies. And even a brief review by any Administrator of your talk page will show there are quite a bit of editors who would agree in these suggestions. Please take a break and cool down. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Logic Historian

Logic Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy canvassing about something zie was going to raise at WP:AN.

I was one of those canvassed [51], so replied on my talk to say "stop canvassing" [52].

I then looked at Logic Historian's contribs list, saw there was lots of it, and posted a "stop canvassing" msg to User_talk:Logic Historian.[53]

The canvassing continued after the warning, so I placed a 3-hour preventive block on the account.

The subsequent posts to User talk:Logic Historian suggest that there is some issue of a ban and/or socking involved here, but I don't know the history. Can someone else take a look? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they admit to being a whole whack of Peter Damiens...I'm extending the block to indef, and will being looking further into this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, no objection to the block-extension, and you obviously know more of the history than me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Only slightly :-) Note that one of the accounts that he claims to be was blocked by Jimbo himself. Based on editing intersects, they could very well be the same person (single-minded focus on the History of Logic) - however, if a CU could verify that it's the same IP ... that would be the finishing nail, methinks... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Its worth mentioning that Peter Damien was a very strong editor, and highly valued in article space. Wikipedia eats its young. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is enough for this identification. This is clearly Peter Damian, who also expressed a desire shortly ago to bring one article to FA.

I remember that ScienceApologist wrote an article on another website while he was blocked, and then the article was ported here. Maybe Peter could do the same thing? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

as always, I oppose proxying content for blocked users. If they want to edit wikipedia, they can behave.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else Peter has done his content contributions, so far as I'm competent to judge, have generally been of very high value, and ought to be preserved. Paul August ☎ 12:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is more than a just a little irony at play here - Peter canvasses, outs himself, all for the sake of writing and bringing to FA the History of Logic which clearly is illogical....or is it? I think we should let Peter do his work - perhaps on a limited type track, - only work on articles, no talking and no pestering...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. Paul August ☎ 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to Crossmr above) Here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose Peter offered to donate a thousand dollars to Wikipedia, would you accept it? If so why not accept his valuable content contributions? Paul August ☎ 15:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The system is automated, he can donate or not. Its completely irrelevant. He has found him in the position of being blocked because of his behaviour. That means at this point in time his contributions are not welcome. If at some point in the future that changes, he's free to contribute.--Crossmr (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By what logic are his dollar contributions acceptable but not his content contributions? Paul August ☎ 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested in the last AN thread that Peter could be unblocked, but limited to only article and article talk pages outside his own userspace. I still think this could work - it's strict, but I doubt anything else would work. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If banned or blocked editors are still willing to contribute featured content, we should be able to find a way to allow that to happen. However. We have several precedents in other editors, and the behavioral disruption in some cases outweighs the content benefit by causing a drain on the time other productive editors could be spending in article work, as well as a drain on FAC morale. If the arbs and admins can find a way to make it happen, good luck, but take care not to set precedents that will bite us in the butt with other cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal. Peter Damian just doesn't seem to be able to stay away from Wikipedia, and his article contributions seem to be valuable. The disruption he causes is outside articlespace, e.g. the Established Editors fiasco. Let him edit on one account in his userspace and in articles and their talk pages. Fences&Windows 15:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Ryan's proposal. And I'd volunteer to monitor Peter's edits and revert or block where appropriate. Paul August ☎ 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know the history that led to Damien's block, but in terms of other cases, where the precedent concerns me, "unblocked, but limited to only article and article talk pages outside his own userspace ... " may be too broad. I do know Damien contributed some rather underinformed commentary as a sock on the Catholic Church FACs, and prefer restrictions be placed on previously disruptive editors in terms of exactly which articles and talk pages they may edit, so disruption doesn't spread (thinking more of other cases). Also, if the door is opened on similar cases, I hope FAC delegates will be notified, and someone will monitor for disruption at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding. I do not know the extent or nature of Damien's disruption, other than the frequent socks and underinformed commentary at Catholic Church. I do know that FAC morale was seriously deteriorated, and many FA reviewers and writers put off by other disruptive editors. I don't want to see that spread, just as rebuilding FAC morale is (hopefully) underway; we shouldn't allow one editor's content contributions to sideline other productive FA writers and reviewers. If the arbs can find a way to account for that, I'm on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he'd be banned from FAC discussions so hopefully that should eradicate your concern. Peter would solely be allowed to edit article page, article talk pages and user talk pages. Perhaps 6-12 months down the line that could be reduced slightly, but there would have to be a consensus to do that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How could he participate in a FAC if ... banned from FAC discussions? That implies someone would have to proxy for him, or all FAC discussion would have to move to article talk. Why not allow him to participate only in that FAC, with the stipulation that the FAC will be archived at any sign of disruption? Or something like that ... again, I don't know the nature of the behaviors that led to his block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't need to participate in any FAC, in order to contribute content. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But he stated he wants to bring History of logic to featured status, so that bridge would eventually have to be crossed. Anyway, you all know the history here better than I do; my real concern is that we take care with precedents regarding other editors. I'll leave it to those who know the case better to resolve, but if the article heads to FAC, I hope someone will let me know what the conclusion was. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because he wants to bring an article to FAC doesn't mean he needs to be allowed to. The key thing here is capturing the very valuable content that Peter is willing to contribute. Whether or not an article gets a gold star is wholly secondary. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an approach that was tried first with ScienceApologist and afterward with Piotrus during their sitebans: assemble a team of three editors in good standing, and seek prior approval for them to proxy a specific article improvement drive (including DYK and GA pages). Wikipedia gained good content on both occasions and ScienceApologist has been uncontroversial since his ban expired. In theory that type of approach might be viable with Peter Damien, if Peter is willing to abide by the terms of the restriction and focus on content. It's one potential solution worth considering if Peter is amenable and if three capable editors are willing to assist him. Durova⁴¹² 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to me involving sockpuppets

• User:Logic Historian put this message in my user talk page:-

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated. ===Request to WP:AN=== "I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows: User:Peter Damian (old) User:HistorianofLogic User:Logicist User:Here today, gone tomorrow User:Renamed user 4 I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else"). Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The users listed seem to be sockpuppets of the same user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• See discussion starting in User talk:Fram#I've reinstated the contents edits by HistorianofLogic that you reverted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• See three sections up. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I combined the two sections, since they were about the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you that this is the same person that wanted to introduce subtle vandalism as part of a plan to destroy Wikipedia, and then started carrying out step 1 of his plan? (Diff here). Oppose any motion to allow his contributions, even in article space. The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, that's not a "Diff" but a "link". A diff would show that he actually introduced some kind of vandalism - you know, two versions of Wiki article DIFFerent from each other, as opposed to a comment on an external forum. What the LINK shows is just some random "what if" musings, complete with a statement that he would be "uncomfortable" with vandalizing Wikipedia to make a point. This smacks a bit of thought-police and character slander.radek (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that he has abandoned that plan. He was lately planning to use a sock to bring an article to FA status, and then reveal the sockiness just when the article was entering FAC. This way he could see the fights between those wanting to remove all his edits because he's banned, and those wanted to keep high-quality content. This looks like the same plan but with a tweak. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think using a proxy is fine, no harm really if the FAC article is good enough. Its would be a pity to become myopic and put process before content. Which are we here for. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good content or not, if we have to have other editors watch and confirm edits(because how can someone whose stated goals seem to be to fuck with this community be trusted to not put hoax material into their article?, it will be gone over with a fine tooth comb), why the hell do we want him around at all? This whole fiasco seems like an extention of his earlier plan to destroy Wikipedia. And he's just admitted to using 4 socks, and it seems to be confirmed. If someone one were to propose a permanent community ban, I'd be all on board. When you know your holding a poisonious snake, you dont put it in your pocket for safe keeping. Heironymous Rowe (talk)

I would treat case on its own merit. My impression of Damien is that he is proud of his article work and the integrity and quality of what he delivers. I dont see haox as likely. The wanting to destory wiki thing was about RFA as far as I remember, and something I found funny at the time. The reaction to it was totally OTT. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"of his earlier plan to destroy Wikipedia" - do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? What is he, Dr. Claw or something? I actually chuckled when I read that but now I just think it's sad that a perfectly reasonable request which would potentially benefit the encyclopedia is being rejected on the basis of some comments made on an external forum which, according to Peter himself were "tongue in cheek".radek (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support Ryan's proposal above. If he wants to take an article to FAC, he could co-nominate and respond—if necessary—using email via the co-nominator. He would be free to respond to reviewers' comments in the text of the nominated article itself. I must say, I'm mighty impressed with his "History of logic" article. We need this kind of writing. Tony (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too. It's an important article, even one worth taking a few risks over. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to see him back editing, so I support Ryan's proposal; hopefully it could be reviewed after a few months so he could take part in discussions too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. This is not a community ban so the community can't really overturn it. Any appeal needs to go to the arbitration committee's ban appeals subcommittee. I suspect that the chances of success will be limited given the history of sockpuppetry, ban evasion and breaching experiments, but let Durova do what she does and see how it pans out. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

SkyBon

Reverts the page to version with his disputed addition after the protection expires (and no consensus on the talk page was reached) and then asks to reprotect it ([54], [55]). Is that appropriate behavior? vvv^t 10:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "Also an administator of Russian Wikipedia was desysoped for being a domestic partner of vandal and for splashing one of the administrators with a glass of water at one of the Wikimeetings." an "appropriate" edit? Probably not; you may be on to something there, vvv... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Skating on thin ice. If this persists, there will need to be sanctions against SkyBon. Fences&Windows 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable but a fact. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SkyBon, this is an encyclopedia not a gossip rag. Russian Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and such material is anyway inappropriate per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP. Don't repeat such edits. Fences&Windows 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev

Dilip_rajeev (talk · contribs), whose disruptive editing behavior has been noted in a previous arbcom case [56], has resumed editing the FLG related articles. He has returned to edit-warring in the 6-10 Office [57] and Persecution of Falun Gong articles [58], restoring long deleted materials several times despite concensus amongst other editors, as well as making personal attacks[59] [60].--PCPP (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that Dilip's changes in the Persecution of FLG article is one taken from one of his old edits from last year [61]--PCPP (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is without a doubt the most disruptive, tendentious and point-pushing Falun Gong/anti-Baba editor I have ever come across anywhere on WP. If my reading of the AE case I filed against him before his last opportune disappearance, he would have received a six month FLG topic ban like asdfg and HappyInGeneral. had he been around. His MO is one of hit and run, but he is also known to disappear for months on end. He has been very busy of late within articles about the Chinese Communist Party, Propaganda of the PRC, 6-10 Office... His actions in PRCverse should be seen as part of his agenda to precipitate the downfall of the Communist Party of China - the declared objective of the Falun Gong. I request a site ban. It's about time we said one last 'thank you' to him for his 'invaluable (sic) contribution' to wikipedia. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) While I'm uncertain whether or not this is the right place to bring it up (could be an ArbCom matter, or whatever other bureaucratic venue), dilip's latest drive-by-rampage at Persecution of Falun Gong (see above) does raise concerns... he throws in 57,000+ characters in one sweeping go (w/o bothering to fix the reflist), and then says something along the lines of "explain in detail which of these sentences/words you contest"... after others had been debating and finding consensus since, like, November last year... *sigh* As far as I recall, that was exactly the point of last year's ArbCom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions apply to Falun Gong articles, so there is no need to involve ArbCom or ArbCom enforcement. What remedy would be best here? 1RR? Indefinite topic ban? Fences&Windows 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Because of Dilip rajeev's habit of hits and runs, and of disappearing for weeks and then reappearing for short bursts, I request an indefinite site ban. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I certainly wouldn't mind his editing articles on strawberries or goosebumps, but I doubt dilip will suddenly start developing an interest in, say, hunting techniques in Papua New Guinea. Anything that distantly relates to Falun Gong is where he pulls his stunts (SPA). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment For a long time I have refrained from weighing in on the various iterations of this dispute. Here I just want to point out that, while Dileep rajeev's "hit-and-run" editing is clearly not conducive to building a better encyclopedia, PCPP (the editor filing this complaint) is not above reproach either. The diffs he posted above and called "personal attacks" don't really look like personal attacks to me, and he appears to be just as guilty of edit warring as Dileep is. Specifically, on 6-10 Office, PCPP twice[62][63] reverted Dileep's edits without any explanation whatsoever (and I see no discussion on the talk page until after that all happened, so he can't say that Dileep's edit violated existing consensus). I also notice that he has selectively notified only editors that would support him after opening this thread—clear votestacking. Extremely poor behavior from both parties here; if any disciplinary action is leveled against Dileep, it ought to be done so against PCPP as well. This childish back-and-forth has gone on far too long. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling other editors "CCP propagandists" and "Wikipedia's worst vandals" not personal attacks? In fact, Dilip [64] just charged in and edited the entire intro to 6-10 Office and removed all references to the PRC official statements which he routinely dismissed as "CCP propaganda" [65], and did the same with the Persecution of Falun Gong article, which you overlooked. And how am I votestacking? I've left a notice on Dilip's own talk page, and the users I notified (Seb az86556, Ohconfucius, Mrund, Colipon) are all regular editors of the FLG articles. Dilip's history of POV pushing, edit warring behavior and personal attacks have all been outlined in a previous arbcom case [66], and almost the entire group of FLG editors have issues with his edits, so blanketly associating me with Dilip's long term is grossly generalizing the issue at hand.--PCPP (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip didn't call another editor a "propagandist", he pointed out that that editor's name is the same as the Confucius Institute, which he considers a propaganda wing. (Whether that is accurate or not, Dilip's personal views are not what is on trial here, so I could care less what he thinks about the Confucius Institute.) The editor he called "worst vandal" is an indef-blocked sockpuppet, so his choice in wording may have been poor but I don't consider it an unwarranted personal attack; it's ok to call a duck a duck, and sockpuppets don't get much mercy around here.

