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

Abuse of Page Protection tools

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

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: [1], [2], [3]. 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)

Having seen the log that was linked to, I can certainly understand why he wants it on the "community record". Way beyond the pale, and suppressing it by copyright claims only makes it worse. He is justified in wanting some sunshine here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This has long since ceased to be a matter for ANI, but since respectable Wikipedians are asking direct questions here's a reply. Only two Wikipedia arbitration cases have ever been vacated; Shoemaker's Holiday was the subject of one of them. For more than I year I campaigned on Shoemaker's Holiday's behalf to get its findings vacated. Throughout that time I was his strongest advocate, friend, and supporter--frequently putting his needs ahead of my own. This was not easy because his conduct was erratic: for a number of months he initiated more arbitration motions than any other editor. Often he would agree in private that his actions were poor choices and attribute them to his health. I made many difficult choices to support him--or at least excuse him--because he often seemed to be doing the right thing in all the wrong ways. There were people who believed his outbursts were staged; I trusted him. I prioritized his arbitration appeal ahead of my own and made no appeal of my own case until after his had been vacated. After his case was vacated, though, he acted in ways that undermined my appeal. Other incidents occurred with other editors where he failed to share credit where credit was due or undermined other editors where their priorities differed from his own.

A few days before the chat log you have read, a different chat occurred where he boasted that his onsite outbursts had indeed been staged throughout his arbitration appeals: he would email a request to the Committee and if he didn't get the response he wanted he would raise a fuss at the boards, and his strategy was to resume the outbursts and tie up arbitrator time until they vacated his case to get rid of him. He thought it was clever to do that. So the skeptics were right: he had been lying to me all those months. He had exploited my goodwill. Until he made that boast I was unable to correlate those events because he usually hadn't informed his friends when he was emailing ArbCom. At first I was speechless. Then I asked a former Committee member whether this chain of events had really taken place; in light of the self-disclosure that person was able to affirm in very general terms that it had. My real reaction came out a few days later when Shoemaker's Holiday violated WP:NOR to undermine one of my featured content candidacies. I am a former sailor: on rare occasions when it's really deserved I speak like one. Strictly offsite, of course.

If anyone needs substantiation please email me. These events occurred many months ago and I'd rather put it in the past. I remain willing to work with Shoemaker's Holiday onsite but have no desire to communicate with him in any other context. For the last five months nearly all of his contributions at two WMF sites have been focused upon me. I have had no contact with him, onsite or offsite, since last October other than at this thread. Let's resume our shared mission and build an encyclopedia. Durova⁴¹² 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm glad that you're being forthright – your version of events at least explains (though it doesn't excuse) the outburst in question. — Werdna • talk 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would take a dig through archives from last October to check the log line by line, but what he's published appears to be incomplete and possibly altered. The context is completely misrepresented. The "polite criticism of my work" he refers to occurred here. Shoemaker was actually proposing that we invert the orientation of an illustration of a shadow on a floor. Shoemaker's Holiday had no source at all for his opinion. I had made all the appropriate notations both at the file upload page and at the article caption. There was a point in chat where he tried to claim the Library of Congress staff had uploaded the image wrong and I replied that the spine was on the correct side (they had scanned the whole book). He was really clinging to the idea and hadn't done basic research; don't suppose he published that part of the discussion. This blindsided me a few minutes after I woke up that day. Suppose Shoemaker guessed wrong and Wikipedia republished a work by one of the most important French impressionists upside down? Durova⁴¹² 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Show me one place where it was cut or altered. You have the logs. We're not the only people who have them, others have seen them too. Go through line by line, and if you can show alteration, do so.

Furthermore, "staged"? Hell, no. I told you that I never got anything from the Arbcom in the entire months where I followed your insistance that I sit back and do nothing, only politely poking them at times, and waiting months for responses that never came. But the moment I *did* get upset, things happened, and I pointed out that it was ridiculous of them to set things up with perverse incentives, which made it much easier to give in to outbursts when the stress built up next time, in the full knowledge that nothing would get done otherwise.

Durova fails to mention things like her revealing my private health information on Wikimedia Commons, which I'd look for, but I believe it was oversighted. She was not a friend, her friendship was entirely conditional on me doing exactly what she said, and never arguing with her. The slightest thing I did that wasn't discussed beforehand resulted in her coming down on me like a ton of bricks.

I have a challenge for Durova: If I edited the log, post your version, and let people compare. Presuming you aren't projecting about editing, that'll let people see whether mine varies any.

In turn, you have my permission to post the log where I supposedly boasted about staging things. However, you must post it in full, from the time the conversation started, to when it ended, censoring only personal details like our real names and any exact description of my medical information.