As for the votestacking, there are plenty of other regular editors, including some who are more on Dilip's "side", whom you didn't bother notifying. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::So you're saying that I should notify Dilip's SPA friends (two of which are under sanctions from editing FLG related content)? Oh please. Dilip's behavior speaks for itself when when the majority of the "regular" editors are against him. --PCPP (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Note I've notified Dilip's friend Asdfg of the decision, as well as several admins.--PCPP (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

off-topic content. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Need I remind people that this is the same person that wanted to introduce sneaky vandalism into articles, as part of a plan to destroy Wikipedia? Oppose any attempt to let him contribute. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Diffs, please. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Here you go. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC) This was put in the wrong thread. Striking my comments, no opinion on the situation in this thread. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this "Case" is a concerted attempt to keep me from contributing to the articles. All my contributions have been highly sourced - and these have been repeatedly blanked by the same user raising the case. Not just on 6-10 office were my contributions bluntly reverted but pages of well sourced material ( there was no discussion or explanation for days from PCPP's end for the blanking) I had added to the Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. The set of users chase me around, blank out all my contributions, which I always ensure are centrally relevant and highly sourced, then raise such attacks against me. I have not done multiple reverts, I have not added poorly sourced info, I have not violated a single wikipedia policy. PCPP is supported by a set of editors whose backing he calls for when filing cases like this. There is systematic evidence of blanking of highly sourced material from wikipedia pages related to the human rights violations of the CCP, by PCPP and a group of editors supporting him. Here, in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, for instance, it has been made to seem, through blanking of sources, and distorted write ups, that hte persecution is a fairy-tale invented by practitioners. While sources ranging from the Congressional Executive Reports, AMnesty International, UN CAT reports, HRW, Schechter, Ownby ,etc. all discuss the persecution in depth.

• I most humbly request the reviewing admins to kindly compare at least the intro of this page with the current doctored version ( the one after it has been run-over by PCPP and his supporters). You can see how every single source mentioning the persecution is blanked out.

• In the 6-10 office article you can see how PCPP reverts my edit out three times, refusing to give any explanation for his blanking and distortion of material. A paragraph he simply keeps blanking is here: "According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."" Recent instances of the blanking: [67] [68][69] Kindly also compare the leads of the article after his blanking. As it has been done in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, it is made seem that the 6-10 office is a "supposed" judiciary. The "Supposed" claim is not supported by any source. Throughout these articles, the sources have been distorted out by the same users attacking me here: Like, for instances, on the Persecution of Falun Gong article. Source: "Some were taken at or on their way to protests in Beijing and brought in groups to psychiatric hospitals, others were brought by family members who felt threatened by the authorities." In the wikipedia article: " "Some were taken at or on their way to protests in Beijing and brought in groups to psychiatric hospitals, others were brought by worried family members." PCCP's real contributions outside of white-washing CCP crimes are minimal, and there can be seen in it a pattern of making himself look like a non-SPA.

• Another recent instance of blanking, with no explanation offered, by PCPP, can be seen here: [70]

• I would also like to point out this case RfC against PCPP [71]. Here, he, again, piles accussations on me of everything including sockpuppetry. Despite it being repeatedly explained to him that i had not engaged in any such activities. The dust and smoke thus created, through attack on contributors, serves as a cover for the systematic blanking of material taking place in these articles. And those contributing are given labels, cornered and attacked down. The editors attacking me here are staunch supporters of PCPP ( As can be seen in the comments made here:[72]) That speaks much about their stance and belies their claims of neutrality. They present their voices as "outside opinions", when they have throughout

supported the user and closely worked with him in the removal and distortion of content. This I point out, not as a personal attack, but as a fact for which am willing to present any amount of evidence. Given a few days time, I can compile and present systematic evidence of this. A quick glance at the history of many of these pages could also reveal a lot of evidence of this.

I have, whenever contributing to articles, systematically presented my sources, as here and made sure the contributions are based on good research. It involves days of effort, during hard earned free-time, and then when am blanked out like this [73], and then attacked, it can be quite frustrating.

If any editor had raised any concern with any specific contribution of mine, I would have clearly and fully explained myself. I do not understand why am being accused of "hit and run," now - for I sincerely believe it cannot be based on any of my recent contributions. The accusation orginates from the same group of editors supporting PCPP. These are labels the set of editors attempt to put on me - Here I contrute with Brittanica, Schechter, and Ian Johnsons - the material is blanked out, my edit labelled a "drive-by" shooting [74]. Such accussations are repeated throughout on the same users' talk pages, etc - in a pattern that comes across as a miniature version of the Big Lie strategy, trying to make my contributions appear so to admins and other editors. While planting such attacks against me, these editors have always failed to present solid evidence to back-up their claims.

Also, I would like to point out that while I have repeatedly raised my concerns, I have not engaged in personal attacks as the user claims. The current AN/I is but an attempt by the set of editors, who'v ebeen chasing me around, to keep me from contributing to these pages, which would allow them to further advance their goal.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"while I have repeatedly raised my concerns" -- regarding this, where have you raised your concerns? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good for the editors who have so vociferously denounced Dilip to read his remark above. It is hard and fast, but also clearly articulates an undeniable dynamic that has evolved on these pages. A group of editors has been successful in marginalising anyone they put the "FLG sympathiser" label on, and they have gotten several of those people banned (myself included), not for any violation of policy, but simply because to people not involved in the disputes they have just made us look bad. They have managed the perceptions of many of the people outside these issues, making it look like this cabal is actually neutral, staunchly fighting the diehard cultists who would do anything to promote their religion and denounce their mortal enemy (the CCP). It turns the whole debate into something else, and completely divorces it from wikipedia policies and content guidelines, which we have clearly adhered to (oh, and when you learn the rules and quote from them, that's called "wikilawyering"). And on top of that is all the research which repeatedly gets deleted as "pov." It's an amazing dynamic, in the end. Any comment, any contribution, anything coming from someone with the "Falun Gong label" on them can be attacked and the individual marginalised. I have read through the Falun Gong talk page recently, and there is an exasperated Asdfg12345 there, posting, explaining his ideas, attempting to engage in discussion. Half of the time it gets ignored. Then Colipon openly says I am trying to bait him. It's the same thing here with how openly Dilip is attacked. Colipon says I should be banned from any articles related to the CCP (when I have only ever added scholarly research to them!), and here Ohconfucius kicks it up a notch calling for a site ban of Dilip. Luckily, people usually only get punished for what they do on Wikipedia, not for what they think. --Asdfg12345 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor using hacked AWB code

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games § Moby_Games_ext._links_removal

User:Lorson modified the open source code of AWB to make hundreds of edits. I am not sure there was a consensus for these edits. I contacted the editor in their talk page in User talk:Lorson and after a short reply in which never denied to hack the code, they kept mass edits despite of the reaction of a number of editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor is operating an unapproved bot making more than 10 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe he has finished this "run", so a block now wouldn't really be preventing anything. Have to find whether these edits were valid, and if not, rollback.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Reach Out to the Truth did 200 rollbacks in the last hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson (talk · contribs) does not appear at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users. Whether he's using AWB in a bot or directly, if he doesn't have permission, he has to stop now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the issue is, the only problem is that User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth abused their rollback privilege. And I got some rather hostile message from User:Mephistophelian on my talk page that I ignored. I was only using AWB to make my edits faster.--Lorson (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But if you don't have permission to use AWB, then you may not use it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB needs permission, which Lorson doesn't have. The editor hacked the code to run an unapproved bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't some sort of accidental-use-without-permission. If someone has gone to the trouble of building a hacked version of AWB, it's clearly an intentional breach of the requirement that AWB editors must be authorised. I suggest that Lorson reverts all the edits done with unauthorised AWB, or faces a block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson has been tempblocked for running an unapproved bot (which he was essentially doing). An admin may wish to block Reach Out to the Truth and/or JasonAQuest, remove rollback, or do nothing to them at all, their call, I have to leave the computer at this moment in time.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that both User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth have been warned about their use of rollback for this incident and I've pointed them to here. Lorson has a further comment at User talk:Lorson#Block. something lame from CBW 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

JasonAQuest did more than 750 rollbacks in an hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Lorson failed to obtain agreement or support for his/her mass revisions, I fail to see why two users should lose privileges for rolling back articles to a state which had been agreed upon by the majority of editors whom it concerned [75]. There was also concern that Lorson's edits were the result of a conflict of interest and hypocrisy, i.e. removing links to Mobygames while adding contentless spam links to GameFAQs. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw someone engaging in massive deletions of links that had withstood years of scrutiny. It seemed like vandalism, was at the least disruptive, and would be more difficult to fix if left for later, so I acted with the tools I'd been given (which included rollback) to address it right away. "Don't fix it yourself" didn't occur to me, and I apologize. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The removal of MobyGames links was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Moby Games ext. links removal. There was no consensus for removal of the links, but he continued doing so anyway. Back in October he had added GameFAQs links to numerous articles, and I find it odd that now he wants to remove MobyGames links from articles. As far as I can tell he hasn't removed links to any other sites, just MobyGames. Reach Out to the Truth 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why users should be warned for rolling back edits of an unapproved bot. I'd sooner thank them, no? Rollback is intended to make stuff like this easier. Cleaning up after an unapproved bot fits the bill in my mind. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:02, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

These issues can't be sorted out with rollbacking that gives no explanation why it's done. This is independent of who is right. Recall that in edit wars both sides claim to be right. Reporting the incident helps in solving it. We had one day and half of edits and reverts. I am still not sure what the actions from now on should be. What dies the Video games project say? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing for a few edits and some reverts. We are discussing for a day of edits, reverts, then 3 days pause and again edits and reverts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread would indicate the person running the unapproved bot is wrong, and would seem to serve as all the explanation necessary. If we'd have waited, other edits might have been done to the articles, and then each one would've had to be sorted out individually -- which probably never would've actually gotten done. It would be good to be able to specify an edit summary for rollbacks, but when someone runs an unapproved bot I think that qualifies as a case where we can use a quick clean-up method. It's not an edit war if you're just cleaning up after something like the above violation. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:13, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacking was been doing before my report here and stopped after it as long with Lorson's mass edits. For one hour Lorson's edit were done simultaneously with rollbacks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if he began rolling back before this report, the fixing still seemed to be justified in the end. He probably should've made a report, but in that event, beginning to clean up before he gained consensus on the appropriate action would be fine, as long as he was right about their being in violation, which he seems to have been. Again if he would've waited then an eventual mass-revert might've become impossible, so I have to be glad he did what he did. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:24, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The VG wikiproject endorses the use of links to mobygames, when they are beneficial to the article (primarily for game credits, which they usually carry extensive lists for, such that we would never include (eg). Also extensive and cross-platform screenshots.). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources for details. The few times I have seen this previously discussed, it was agreed that mass-deletion of any links that were added in 2005 was counterproductive. A checking effort was undertaken, though it didn't get through all uses of the template. The project's editors are (or should be) aware that checked-links-that-are-deemed-insufficiently-useful may be removed.

Also, Lorson appears to be a SPA, having nothing but pro-gamefaqs.com and anti-mobygames.com edits in their contribs. (gamefaqs is listed in the same VG/sources subsection, but has tighter restrictions on appropriate usage). I don't know how that gets 'dealt' with, but it sounds like the editor otherwise intends on returning to doing the same thing at a slower pace once their block expires, so it probably should be. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

His behaviour has been farcical. First, he joins to spam GameFaqs. Get's called out, and throws a fit over MobyGames because it's so unfair. He then downloads the AWB source code, alters it, with the sole intention of bypassing the clearly stated authorisation procedure, in order to run bot-edits to remove four year old links against consensus. How is that remotely acceptable? The hacking of AWB is bad faith. This is a single purpose account, whose purpose is detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. He still has thousands of edits which are live - they should not stand. - hahnchen 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and reverted the edits as unapproved botting. Next time please do bring situations like this to an admin, WP:ANI or WP:BON. Admins are uniquely positioned to quickly undo any unapproved bot edits with &bot=1, rollback summary, and mass rollback. –xeno^talk 04:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop it with the 'hacked' references

AWB is distributed under the GPL, the right to view and modify the source to fit your needs is enshrined in the license deliberately chosen by the programmer. Running an unapproved bot for a task without consensus is a Bad Thing(tm) but everyones running around like he committed some horrible, awful deed in respect to AWB. He didn't. That's how open source works. --M^ask? 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're familiar with open-source software, you should know that "hack" is a judgment-neutral verb. It means he took a tool and modified it to suit his purposes.... which in this case were to evade WP's requirement that it be used only by people who had demonstrated themselves trustworthy. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be established that "hacking" is not necessarily a bad-faith action. For the record, I run a "hacked" version of Huggle, which is configured to use global and project config pages in my userspace, and has a couple bug fixes. This simply allows me much more freedom in how I can configure it. And it also manages to speed up the program so that it isn't so slow, thereby allowing me to spot and remove vandalism at a much faster pace... Is it bad faith? I would certainly hope not... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I will opine that when someone sees a bunch of rapid-fire edits regarding the same thing across a clearly-defined subset of articles is indeed a cause for alarm amongst editors. The bot policy is there for a reason because of the potentially destructive edits they can make if something goes wrong. That's why we only allow users that have been approved in advance by the community (either through WP:BAG for normal bots or by individual admins in the case of semi-automatic scripts like AWB) so that we exactly know why such edits are happening in a certain fashion and at a high rate. Whether or not the software used is open source has nothing to do with this – it's how it's being used with respect to applicable policy and normal procedure. –MuZemike 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Eva Golinger

Can BLP knowledgeable admins please keep an eye on Evagolinger1 (talk · contribs) at Eva Golinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apparently it was once created by that editor and deleted as a copyvio. I'm not an admin, so I can't see deleted content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The deleted version looks like it was copied from here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, she basically added false information published by herself or her cronies at Venezuelanalysis.com, and since she's an attorney, she should know better. The Daily Journal existed in Venezuela long before this Chavez-funded venture, and anyone and everyone in Venezuela knows that, and she's Venezuelan-- so we have some POV-pushing going on as well as the COI. She seems to think that "first under Chavez" makes it relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please not bite the newcomer? Talking about "cronies" of a living person on this noticeboard is not civil. There's surely nothing here that needs immediate admin attention, so why did you post this here? Looks like you're a bit ANI-happy, there are other steps in dispute resolution before dragging your opponent to the dramaboard. Oh, and you should know by now that you should notify an editor when you post a thread about them. I've now done so. Fences&Windows 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Newcomer? She previously (2008) created a copyvio, and since I can't see deleted versions, I have no way of knowing how long she was around or how many edits she made. I do know that, as an attorney, she posted false information to her article, and the org she writes for headlined that same false info. Kind of you to notify her; now chill. There's nothing that needs admin attention? So, who has verified that the person editing as Eva Golinger is Eva Golinger? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's only two deleted edits. F&W's response here is a bit puzzling; this is a perfectly valid notice to post here. Copyvios are serious issues and do require immediate attention. Tan | 39 20:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Tan; I'm not much worried about F&W-- occasionally, ANI works for its intended purpose :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So, back on topic after the baseless distraction below and peanut gallery response above, since no one has yet addressed the most important matter of the ANI report; how do we deal with WP:REALNAME? How do we verify that the editor using the name Evagolinger is really Eva Golinger? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, please remain civil and refrain from calling other editors' responses "baseless distractions" and "peanut gallery" responses (whatever that means). If you had wanted to discuss how editors could determine who User:Evagolinger1 is, then perhaps you should have started out the discussion with that question. You are criticizing other editors for not focusing on that question, which you didn't bring up initially, but are now claiming is the "topic" of the discussion (which to me appeared to actually be "watch this user" because they made a copy vio in the past"). Additionally, you haven't focused on this topic yourself, bringing up criticisms of Venezuelanalysis.com, discussing past copy vios, and insulting other editors. Again, pot --> kettle. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try to find another place for your lectures; it's not my job to do admins' jobs for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks, avoidance of discussion, rheotoric, incivility, sarcasm. Try again. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting away from the point, pontificating, holier than thou attitude and plain obtuseness. Try again. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really. What is "the point"? The OP has started discussions on several "points". Which one are we choosing? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of my name being SandyGeorgia? I'll never tell ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the one point only line for ANI discussion? BTW I've corrected you effectively interrupting yourself --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Every party has a pooper ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia -- You focused on the newcomer aspect of Fences and windows's argument, and ignored the point about being civil, which I think was more important. Name-calling against living people and other editors in unconstructive and unnecessary.

I've been exploring many of your heavily biased edits to Venezuela related articles. I'm surprised that you are complaining that "we have some POV-pushing going on". Every one of your additions that I have seen is wholly negative, and all of the removals seem to be anything that could be seen as positive. This seems a bit disruptive, and inappropriate. Try to maintain a more neutral viewpoint when editing, and definitely don't come here as a "pot calling the kettle black", talking about how we have "POV-pushing going on".

While I realize that you might not like the things on Venezuelanalyis.com, due to the fact that they aren't wholly negative in their representation of the events taking place in Venezuela, it is a totally reliable source, with an impeccable record for fact-checking (which is why Harvard, Cornell, and many other universities have it as mandatory reading for several of their courses...). Using language like "cronies" and "false information" doesn't change that. Generally, when people have to resort to using language like "cronies" to dismiss something they don't agree with, it is generally a sign of a weak intellectual position. A person that has a strong position can generally objectively present facts which will speak for themselves, rather than having to resort to weaselly and dishonest language.

Another problem is that you are often taking things completely out of context, selectively reporting information, and choosing language which skews things to try to support your viewpoint. If you had a stronger position, you wouldn't need to be misleading. For instance, you have claimed here and on Eva Golinger article that the work is "funded by the Venezuelan government" or is "Chavez-funded". Some of Golinger's work is funded partially by the Venezuelan government which has given out millions of grants to democratically run media cooperatives, including many that are openly hostile and critical of the government. You are presenting a partial truth, taken out of context, in order to make people believe that this paper is just some government propaganda outfit, rather than the work of someone who freely supports some of the social changes taking place in Venezuela. US-AID and the [National Endowment for Democracy]] have given tens of millions of dollars in funding to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela, including many of the backers of the 2002 coup attempt, but I highly doubt you go around to their Wikipedia articles yammering about "cronies" and stating that they are "funded by the U.S. government". The United States government gives grants to print media all the time. Do you go around and insert commentary on their Wikipedia page about how they are a U.S. government funded outfit? If not, why?

You do have a point about the copyright violations, and that was worthy of being brought up here. But that's all you should have brought up here. Your removal of the comment regarding being the "first English-language paper, etc...." was totally appropriate. But it didn't belong here -- removing it with an edit-summary was sufficient. Please calm down when discussing Venezuela-related articles, and try to be a bit more balanced. It seems as if you are pushing a very strong agenda for whatever reason, and your comments here seem to be an outgrowth of that. Maybe you should take some time to cool off, and go work on a subject-area where you can be a little more objective and calm?

--Jrtayloriv

Please sign your posts using ~~~~, thanks Jrtayloriv. SGGH ^ping! 23:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, no diffs, of course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I said requires diffs, since all but one (the second) paragraph refered to comments you've made here on this page. As far as that paragraph is concerned, I wasn't taking action against you, and am merely trying to help you improve your editing -- thus I don't need diffs since I'm not trying to make a case against you. If I was talking to someone else, I would have provided diffs, but you already know what I'm talking about, so I didn't waste my time. But I'll humor you -- here are two examples of the types of inaccurate, biased, misleading statements and weasel language I am describing:

• [76] -- "no evidence of improvements in the literacy" ... except for UNESCO which has stated that since the beginnings of Chavez presidency, literacy rates have skyrocketed ... also note that you have dedicated two paragraphs to a single factually inaccurate and biased source entitled "Empty Revolution". ... interested that you would have all of that anti-Chavez vitriol sourced by a single partisan author, and then turn around and claim that it is inappropriate to have a section sourced by a single pro-Chavez partisan editor ... how does that work exactly? Everyone is "partisan", and to allow only partisans that support your point of view is inappropriate, and leads to a one-sided inaccurate presentation of a topic.
• [77] -- "Fringe" source ... or just a source that you don't agree with because she's probably just lying through her teeth along with all of the "pro-Chavez" "cronies" in her "Chavez-funded" publications? I've noticed that you have a knack for replacing sources that are perfectly adequate, but don't mesh with your POV, with sources that still support the fact being referenced, but generally take a much more negative slant. Instead of replacing reliable sources, why not just add another source, so people can get a more diverse range of viewpoints? Certainly, you'd like to have people able to get more information about a subject, rather than limiting it, right? ... And you said you removed this video: [78] because it was "controversial" and "already had it's own article". Please show me a Wikipedia policy that says that videos that are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and has won a dozen film awards, should be removed from the External Links section because you feel that it is "controversial".

But, as I said, you already know what I'm talking about. Rather than avoiding a discussion by claiming that something is "too long" to read, and that there weren't any diffs showing you your point of view, why don't you work on improving the issues mentioned above? Basically, (1) try to maintain a neutral point of view, (2) don't censor/remove accurate information backed by reliable sources because you don't agree with it, (3) don't take things out of context and use weasel words to mislead people about a topic. (And SGGH -- sorry about not signing my name last time -- oops!) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another diatribe: try this link for your "factually accurate" Venezuelanalysis.com, and FYI, it's already been to WP:RSN, where the consensus was pretty clear. End of story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, avoiding responding to arguments and resorting to ad hominem attacks. And don't lie. That ongoing WP:RSN discussion has reached nothing approaching clear consensus. You are being misleading again. Please stop. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted distraction. Standard OP when no cogent argument is forthcoming. It's always worth throwing in the occasional "ad hominem attack" just to be safe eh? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And when you don't take the bait, 'cuz this isn't the place to address the misrepresentations in his posts (this is the place to deal with the username issue, which still hasn't happened :) they just get longer winded! Must be sooooo frustrating ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth throwing in "ad hominem attack" when ad hominem attacks are being made. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Please calm down when discussing Venezuela-related articles, and try to be a bit more balanced. It seems as if you are pushing a very strong agenda for whatever reason, and your comments here seem to be an outgrowth of that. Maybe you should take some time to cool off, and go work on a subject-area where you can be a little more objective and calm?" And, btw, it would be nice if you took your issues elsewhere, so the real issue here (THE USERNAME) wouldn't get lost in the largely inaccurate verbosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No ad hominem attacks here, move along. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, light bulbs! It's all coming through my thick, chocolate-befuddled brain now! If JrTaylor isn't worried that someone else is editing as Eva Golinger, he must know Eva Golinger! That would explain his editing POV ... so Jr, would you mind figuring out and explaining to her how to clear this up, so she isn't blocked for COI, username issues, and inserting false info into her article? Thanks so much-- most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, Evagolinger1 is in effect a newcomer as they have made very few edits (two deleted edits, of which one was the deleted copyvio and another was a talk page comment asserting permission in 2009; 3 articles edits and 2 user talk edits). Tan, the deleted copyvio (a common mistake for new editors) is from November 2008, hardly what I'd call an urgent problem. The issue at hand is that SandyGeorgia has brought a novice editor to ANI over a very limited content dispute after making no attempt at dispute resolution. The two edits to Eva Golinger that have SandyGeorgia so exercised are this one to add some information that SandyGeorgia disputes and another to remove a COI tag. SandyGeorgia's response is wholly out of proportion to these edits. SandyGeorgia, please stop treating articles to do with Venezuela as a battleground, and in future try to resolve your content disputes calmly by way of discussion before seeking other remedies. WP:ANI is not the first port of call for resolving editing disputes. Unless an editor has evidence that admin action is required, this thread no longer serves a purpose; it has merely descending into bickering. Fences&Windows 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good lord: another ANI circus where anyone can say anything. It's the internet. I don't *have* a dispute: I have a concern about a username, COI, and an editor editing as Eva Golinger inserting false information into her article. Deal with it. I'm not an admin, it's an admin issue, and it belongs here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Exercised"? Let me guess, it was the iPod+Nike stuck on her arm that gave the game away? And as I understand it, new editors can still be demonstrating CoI, POV pushing and username malpractice. Perhaps a seasoned editor should be given as much respect as you seem to be showing the newbie and looking into her point instead of harping on about biting new editors. Some of them just scream incisor action! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an IPod or a Nike: what's a willy? Anyhoo, next time I see a COI editor name issue, I'll take it to the grownups :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a couple of them very, very close. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here--based on Evagolinger1's edits, it doesn't appear that she's the real Eva Golinger, so I have usernameblocked her. Blueboy96 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Blue boy ! One would certainly hope that an attorney wouldn't insert false info into her article, commit a copyvio, or respond in the ways she has responded. Apparently this has to be spelled out in illustrious detail to Jrtaylor and Fences :) Let's hope they learned something. 1. It's not up to me to make admin decisions. 2. That is PRECISELY what this board is for, and Jr derailed the thread with a completely unrelated and inaccurate diatribe. 3. Let's suppose I were an admin, and had effected the block myself ... of an editor I'm now accused of being in dispute with-- oh, that would be a dandy mess, wouldn't it? Yes, another ANI circus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If it has been blocked, then perhaps we can stop going round in circles lamblasting ANI. There are other places for policy changes to be suggested, and ANI certainly isn't the place for some longstanding and respected editors to be drawn into debates with other users that get sticky. Case closed. SGGH ^ping! 09:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can stop lambasting ANI when the day comes that I can raise simple questions here about blocking policy, username issues, legal threats, or anything else, and admins can answer them without a circus and without other editors piling on unrelated and unsubstantiated allegations aimed at discrediting me. I'm all for it ! This is the place for raising questions and issues that admins know better than I-- not the place for editors to grind their axes against me because they can't attack the neutrality of my edits in article space or my behavior in article talk space. Using ANI to soapbox against me is lame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And just to close this up (now that the other ANI circus and socking issues elsewhere permit me time to revisit), and show how disruptive Jrtayloriv and Fences and windows were to the function of AN/I, attempting to deflect irrational and unsubstantiated claims at me, rather than dealing with the issue ... the Evagolinger account was editing between 18.21 and 19.03 UTC. I lodged this concern immediately, at 18.35. Had an admin dealt with it then, they might have been able to discuss with this account Wiki's blocking policy, while the editor was online, avoiding the block. That is the purpose of AN/I: I continue to hope these editors won't use AN/I as a launching pad for attemting to smear my name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But you're happy to call others "disruptive" editors making "irrational and unsubstantiated claims?" Pot and kettle and all that as someone else said above. This issue seems to be closed, but your conduct was less than stellar here Sandy. As anyone can plainly see by reading the thread, you did not (in either of your first two comments) say anything about "username issues." Yet then you complained that others had not commented about this issue ("the most important matter of the ANI report") which you did not even bring up at first. That's an odd thing to do. When another editor pointed out to you the simple fact that your report was not initially about a username issue, you responded "Please try to find another place for your lectures; it's not my job to do admins' jobs for them." Of course not, but it is your job to clearly explain what your concern is at the outset, and not jump down other editors' throats when they disagree with your concerns and/or don't understand them. If you're displeased with ANI and/or Venezuela topic area editors right now, maybe you should take a break from one or both for awhile, because to my mind you're stirring the drama pot here quite needlessly. Note that I have nothing to do with the underlying dispute, and this is my evaluation as someone who happened to read through the thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just can't believe this place. "Circus" is far too generous a description. What gives you the idea that anyone gives a monkey's what your opinion is about an issue now resolved? This kind of sanctimonious bullshit makes you look very childish. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess everyone has different ideas about what does or does not look childish Malleus, and you're more than entitled to yours. If Sandy wants to lash out at other editors (that's my view of what happened, feel free to disagree) for not responding to this report the "right" way, it should not be too surprising if someone else calls Sandy on that and asks that editor to step back a bit from ANI and perhaps the underlying dispute. You don't have to like it of course, but this board is in part for non-involved admins to weigh in on questions brought to the page, and I'm not sure why you think anyone would care more about your opinion of my opinion than they do about my opinion in the first place (probably most people don't give a shit about either, as is true for most every comment on noticeboards). Incidentally I'm not interested in getting in an argument with you here, though if you want to tell me more about what you think of me based on your reading of one comment feel free to unload over at my talk page—I don't mind and you can say what you please over there without fear of repercussions. Or I suppose you can drop some more knowledge bombs in this thread—whatever floats your boat really, I don't care. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I added a reliable third person source [79] for Vic Mackey and other articles and it keeps been removed I don't believe trivia without sources should be allowed. [80] other shield characters need additional sources too. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with the editor who reverted your edit? Have you informed them of this thread? Fences&Windows 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NO because I am fed up with dealing with idiot fanboys of article particularly of fiction on wikipedia who scream something is notable when you try to remove but don't provide reliable evidence to show its not worthy in the case of Shane Vendrell this a reilabe source I added about the character [81] and this is what I removed its triva an has no sources[82] the same here Vic Mackey [83] [84] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already had a word and yet the problem fanboy inclusionists can't be reasoned with see evidence. [85] Dwanyewest (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the first step in dispute resolution is to assume good faith and try to talk with the other side and see if you can reason with them. This should've been brought up on the IP's talk page before bringing it here or to a relevant noticeboard/wikiproject if that method is exhausted. And it is always polite to notify an editor, however distatseful you may find them, if you are bringing them to ANI. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to square one with the edits been changed I warned you it was a waste of time debating Dwanyewest (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left another message on the IP talk page explaining the issue and notified him of this threat, I should note that Dwanyewest has tried to WP:AFG in terms of a talk page message, and has notified of this ANI, but the IP removed it. Though I would ask Dwanyewest to have more patience with this process. Nothing is lost, everything is kept in the history, so there is no need to get worked up over it :) SGGH ^ping! 09:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the ANI notice template, that was me. [86] His notice was less patient. [87] --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor bringing forth this complaint seems to be acting a bit incivil both in this thread and elsewhere:

• “idiot fan boys”
• “fan boy inclusionists”
• “inclusionist fan boys”
• attacking DGG and Dream Focus

I think some of these comments can and should probably be toned down. Wikipedians have many different perspectives and viewpoints, many of which are subjective. There is some value that we have these opposing stances so that we do not veer off too much in any one direction, kind of like checks and balances. We should not view it as those we disagree with it are mere fans or worse less intelligent. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of Malleus Fatuorum by Moni3

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

---

Most editors of this board are aware that Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of incivility and of making personal attacks; some of this history is reflected in his block log. Subsequent to an unprovoked and clear personal attack ([88]) calling Chillum "a waste of space", I blocked Malleus for 24 hours. I did not feel that a warning would be required, as he has received a number of blocks for similar violations in the past. A reasonable person would conclude that he has been amply reminded of WP:NPA and WP:CIV already, and we don't actually offer the one-free-insult-per-day deal that would be implied by some sort of mandatory-warning-before-block framework.

Twelve minutes after I placed the block, Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked with the somewhat cryptic comment "ineffective block". At the time, Malleus had not posted an unblock request (or made any response to my block whatsoever). Moni3 did not attempt to communicate with my on my talk page or via email. Moni3 did not post any comment to Malleus' talk page prior to his/her unblock. Moni3 did not post here (the appropriate venue) seeking comment or outside review before taking action. Moni3 does not have any significant history of involvement in administering blocks/unblocks (having blocked/unblocked exactly three times this year), so this strikes me as a very unusual place for him/her to suddenly get involved.

I have asked Moni3 to immediately restore the block which s/he removed inappropriately, and to participate in some sort of discussion before overturning my block. (Update — Moni3 has rejected that request.) If s/he does not do so, I would ask that another admin restore the block — I'm not going to return fire in a wheel war. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A ridiculous block. At least three admins have agreed with the unblock. In my opinion, you should be reprimanded for this. Civility police admins are fucking this place up. Tan | 39 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TenofallTrades, what did you hope to accomplish by blocking Malleus? --Moni3 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and User talk:Moni3 as well. Several editors/admins jumped all over this egregious block, myself included. Way overboard, in several opinions. Keeper | 76 04:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of making light of abuse. Well, it drives people away. I don't give two shits what mall says t me, it is the outright endorsement of his actions in the form of unblocks(and this is not the first time) that gets me. Well I for one have standards and if such behavior is sanctioned then I will not be using this website anymore, I don't need this shit. You go ahead and allow all the nasty comments you like and eventually only the thickest skinned folks will remain, so much for a neutral point of view. I don't think people realize just how many Wikipedians are lost by not reacting to abuse, and even worse the admonishment anyone attempting to prevent the abuse receives. I am one of them. Bye. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bye. Tan | 39 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

*sniffle* Keeper | 76 04:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

... Xavexgoem (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Is this how we want to present ourselves? Really?

why are you whispering? Keeper | 76 04:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want to interrupt you whilst in the middle of your grieving? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, I have a lot of respect for you, and I apologize for my exasperated role in this whole nonsense. My snarkiness is perhaps unwarranted, but I've seen, as I'm sure you have as well, so many "I'm taking my ball and going home because you aren't playing by my (made up) rules" knee-jerk retirements, that I don't know how else to respond. Good riddance. I'll surrender a wiki-paycheck if Chillum isn't back in a week. Keeper | 76 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now if only Malleus would follow... I reiterate: I'm willing to offer donuts. HalfShadow 04:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very grown up everyone. Fucking unbelievable. RxS (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Helpful commentary. Thanks! Keeper | 76 04:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen, folks, we're not all in on the drama. So I do get pissed, like RxS is now (he says in two sentences what it took me three dots to say, effectively), when I think what it would be like for a new user with an actual problem coming to AN/I and having admins mock a user retiring in frustration. It doesn't matter if that person is expected to return, because I (as a new user) would not know that. I would want to stay the fuck away from here. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, X; it's true! Something must be done about admins who persistently attack and provoke other editors. Then we won't have these circuses :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• What I love about wikidrama is how quickly it escalates, and always with excellent diction. Look at this. Apparently Chillum removes a comment from a banned user from someone else's talk page. That someone says 'hey why are you removing edits from my talk page, rude boy?'. Chillum takes affront to that, and they go back and forth a bit, and someone writes a haiku. Malleus witnesses this silliness and makes a wisecrack, which probably should have earned a wristslap. But he's blocked right away. And then unblocked. And then the unblocking is portrayed as a grave abuse. And then AN/I raises it specter, as well as the rage-quit. We all realize how stupid these things are, right? (and everyone contributes to them.) Let's all have a pint instead? Oh, my popcorn is ready now. (No offense intended to any, I WP:AGF always)--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't endorse what Malleus says to you. I don't speak that way to other editors. But blocking an editor for 24 hours after making a pissy remark to you in not effective. It will not change Malleus' nature. Your entering a dialogue with him and trying to understand his points might. Both of you working together might. Blocking will not. --Moni3 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please, Milowent: wake up. Everyone who knows his editing knew that Chillum would turn something that was already being discussed and handled into yet another dramafest. He did. Don't shoot the messengers because a very problematic admin has taken yet another in a long series of breaks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I seriously can NOT find myself participating in three ANI threads in one day. Goes off to the nut house muttering ... It's a Kodak moment, like, this is not my life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an overzealous block, in response to a rude comment. Warn/discuss before blocking. Diminish DRAMA. Why are some editors free to make rude comments, but others get blocked without a warning? Edison (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF! EC. Overzealous, premature, preemptory archiving. Edison (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Has been unarchived now, but I generally endorse Durova's closure. Don't think anything productive will happen at ANI. –xeno^talk 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, though, once you've been around here long enough, you really shouldn't need a warning before blocking. Malleus knows what the community norms for civility are here, and chooses to ignore them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about the original block, but Malleus' comments in the thread at his talk page following the block were quite incivil and, IMO, deserving of a block in and of themselves. Here are a couple of pearls: "Blocked again by some half-assed willy-waving clown. Sad"[89] and "Morons do what morons do"[90]. Nsk92 (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the block was wrong, and I agree probably it would not have changed anything, but Chillum actually left for a whole year according to his/her moonbook. If somebody left Wikipedia because of my actions I would have felt bad for that person. I would have apologized even, if I were sure I was right, and I would have definitely complied to 24 hours block. Just think about that: 24 hours versus a year. Everybody is different. Some people do not take incivility close to their hearts, others do. IMO we as the community should try to understand, and to help a party, who needs our help the most now, and that party is Chillum. The user needs understanding, and needs it now. It could be decided later on who is right and who is wrong. That's why I would like to ask Malleus Fatuorum to consider an apology in order to bring Chillum back.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• The problem that Xavexgoem and RxS have raised has been a concern of many users in this community, and it has been increasing with time. Even the concerns with blocking or unblocking over civility issues have also been a problem. ArbCom have demonstrated that they will repeatedly deny its existence in the hope that it will go away, or on the odd political occasion when they accept something needs to be done, they will refuse to address the issue in a remotely effective manner. Until the community has a more satisfactory binding mechanism of reviewing and addressing the manner in which certain administrators conduct themselves, admins really don't have any incentive in voluntarily changing their approach for the better. I pity the situation that Wikipedia is in today. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. Can we make a list of those incivil editors who are protected from blocking? There seem to be a lot of them. Woogee (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, can we make a list of abusive admins who are immune to the same "civility" they enforce? Or set up a category? I can populate it very quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When your contributions parellel other editors, then yes - we can make a list. To deflect the inevitable responses: yes, all wikipedia editors are equal, and yes: all Wikipedia editors deserve respect and admiration for even simply showing up here. Yes, yes. That said, there are some that keep coming back again and again and again. Why? Not because of the drama, but because of the dream. Of free content. Accurate, sourced, and free content. You are but a rookie, Mr. Woogee. Tread carefully. Keeper | 76 06:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe you should link to the right editor instead of the wrong editor when you spelled the name wrong. It should have been obvious since Woogie (the WRONG editor) hasn't edited since 2008 and the correct editor, the one you were addressing, clearly has edited in the past 2 years. A little care will prevent you from calling an editor with over 3000 edits a "rookie".Niteshift36 (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've apologized to User:Woogee for my mislinking and overstatement, based on my inaccurate linking. He/she has accepted my apology. Regardless of the user commenting, new or old, I overstated my point and inappropriately went "after" one user's comments instead of sticking to the point of contention in defending a conten contributor (Malleus) who is, in my opinion, receiving an undue level of vitriol. Keeper | 76 07:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a rookie. Why does someone who called another editor a "waste of space" not deserve a block? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:35, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly mild insult by Bad Fat's standards. He should remain unblocked, though, until he's got everyone mad at him. Then it will be easy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "morons do what morons do"? I don't really understand how he's not getting blocked for this stuff... Can someone explain it to me, seriously? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:54, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Really? Is that a threat, Keeper? Woogee (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. No threat implied or intended. Just a caution. I'm a big fan of Malleus' content contributions (and a lesser fan of his off-the-cuff commentary, although I've always been adamantly in favor of seeing Malleus (and several others) protected despite his being his worst enemy. Off to bed for me. Be careful with whatever "list" you make, whether literal, rhetorical, or hyperbolic....Keeper | 76 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeper, that was a really low thing to say. Woogee has no more reason to "tread carefully" for making a snarky (and in my eyes, harmless) comment than I do. Characterising him as a "rookie" and that he should be careful because of it is also out of line. I'm really at a loss for words with this whole thread. To be perfectly blunt, I often have the exact same thought as what Woogee said above. Perhaps a list of those untouchables would be useful. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

^Agreed. Keeper's comments to Woogee were totally out of line. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:02, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, I agree that my comments went over the line. Apologies, Woogee. My intentions were pure, my delivery less than accurate. I'm a firm defender of any editor that builds wikipedia content, whether they happen to enjoy cotton candy and smiley faces or are generally grumpy and rude fucks. Wikipedia has historically had room for both types of content contributors, only recently developing a rather incessant need to be really really nice to each other. I don't care about nice. I care about accurate. Encylopedia. Keeper | 76 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, your link to contributions is not to me. Woogee (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Right again. Would you like me to apologize again? Keeper | 76 07:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was an appropriate statement of fact, Keeper, lest folks actually look at the contributions and get confused. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeper has apologized and I have accepted Keeper's apology. Woogee (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I linked incorrectly. I've apologized here and on Woogee's page. egardless of my ineptitude in linking correctly and misdirecting my passion to User:Woogee (not User:Woogie) my point remains the same: that I think Wikipedians need to regain their thick skin. The "civility police" admins and editors are rampant, and in some areas, are out of freakin' control, to the detriment of quality of content. I don't care who's rude to who. Call me names and tell me I'm rude. So what! Anyone can call me whatever the hell they want. I don't care if anyone calls anyone an ass or a waste of space or a rookie. Who's making the encylopedia more accurate? It certainly isn't me (in fact, I retired a year ago because of this very shit). I would surmise it isn't most people that hover over ANI. It's the unnamed, unthroned editors that fix sources and en-dashes for myriad articles, without expectation of admiration. They do it because they belive in this place. And then someone comes along and says "you were rude to someone, I'm blocking you". Total bullshit. Not you, Woogee. Line of fire, and I sincerely apologize. Keeper | 76 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ANI is the best place to debate this, so I won't do that here (I have no doubt others will). However these truths still remain: Many people disagree with many policies, but policies are there to show which practices currently have consensus. You can disagree with them, but your disagreement with them doesn't change how Wikipedia operates. You can lobby to change policy in a number of ways if you like. Until this is done successfully, people are required to remain civil to each other here, and that means not calling each other wastes of space or morons, and if you were aware of these policies and still did it, you get blocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:48, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

A very standard response to anyone disputing "policy" is to say "that's not the policy". I don't need or desire to change "policy", and I don't believe that the civility "policy" is more important than the content policies. I do agree this isn't the place for a meta-discussion of any kind. Keeper | 76 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of which overrides the other. Policy is that you remain civil while you adhere to content policies, not that one or the other is acceptable alone. As for whether or not something being policy is relevant, I'd say you have a point, except when you're an admin making administrative decisions. Admins have their tools in order to uphold consensus practices, not their own opinions of what best practices should be. It seems Moni and some others don't understand this, which is a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:07, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Moni's actions in overturning an overreactive, punitive (and involved - see this fundamentallevel of disagreement between blocker and blockee) block of a prolific (and admittedly outspoken) content contributor. Keeper | 76 08:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Calling another person "a waste of space" is incredibly rude. From serially incivil editors, it deserves a longer block than 24 h. The unblock was not only wrong, but disruptive, as it violates policy: "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion" (WP:Administrators#Reversing another admin's action). I would support sanctions against Moni3 for this misuse of her administrative tools.  Sandstein  06:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. Bad unblock. Silly drama has ensued, and a small victory for the stupid and harmful idea that there are certain contributors who are immune to the civility rules. Wikipedia is not Usenet, thank goodness, yet. --John (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, fancy seeing you in this debate, John! Perhaps admins would care to review some of your recent indulgences in gross incivility, threats to use your tools, and personal attacks?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• In case it wasn't apparent, I agree. Moni's unblock was against policy, and Malleus's behavior is definitely block-worthy. Being a fan of his content is not a valid reason to "protect" him, in Keeper's words (which I'm still amazed at having read). Wikipedia isn't a store where you can buy the right to be uncivil by making enough good content contributions. Rather, you get to contribute only if you remain civil. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:10, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is not shared by the entire community, Equazcion. Please don't proclaim your views as if they were the only logical way to see things. To say I'm a "fan" of Malleus' content is false. I'm a fan of the content, regardless of where/who/when it was created, and regardless of who they pissed on on an irrelevant talkpage. Nobody reads the f-ing talkpages other than editors - and we are our own worst enemies in regards to making this place an f-ing reliable resource. Keeper | 76 07:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that my opinion isn't shared by everyone, but it's shared by enough people for it to be policy. Calling other editors morons and wastes of space are both personal attacks. There's no caveat in policy excusing editors that have made abundant good contributions. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:28, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure this out, Keeper. You're saying that you don't care whether an editor has good manners so long as they have good encyclopedic contributions? You realise that if rude and intolerable folks are left to their own devices, the only people left on this site will be those rude and intolerable people, as they'll have driven off the rest of the good contributors who actually care about things like being civil. The site can't survive under those conditions. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your hyperbole, Hunster. Keeper | 76 07:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Forget the block and the unblock for a second, probably they are both bad but whatever. Some of the comments here and on Malleus's talk page are quite disturbing in my view. For example saying that one is a fan of a certain bit of content "regardless of who [the creator] pissed on on an irrelevant talkpage" is one of the more ridiculous things I've read here in awhile. That's really what things have come to for some editors? Do these folks display a similar attitude in, you know, real life, say at the office? "Hey Jones, great work on that one project, and no I don't have a problem with the fact that you refer to half the rest of the staff as stupid fucks every time you see them in the hall. Be sure to poke that one dork in the face when you pass him next!" As far as I know, most every society and subculture on planet earth has norms relating to politeness, and generally it's considered good for people to be polite to one another. For most of us it's pretty easy in our daily lives but often not online, probably because it takes a bit of courage to call someone a moron to their face but absolutely none to do it on a web site. I continue to find it shocking that a number of Wikipedians apparently feel that certain editors are allowed to be rude simply because they feel like it. This is a collaborative project, people are volunteering here, and I cannot credit the view of anyone who seriously believes that nasty and gratuitous comments (from admins or non-admins) are just fine so long as an editor has done good work and/or has lots of friends (or a formal position of authority). Everyone working here in good faith deserves to be treated with respect as a matter of course, and if you believe someone is working in bad faith you should still treat them with respect as a matter of course. It's quite simple to do that, and no one has ever explained to me why it's actually necessary, clever, helpful, or edifying to refer to others as morons and the like. I mean that as a serious point since some seem to think that there is a time and a place for ad hominems, because "WP:SPADE" (or something). As I said it's all pretty disheartening, and I put much of the blame on editors who race to excuse this kind of behavior simply because they like the person dropping insults and/or dislike the person being insulted. That's quite bush league in my view, and no doubt in the view of many others who don't bother to comment in these situations precisely because they are so unpleasant. I'm pretty thick skinned so feel free to call me an idiot and/or a moron for making this comment if you feel that would be helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's amazing - it's always Chillum involved in these things. Why do you suppose that is? I completely endorse the unblock - such edits as this [91] may be blunt, but they are hardly going to bring the world and Wikipedia crashing down on top of us and damage the project. Chillum need to get over himself, and his fellow Admins need to assist him, rather than constantly blocking others who become tired of his behaviour and irritating relf-righteous attitude.  Giano  10:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Chillum does seem to be such a delicate flower; happy to dish it out, but not at all keen to take it. Some may indeed wonder why he's so often at the centre of these stupid and childish "civility" spats, but not me. I know why, and it ain't pretty. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling any editor, however you feel about them, a waste of space ain't pretty. Your above edit doesn't look very unbiased to the discussion, I must say... Doc9871 (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is a result of the conflicting opinions about the importance of the Civility policy and the purpose of blocks to enforce it. Blocking guidelines assert that blocks are not punitive, which I interpret to mean that they should be used sparingly, to protect the encyclopedia, only in emergencies. They should not be used to punish another editor, although they may be used in cases of newer editors to indicate what is unacceptable. Common sense and a look at Malleus' block log indicate that the blocks he has incurred for civility have not curbed this behavior. A 24-hour block will not change his opinions about admins who get preferential treatment or how to get his point across when he is frustrated. I saw this as clearly punishment for speaking rudely to an admin. However, we should all be communicating on the level of adults here, and sometimes that communication gets hot. I choose not to be insulting or abusive in my comments, but I don't demand that everyone else do the same. I have actually been the subject of some pretty nutty left-field commentary that most would consider to be a gross personal attack and responded with silence because it is within my power not to escalate unnecessary drama.

The immediate reaction here is to block Malleus or chastise me--which you may feel free to do on my talk page. But the inevitable trajectory of this conflict is to reword the blocking guidelines to say that blocks *are* punitive and may be used as punishment, or have another go at rewording the Civility policy. But if it is not Malleus and me back at ANI causing another twin discussion in a few days or weeks, it will be someone else. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that "civility" is undefined and is extremely subjective. As a result clashes like this occur. Until this changes, then nothing changes. Chillum has a very low threshold receiving it, yet a very high threshold when giving it. And it is getting rather monotonous when every 5 minutes an ANI thread appears when some rose-tinted and bespectacled admin with thin skin invites the civility police to go all 'Rodney King' on some poor sod's ass. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A bigger part of the problem is that some admins hold themselves to a very different (much lower) standard than the one they claim to enforce, and the community has long been sick of seeing some editors used to play whack-a-mole. Ask User:John. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if none of called called each other childish names or reverted edits endlessly, WP would be closer to perfect. It never will be, but we have policies to see it doesn't fall into utter chaos. So ignore all rules: disparage each other all day, and don't focus on the edits that people actually read. Poopy-pants! (to no one in particular) Doc9871 (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no more to be done here. Suggest closing thread. Good grief.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You go and review some FACs and write some FAs, Wehwalt :) You are absolutely right. Abusive admins have already taken too much time from those who actually build the damn encyclopedia and have no need for power tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Malice Fatatorium is useful, because he makes things interesting when it gets too dull around here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Careful there, Mr. Bugs :) Some normal editors would get blocked for not referring to an editor by their full and correct editor name :) Ask Mr. Sideaway. Another example of the double standard applied to admins vs. the rest of us folk (you can call me Sandy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I get called a lot of things, but I don't take it personally. Also, I don't do Latin, so I'm trying to present an Anglicized translation. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a fucking joke isn't it? Some asswipe starts an ANI and doesn't even have the common decency to inform the accused? And then has the gall to bleat about "incivility"? Jesus wept, what are you on? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Asswipe", is it? You didn't get the "civility" memo, I take it... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I've known Malice a long time, and he always maintains the same high standard of civility. :) By the way, he cited a mis-translation. Actually, it was a description of which He did at the end of each day in His stepdad's carpenter shop: "Jesus swept." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, you wascawy wabbit!  ;> Doc9871 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I think he did inform Moni, who is actually the ... ummmm ... target of this ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is incivility and there is incivility. As far as I can see, Chillum devoted a chunk of his day yesterday to visiting other editor's Talk Pages and removing content (content which was, in itself, unobjectionable). He did this without any introduction or explanation (it would have been easy to paste an explanatory message each time). I am not aware of ever interacting with Chillum before; I wasn't sure he was an Admin. I asked him what he was doing. The explanation I received made no sense: it was practice to remove edits by a banned editor. I asked why he didn't remove that editors edits from History of Logic. He explained that it was practice to remove edits only after the editor was banned. Whichever way you hold that up to the light, it remains opaque. He also announced that I didn't "own" my Talk Page. This is all "civil"? I don't thinks so, and what's more I think "waste of space" is a fairly mild when applied to Chillum's activities as described here - I have no opinion on his past contributions to the encyclopaedia.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

So this is where the members of the community supersede the rules. I'm pretty shocked that all the admins are whipping out their administrative-dicks and screaming "Mine's bigger!" Hopefully this can be closed, because the discussion is furthering the stereotype of "The wiki is sinking!" Perhaps we can drop this now? –Turian (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, "asswipe" and "waste of space" are such sophomoric insults, I'm surprised anyone is taking him seriously. What's next, "doody head"? Wknight94 ^talk 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have seen people raise hell over smaller banter before. This whole conversation just exacerbates it all. –Turian (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

@Turian, if the "Wiki is sinking" you are pushing it down with some of your silly and absolutely unwarranted proposals --Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty glad you can read, especially since I said "stereotype" that it is sinking. But you know, your personal vendetta or feelings towards me for trying to have you blocked because of your major incivility is extremely apparent, so you should be on your way. Nice try though! –Turian (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility? Any differences to present?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Get. Over. It. There is no reason to drag your "hurt feelings" into this. Okay? –Turian (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, now I understood! Dear Turian, to tell you the truth, I cannot get over it because I never was on it, and I never was on it because the proposal you've made was way too silly to care about it. BTW my very favorite quote is: "There is no sin except stupidity" by Oscar Wilde. I hope you'll like it too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mbz1, why are you even here then? –Turian (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a simple one. I am here because I like to laugh, at least, when I am not crying :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Does anyone here claiming that "waste of space" is somehow worthy of punitive action actually ever bother to leave their computers, and venture out into the real world? I mean, seriously? Fucking hell, you're trying to enforce a Stepford Wives version of civility, when you should just accept that robust debate will occasionally result in people's feelings being hurt. Grow up for God's sake. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

• Someone objected last time I closed one of these, but is anything productive happening here? –xeno^talk 17:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC) RFCU (for any of the parties to this) or policy/guideline RFCs are available for a more rational discussion. –xeno^talk 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wknight94 ^talk 17:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't belong at this board. Durova⁴¹² 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support No prospect of anything productive happening. Unblocking admin should be admonished not to do it again without discussion, then let's move on. --John (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, nothing to resolve until/unless Chillum resumes more of what led to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, are you guys still talking about this? I went out and got pissed in the mean time. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, now that all potentially-useful thoughts have been drowned out by baying, shrieking, tantrums and/or personal vendettas. (Seriously, y'all--I have a pretty unflappable view of AN/I goofiness, but this thread may represent a new low point in the history of en:WP. Nobody comes out of this one looking good--casual commentors not excepted (and yes, I include myself!) No dessert for ANY of us..) GJC 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Chillum has sped off astride his scooter onto the horizon and I wish him well.  Giano  19:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Addendum: in response to this (the latest iteration of a familiar issue), I've proposed a policy change at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Civility_blocks. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:125.164.3.249

I would love some assistance with the mess that this user has caused with their vandalism today...They've been adding random (and mostly non-existent) categories to articles for the past four hours without anyone catching them. I've issued them a level 1 warning, but given that this user has been relatively inactive over the last hour or so, didn't think it was appropriate for me to hit them with multiple warnings all at one time. I'm trying to revert as much as possible, but would like some help with that too! Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some of their category contributions actually do exist, and for the most part they seem to be adding things in good-faith, but have messed things up a bit by adding all sorts of fictional categories that don't exist. Frmatt (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, have fixed the problem now...but would appreciate someone looking at my actions and just making sure I did the right thing here...now having second thoughts about it! Frmatt (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been doing this kind of thing for a long time now, under various 125 ips out of Indonesia. It used to be that he/she was gung-ho about the megafauna articles and categories (we used to have lists for each continent). In brief, 125 is a long-term anonymous editor who really likes to categorize animals; sometimes it's helpful, and sometimes not so much, as when 125 changed Category:Fictional ducks to Category:Fictional anatids in a number of articles. J. Spencer (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They change IP's too often, sometimes using 3 or 4 in a single session, to really do anything about it, other than a range block. I've tried leaving them messages but by then they have usually moved on to another IP. As you noted they are working in good faith and they do quite a bit of good work. I usually just click on the red linked category to see which articles it contains and then roll them back to, usually, restore the original category. something lame from CBW 19:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Angie Y.

I'd like some help reigning in a user dedicated to adding fan-cruft to various articles (unsourced, fan-driven drivel). She doesn't seem to understand the our position on notability our opposition to original research and our insistence reliable sources, nor does she appear prone to listening. Her approach is simply to avoid 3RR by "patient (persistent) editing." In short, she figures she can wear people down. I wish to prove her wrong. She has been literally sitting on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - related articles for five years now and has fully developed largely unsourced, original research articles on each of the various characters. Admins wishing to get involved could begin anywhere, however the article on Veruca Salt would make a good start. I propose we attempted to convince Angie of our standards. If this should fail, I wouldn't object to an indef block until she changes her mind. At that point, we can go back, gut these articles of OR, and merge them as appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging would seem to be an excellent idea. Are there any other similar articles that treat characters in multiple adaptations? If not, merge immediately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many articles that threat characters in multiple adaptations. Lord Voldemort is one example. My gripe is that most of Angie's work is unsourced and original research (and she has resisted attempts to conform), and it is Angie's approach to editing I'd like to see addressed. Cleaning up her articles and possibly merging those with minimal sources is secondary. Rklawton (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it IS sourced. Broadway Junior.com, and MTI.com. Angie Y. (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Block needed

Wantsvictory (talk · contribs) has been in an ongoing edit war on the articles for two fictional lesbian characters. He has violated the three revert rule by a lot on both Olivia Spencer and Natalia Rivera Aitoro, changing the text "committed relationship" to "Twisted Lesbian Relationship" on both articles. I left a note warning him about vandalism and alerting him to the NPOV policy. He has since edited my comments and has moved his talk page to article space at Nagging West Coast Lesbian Supporters Get Their Way. Because of my opposition to Prop 8 (stated on my user page), Wantsvictory doesn't believe I'm being neutral, and since I'm involved here I'm not using my tools. I could definitely use a hand cleaning this mess up though. AniMate 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've issued an indefinite block. I don't see anything in the edit history that suggests he won't leave the propaganda out of it. I would like another admin, if necessary, to confirm the block since I doubt he'll sit well having been blocked by an admitted tailraiser. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious SPI who resorts to edit-warring and, failing that, vandalism. I'd say you're in the clear. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block - it is very apparent that not only do they not understand the Wikipedia ethos, but they have no desire to do so. I am slightly worried that Jeremy self identifies as a cat, but obviously it was not an issue at his RfA so I guess it really does not matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a cat, a Bori. Look it up. :P —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(gratuitous lolcat in 3....2....1.....) GJC 18:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

...and talk page access yanked. (He has been directed to appeal via email.) Otherwise, this person is clearly not here to be productive in any form. His commentary on his user talk post-block, his remarks at AniMate, and his severe edit warring clearly demonstrate that lack. –MuZemike 01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Qpwoeial's continued harrassment

This is entirely out of line. This user needs a time out. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have not reported to this to Qpwoeial because of his demands that I stay off his Talk page. Woogee (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't require any action yet. I've since explained there what I think was Qpwoeial's misunderstanding of policy. Wouldn't really call this harassment, at least not yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:38, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Anti-IP bias

Realkyhick (talk · contribs) is allowing his/her anti-IP bias show, to the point of undoing warnings I've issued and informing me that s/he's going to be stalking my edits. Would somebody mind informing them that registration is not required and attacking IP editors is unacceptable? 24.4.248.154 (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

you were throwing warnings around that were not entirely warranted. please be more careful with that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not "attacked" this edit at all. I struck out two improperly-placed warnings that this anon-IP editor put on another editor's page. After this editor slapped a warning on my own talk page, I responded by informing him/her that there was no "attack" and his warning was improper and out of order. I also informed him/her that I would investigate his/her edit history to see if there was a pattern of improper warnings or other similar behavior. The anon-IP editor will not communicate directly, but only slaps warning tags. This IP only shows edit history for about the past 12 hours, give or take an hour. I am suspicious of this editor, given his or her penchant for slapping warning tags around - some correctly, others not. The fact that he or she has immediately posted a message here without any discussion or explanation of his/her actions makes me doubly suspicious. The anon-IP editor also exhibits quite a bit of knowledge about WP to only have a 12-hour edit history (yeah, I know about dynamic IP's and such, but still...). Something just doesn't sm5ll right here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: As has been noted on the anon-IP editor's talk page, he or she apparently has an established pattern of this kind of activity, and changes IP's on a regular basis. Whether or not this is an attempt to evade enforcement activity of some sort is unclear, but this IP and all of his or her past identities do seem to belong to a "problem child." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

24.4.248.154, you have not really supplied any information to help people review this complaint. If there is an issue, please provide diffs for both Realkyhick's "removing your warnings", and for his "attacking" you. I looked at Realkyhick's recent edits and don't see any removal of warnings; and even if he does, users have the right to remove messages from their talk page.

This does not look like an issue for the administrator's noticeboard, since no admin action is being requested. If all you want is for someone to slap Realkyhick on the wrist, you would have been better off trying WP:Wikiquette alerts (although if you go there, don't be surprised to have your own behavior scrutinized as well) or just ignoring him. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The warnings were not removed; they were struck through. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Diff where implication was made that the anon's warnings shouldn't be heeded due to them being anonymous: [92]. There were other perhaps valid concerns mentioned though. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:40, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

This is not only the wrong forum, but I've seen nothing alarming about User:Realkyhick in my experience. Shadowjams (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oversighted entries

Can I ask why all edits to this board between 19:19, 6 March 2010 and 20:10, 6 March 2010 appear to have been oversighted, and yet at least some of them (I haven't checked them all) are still appearing on the board? (And yes, I've purged the cache.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You must have your settings to show time in local. It's all the entries 00:19 to 01:10 7 March UTC. (~35 entries on multiple topics by many editors.) -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, thanks for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Many innocuous edits ended up suppressed because they included in their revisions the offending text that was being removed. This happens when someone makes an intervening edit to a page after someone makes an edit that will eventually be suppressed, but before someone reverts that text (since each revision includes the entire text of the page, not just the changes made by the editor). So most of these comments are supposed to still remain visible, as most were not removed at all; their diffs were just collateral damage. Dominic·t 10:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, thank you for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Toothie3 Wikihounding me and making disruptive edits

Toothie3 (talk · contribs) is upset that I reverted some changes to Pan-Arabism, including many, many weasel words and very few, if any, WP:RS. In retaliation, Toothie3 has started Wikihounding me. She/he added tags to The Invention of the Jewish People, then did a copy-and-paste move to Book:The Invention of the Jewish People and redirected the article there.

Next, Toothie3 tagged Israel and the apartheid analogy and began making WP:BLP violations on the article's Talk page. Will somebody please stop this out-of-control editor? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To further the point of "out-of-control", a list of issues with the sources the user has been using in the Pan-Arabism article is detailed at Talk:Pan-Arabism#Current sources. The user just ignores the issues and continually reinserts them in the article, without making the slightest attempt to address the problems. A look at the history of that article and the talk page would be informative. nableezy - 07:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

nableezy & malik Shabazz Wikihounding me?

I & others did answered nableezy's (POV) on that talkpage over there.

It's useless to repeat on another talk page, again.

Are you two "Wikihounding" me?

As I said to Nableezy, he can not intimidate minorities' voices against intolerant Pan Arabism, neither can you, this is not a Pan Arabism totalitarian controlled entity, this is wikipedia, free for all.

I already answered before that I am not "after" Malik or anyone else, nothing "personal", I was emailed a few links (with suggestion of radical Islamic bias) which I edited with no relation to Malik or anyone else. This/my response was deleted, that's another violation,/b> by someone that "complaints" of being a "victim", imagine that!

Toothie3 (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never deleted any "answer" of yours.

I also have to say that your claim about an e-mail message is a little hard to believe. You accuse me of vandalism, then you start vandalizing the pages in my recent contribution history, and we're supposed to believe it's just an incredible coincidence? And how does that e-mail message justify your vandalism anyway? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Toothie3's contributions, he/she is an extremely disruptive editor who has not contributed anything positive. Mainly seems to want to bash Arabs. Will be blocked soon anyway, so why waste time? Zero^talk 08:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Comment - Toothie3 might appear (to some?) to be a single-purpose editor based on the short life and apparent focus of the edits... Doc9871 (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bs1996 continued copyright upload problems

Bs1996 (talk · contribs) has been receiving file copyright warnings for three weeks now, and yet they continue to upload images without any copyrights. Woogee (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given him a uw-ics4. Looks like contribs will need to be checked and images uploaded flagged up. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of block wanted

I just blocked 76.184.255.60 (talk · contribs) for what I considered to be obvious vandalism. However, I have edited the article before (mainly again reverting vandalism), so I guess I'm an involved Admin. But, as the vandalism was ongoing even as I was looking at it, I decided that blocking as preventive and getting trouted was better than asking for someone else to block and clean up. I think this was, in fact, a legitimate use of my tools even if I was involved, but if anyone wishes to unblock, trout me, whatever, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Assuming good faith on that guy is just plain stupid. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, you crazy son of a.... You have blocked a very longstanding and well-meaning editor, and you're clearly a madman for blocking "it". I guarantee you will not succeed in this most valuable editor's block. Just look at the edit history! I'm outraged! For shame, for shame! ;P Doc9871 (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're being too harsh on that IP. Just look at this gentle invitation to a romantic evening:[93] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But... no box of chocolates. No flowers - not even posies. Alright, the invitation shows the IP's sincerity. My bad ;> Doc9871 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit is clear that this user is a well-meaning user with lots to offer, how dare you block him? Woogee (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, he loves me, how sweet. Dougweller (talk) 21

07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Range blocks requested

Last week I came to ANI to request rangeblocks on several ranges which are being utilized by a single user who for some reason removes every reference and hidden comment from a series of articles I edit. More information is here: User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Ref removing vandal. The two ranges that were not blocked at the time were blocked by Fastily and he had stated to me that if the vandal came back on the four ranges that were at the time blocked but were set to expire in a few days time from my posting, he would block those. As Fastily has stated that he is unable to block at this time, I am requesting that someone else place the blocks on the four ranges on which the blocks have expired. Fastily blocked the other two ranges for a six month period. At this time, I think that such a block (with account creation enabled as this vandal has not made an account to this date) would be useful on the following ranges (blocked by Prodego in late January for the duration of February):

• 75.36.136.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 76.200.100.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 76.204.76.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 76.205.24.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

I have tried to contact the ISP, but I was not helped. Semiprotecting the pages he edits is not beneficial as all are ongoing series where other IP users make beneficial edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that only a single IP out of these 5,000 IP addresses has been used since the previous blocks, and very few before that. Have you considered an edit filter instead of blocking so many innocent users? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if a filter was attempted to be created to block any of these edits because it's text being removed and not added. I am requesting the rangeblocks to be reinstated now because the vandal is more active these four ranges over all and has come back day after day on a new IP before all four were blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice most of the edits have already been through the filter and are tagged with 'References removed'. The other edits are 'Comments removed' so the same filter principles would apply. The IP ranges are fairly limited, so those can be also matched. There is also likely to be a common category or keyword which can refine the match. It would seem to me to be more preferable than blocking 8,000 fairly active and productive IPs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Prior to the block, Prodego used a toolserver item (I can't remember which) to examine the recent edits from the ranges that he had blocked. He determined that the ranges that were blocked were mostly used by this single individual (there were a handful of users he created accounts for because he blocked account creation). And there's no common category or keyword. There are several categories affected and "References removed" is not going to cut it for the abuse that is caused.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User attack

• Eddstonham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using my talk page to attack Dave1185 after he warned him. ChaosControl1994 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the edit you are referring to? SGGH ^ping! 10:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I also direct admins to User:User Eddstonham, indef blocked for vandal only acc. I have indef blocked the other one as a sock. SGGH ^ping! 10:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lemlin

Is this a legal threat? User faced a blocking and how retired himself, but just want to check whether that comment should be removed? SGGH ^ping! 11:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are also the comments at the base of User talk:Ttonyb1. Want a second opinion before I act. SGGH ^ping! 11:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed his potential NLT, but to me it was not close enough to block for. It's ironic that he actually says he's willing to violate the GFDL ... talk about NLT :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

the legal threat has been removed, I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lie now that he has proclaimed himself retired. Case closed. SGGH ^ping! 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

stop making idle threats and just delete my profile you bunch of facists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemlin (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your wish is our command. Account indef blocked, legal threat removed from user page and user talk page, talk page editing disallowed. SGGH ^ping! 15:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of another user's comments on a project page

So there appears to be some confusion between three editors on striking out of another editor's comments on an AfD. It appears that we are all trying to do the right thing so no feelings hurt either way. Factsontheground asserts that comments on the deletion discussion made by another editor are misleading, deceptive, and even trolling. Two others disagree. Since there has been discussion and there is the beginnings of what could lead to an edit war, a quick note of guidance on to what is and is not OK would be appreciated.

Can "See previous deletion discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_students" be allowed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam.

See User talk:Factsontheground#Removing the comments of others for even more info.Cptnono (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment that I initially removed ([94]) from a current deletion discussion stated that an entirely different, and vastly inferior, article that was deleted, was actually a previous version of the current article, whereas the only relation is that the articles roughly share the same topic. The new article was written from scratch and contains no prose or links from the other article. I don't know whether the comment was a mistake or an attempt to skew the debate towards deleting, I am sure that it was an attempt to skew the debate and it certainly has the potential to influence the discussion since it was at he very top of the debate, next to the nomination, and appeared to be official and not just Amuseo's opinion.

After I removed it, CaptNono put it back and I subsequently struck it through instead of deleting it to make it obvious to people reading the discussion that it was not official or true.

Just to be clear, that comment would have been fine if he made it clear that the article he referenced was unrelated except for sharing the same broad topic.

I am well aware that altering people's talk comments is frowned upon in Wikipedia, but according to WP:TALK, there are a few exceptions that condone the editing of other people's comments. Posting a purposefully deceptive comment that appears official in order to skew an AFD debate is an abuse of Wikipedia processes. As such it falls under the trolling exemption as explained by misuse of process.

This isn't the first time that Amuseo has been disruptive on or around that page. He also moved the article to a silly name in an attempt to make a point. Factsontheground (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your refactoring was inappropriate and made sure to state your objection on the page with my removal of your striking out of another editor's comment. I don't believe that anyone can accept another editor striking out someone else's comments period. Speaking of refacotring: can you add a ":" before your comment to make this more readable?Cptnono (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you would have been far better off to add your own comment noting your objections rather than tampering with another's comment. You say above "I don't know whether the comment was a mistake or an attempt to skew the debate towards deleting..." That being the case you can hardly rely on WP:TALK for your justification. Why not remove the strike through and add a comment below it noting your objection. Just my two cents...JodyB _talk 12:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jody, I suddenly realized that Amuseo was the same guy who disruptively moved the article being deleted to a silly name in an attempt to make a point. I am now quite certain that the deceptive link was on purpose and not on accident. So WP:TALK does apply here. Factsontheground (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually realized that nothing was going to happen even though it was inappropriate to strike out another user's comments. I added a disclaimer above an below and it wasn't good enough. So since Wikipedia has devolved into wikilawyeringboredome, I have made my own mention of the comment with my own disclaimer and my own signature. Factsontheground will surely not remove yet another editor's comments... will he? Chill out and let AfD take its course.Cptnono (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:TPOC applies; any comment that is not obvious vandalism, BLP violation, personal attack, etc. may not be removed without either the editors permission or a consensus among uninvolved editors. If there is an issue with the contents of a comment, then those issues should be raised within the discussion. In short, removing another editors comments equates to calling them a vandal - so it should only be done when it is apparent that is what they are.
  I have been blocking people for violation of TPOC following enforcement requests elsewhere, so I am pretty stringent about this. I will review this and issue warnings to those editors violating policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, I removed the strikes so this can be closed. Unless, that is, an admin wants to do something about Amuseo derailing the AFD discussion with his false link and article renaming (unlikely).Factsontheground (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In other news,

while this discussion was ongoing, we had an edit-warring problem going on:[95]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we are going to have some difficulty with Factsontheground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is not exactly a surprise given the red flag username. I see a fair bit or material from this user which looks like novel synthesis and much of it has a particular bias in an area where such bias is likely to be perceived as inflammatory. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  Links please. Unomi (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

IP user removing vandalism notices from talk page possibility trying to hide evidence of misconduct. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is permitted per WP:BLANKING. The removal of the warning serves as an indication it was read. –xeno^talk 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Except not usually in the case of IP editors since the "owner" of the IP could change from minute to minute. We allow (though I disagree) accounts to remove warnings from their pages but the standard has been, unless its changed, not to allow IP users to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has since 4 April 2008 allowed IP (anon) users to do so. –xeno^talk 01:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism page by vandalism account - Speedy delete and block probably

Ryan and Kieran, delete that ~ R.T.G 14:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to warn people. I've done that for you now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Danielson Gomes Monteiro: 90% page history is vandalism, please protect it

Resolved

 – Semi-protected indefinitely. NW (Talk) 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A long term vandalism is repeatly done by a Romanian user, claimed a non-exist person Dani played all around the world, most recently LA Galaxy. Danielson Gomes Monteiro is a real footballer but not that no-exist Dani created by the user. Please ban all the ip and the page creator for a sound warning to him. I keep on reverting for ONE YEAR. The user Dancornea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created another name space Dani C./Dani.C for his non-exist Dani, it is not a newbie joke. Matthew_hk tc 15:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparent attempt to influence wikipedia discussion through canvassing of outside sources

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam and http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/b9wbh/well_sourced_article_about_the_israeli_art/. The initial author seems to have deleted his or her username, but as per both standing wikipedia policy as well as the specific injunctions regarding Palestinian-Israeli articles, this kind of behavior is not allowable. Does anyone have a record of whom the initial poster who was attempting to use reddit to influence the article was? -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Referring to Israeli art student scam and of course its associated AfD. Because you couldn't possibly expect a Jewish cabal like Wikipedia to judge this on its merits. I'll run a book on this with Factsontheground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 6:1 on favourite. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are at least 15 keep votes. Any reason you singled me out for your unsupported personal attack? Anyway, "reddit" seems to be some kind of pro-Israel forum. The agent provocateur probably knew it would react the way it did and still cast doubts on the keep side. Factsontheground (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, of course reddit is "some kind of pro-Israel forum" - silly of us not to include that obvious fact in the article. I guess it's the same as Facebook, Digg, StumbleUpon and all the other social media sites so insidiously manipulated by Mossad. Tell you what, why not write an article on the Israeli social networking conspiracy? Guy (Help!) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

FOTH is probably not the culprit. How would he find the time with all the other ANI-drama and edit-warring?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay guys, let's ease up on sniping please. SGGH ^ping! 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To the OP, [96] this is what I believe you are looking for. Person later claims to not have a Wikipedia account so I have no idea where the need to suppress the posting name came from and there is no Wikipedia user of that name. Take it for what you will, and hey maybe someone knows of a link. I take no sides in absurd content disputes, but I'll also say that Avi is spot-on regarding off-Wiki nonsense including an arbcom statement a few months ago. This has nothing to do with the possible canvassing or meatpuppetry at the AfD, so Factsontheground, please keep the incivility and NPA accusations off ANI and go over to WQA with them. Leave this thread to the possible violations of ArbCom motions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Totallyserious&group=&limit=1. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

IP block evasion/personal atacks

• Everyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.195.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.216.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Admitted IPs of indefinitely blocked User:Everyme are evading the block and indicating that he "will keep hurling insults." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked the latest dynamic IP for 24 hours. No point in blocking the other one since he's clearly not using it any more. IP range is far too big for a rangeblock, so unfortunately it's a case of blocking as and when. Black Kite 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough and thanks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • facepalm.jpg --78.34.201.5 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • omg Skype? 99.160.140.103 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • ^ that was me, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC) He's so hard to get a hold of...

Block Evasion

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Edgar181. 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An IP, 68.222.236.154 (talk · contribs) who was blocked for one month with the reason: Disruptive editing: repeatedly inserting "Taiwan" and Taiwan flag icons into articles despite being told to stop seems to block evading under this 98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs). Both IPs geolocate to the same place and are reinstating the same edits such as this on the Republic of China 68 IP and 98 IP. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP is also now edit warring again on the Republic of China article. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now blocked the IP. (And sorry about mistakenly marking this section resolved because I misread which IP was the currently active one.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Making note to make things clearer next time. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hosting infoboxes on user pages: User:Mackay 86

My reading of WP:UP#NOT suggests that the content on User:Mackay 86 is not appropriately held there. I'm not sure why (s)he's put it there, but it seems to me like an opportunity for someone to host a parallel encyclopaedia free of peer review (note the edit comment "Warning do not edit this article, anything "not" added by me will be deleted"). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the content, noting the same on the accounts talkpage and warning that WP practices should be abided by. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They're ignoring you .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.178.63 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they did post to my talkpage stating they did not know why they shouldn't host the content on their talkpage - so I explained myself further... after removing it again and protecting the page from being edited. I invited them to request further opinions here, at the same time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just an outside question. Could it be possible to have the infoboxes there on the page and comment out the categories and such so no one accidently comes to the page? I had to do that with a page I moved from mainspace to userspace (see User:Neutralhomer/WPRZ-FM). The categories were commenting out but the infobox on the page remained. Would that be an alterative or still against the rules? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly the same thing imho. Userified page meant for eg. further refinement or a userpage with an assortement of unrelated infoboxes. Jarkeld (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I understand. That was pretty much the reason why I had to pull the article from mainspace to userspace was for further refinement and that it didn't quite meet WP:N (due to the station not being on the air yet). OK, my question was answered. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Living person task force IRC meeting

Hi everyone,

The Living Persons task force is having a meeting on IRC in about 4 hours, in the channel #wikimedia-strategy ^connect on the server freenode. If you need help accessing this channel, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing IRC. The time of the meeting is 4:00 UTC on Monday, 8 March. The meeting will be publicly logged (see past chats) and will generally follow the structure laid out at the agendas page. strategy:Task force/Living people has more information if you interested.

I hope to see you there.

Yours sincerely, NW (Talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:75.68.82.23 again

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

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 month by Ronhjones. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This IP editor was the subject of two recent AN/I threads [97],[98] because of their disruptive editing. They've just come off a block, and have picked right up doing the same thing again. Comments and advice on the talk page are being ignored. Can someone please take a look, and issue a block if it's warranted? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good example of the bad edits they're making. I reported at WP:AIV, but there wasn't any response there. Dawnseeker2000 00:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ronhjones just blocked for a month. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Well I should say that differently; I posted to WP:AIV, but the user stopped editing and the admin noticed and said the same. They asked to re-report if the user continued and I did. Thanks again. Now I can resume having fun making audio samples for Wikipedia articles about songs! Dawnseeker2000 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

71.246.35.80 again

See this thread in "Archive 601", which has only just slid off the top of this page.

User:71.246.35.80 (talk), who plausibly claims to be Ernie A. Smith, has yet again added a little speech to Ebonics. I happen to think that some of what he says this time is very reasonable, but this is beside the point: he's yet again showing himself to be stunningly unaware of, or unconcerned with, the principles of editing. In view of his merrily expressed disgust at me on the same article's talk page (disgust that doesn't worry me in the slightest, btw), my own reluctant deployment of an administratudinal cluebat might look personal, and so I again leave the matter to whichever uninvolved administrator happens to see this AN/I thread. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Quite a bit of the article to who whose content 71.246.35.80 so strongly objects was written by me. And so the imaginable charge of misuse of administratorial red buttons to further my line in a content dispute again makes me reluctant to "be bold". -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's wayyy too much reading for me at this time of night! Aside from the behavioural issues, I don't see an OTRS ticket number at the named account. This is a presumably living person, so isn't that ticket or block? And the IP is giving the appearnce of posting in the name of a living and by the sounds of it prominent person - that's not on at all is it? Sure it seems plausible they are the person, but it doesn't work that way here. I could do a pretty good Jimbo Wales impression I bet. Franamax (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point, the user seems to be steering towards a more civil path (see this exchange). Mr. Smith (and I have no reason to assume he is otherwise, ticket or no) is new to Wikipedia and any actions should consider WP:BITE, even if he is a bit chompy himself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 09:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing.

Resolved

 – Semi-d for a week by Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs)

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roblox (2nd nomination), there is offsite canvassing. There is also a corresponding influx of new editors and anonymous editors to the discussion, with rationales that match the "I came to vote" mentality. Please consider semi protection. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd 1w. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

edits marked with copyrights

When trolling through a database report, I ran across "HSL and HSV", which contains several copyright tags on image captions. I know WP:CP exists, but this is a little more complex. I'm hoping someone can straighten it out- do the images need to be deleted? Do editors need to be warned/notified about how copyrights work on Wikipedia? I don't claim to know everything, and this is certainly a weak area, which is why I'm waving a white flag here. tedder (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The credit line for User:Goffrie was not needed (they released the artwork under GFDL by publishing it here in 2006); the credit to Luc Viatour is kind of muddled (the release on Commons seems more restrictive than the terms they give to any random person for the same image on their website, and they request a link to their website as part of their more restrictive conditions). I'd say the Luc Viatour image probably should just be replaced - but someone would have to do the work to replace what it's used for in that article. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In defense of the editors, coming up with a well-implemented footnotes section for just the images is hard. I have no idea how to! A rare sight. Generally, I'd say the precise source (to page!) of an image doesn't need to be listed so long as its details are given at the file's page. Are any of the copyrighteds still "musts" for understanding the article?. As in, the meta-level summary. If no, gone. I'm on the fence for that. Is fair use claimed and the existing copyright explained at the file's page? The answers are typically "no", and "no" for most images. Gone.1 of 2 is not sufficient and a deletion suggestion would be good on such things. Such detail and good faith in the markups is actually refreshing, but I'm generically going to say 1) remove the citations for the images proper and 2) fervently rid the article of anything copyrighted unless it can safely pass a duck test of "is it that vital?" Fussy, yeah, sorry. I beg anyone to correct anything I explained if it's just plain wrong. That's my 'short' explanation of image use, I think.

I'm only thinking about this today after seeing a iWhatevers app that points to commons and misc article files as "free images" and thought, "ooh, that's no good". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)