This needs some sunshine. If you're unwilling to do this, I think that everyone has the right to ask you why.

Furthermore, may I point out this diff from over on Commons? [4] I'm not going to link the post discussed in that diff, for reasons that will be clear upon reading that diff. Who is the more credible in this discussion? The person who has been warned for harassing someone by revealing personal medical information, or the person who had said information maliciously revealed? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday came to this board with broad-ranging complaints regarding events that happened five months ago, in a way that led reasonable observers to mistakenly suppose that they occurred recently. The closest part of his post to a request for the use of administrative tools was an objection to semiprotection of his user space. When he got an approval for that he broadened the complaint beyond the scope of this board. Related statements of his have already been Oversighted and revdeleted on two WMF sites and he was blocked for edit warring and personal attacks on one of them. This thread has compelled me to make statements that reflect poorly on him which I had no wish to make. This person is welcome to initiate a user conduct request for comment or maintain polite distance. I wish he would do one or the other; it feels like I'm being baited. This is draining time and energy from useful encyclopedic work. Nothing good can come from the continuation of this thread; would an administrator archive this please? Durova⁴¹² 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You have accused me of editing the log. I challenged you to provide your log, or point to where it has been edited. You now seek to shut down discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday is an experienced editor who knows how to initiate a user conduct request for comment. I have no wish to initiate one on him. There is nothing else to be done at this board: no block, protection, or unprotection is being sought. Please archive. Durova⁴¹² 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I point out, the moment she's given permission to substantiate her claims with logs, if she were capable, she tries to close down discussion. Let's see what others think. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing comment: I am sorry, but this discussion is going nowhere; it appears to be an argument between two editors that has gone too far. I'm not siding with either party, but it has got to stop. There is nothing for admins to do here; blocking, protection, etc, are not options. I suggest dispute resolution is sought outside this noticeboard. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Durova makes accusations about me, I challenge her to substantiate, giving permission to post materials, she immediately backs away, asking for the discussion to be closed and one of her friends closes it for her. Peter Symonds is a member of the Wikivoices Skype discussion group, which Durova founded. It's great that she has a coterie of friends willing to suppress any negative material about her; but they shouldn't be using their admin powers and oversight powers to do so. Why does Durova always have the right to end any discussion whenever she wants to? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Let's pretend I closed it. I personally can't stand Durova so I guess that makes me neutral in your eyes Shoemaker. PeterSymond's close was correct - this is not the place as no admin action is required. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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. Updated. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't take the bait either, when I repeatedly requested a source for the "not substantiated" statement. 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)

This was a dispute over a rather charged bit of information that was flagrantly in violation of WP:NPOV. The IP's efforts at fixing the problem were problematic, but Balloonman fixed it. Far too much drama for such a small dispute, and hopefully with the change in place this will die. -- Atama頭 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Atama, you appear to have access to some information of which I am unaware. Can you be a little more clear on the "flagrant NPOV violation" you observed? I'm not seeing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Declaring that something is "fact-free" and "lacked any compelling evidence" in an article is making a POV comment, an opinion. To state that anything isn't "compelling" is an opinion; how can you factually state that evidence fails to "compel" anyone? I consider this is to be a violation of the policy. An example of the proper treatment of such material would be Adolf Hitler#Legacy. Note how it states, "Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are typically regarded as gravely immoral." If the article simply said, "Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are gravely immoral", that would be using Wikipedia to editorialize. Inserting politically-charged opinion as fact, even with a reference, is against Wikipedia policy. Just as with the Hitler example, it may be an opinion almost uniformly shared but nonetheless such wording is to be avoided. This discussion might be better located at WP:NPOV/N. -- Atama頭 02:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation, your example and the policy section you linked are all predicated upon the incorrect assumption that the material is an opinion, and not a statement of fact. Most of this discussion pivots around that specific point. If the wording expressed a person's opinion, it would indeed require attribution to that person, but it is not opinion - it is a simple statement of fact in a reliable source. If you wish to remove the word "compelling" from the factual statement, and leave it as "lacked any evidence", I won't argue against it. The issue here isn't how we convey the basic fact in the Wikipedia article: "The charges made by the SBVT campaign against Kerry _________________________ (fill in the blank)

• were unsubstantiated -- Associated Press
• lacked any compelling evidence -- Farhad Manjoo
• failed to come up with sufficient evidence Washington Post
• were fact-free -- Farhad Manjoo
• provided no justification for looking further into the decisions to award the medals or the anti-war activities -- Navy
• were dishonest and dishonorable -- John McCain
• can accurately and fairly be described as a smear -- History Detectives
• were misleading; mischaracterize the actual basis on which Kerry received his decorations Factcheck.org
• are more vicious; the lies cut deep; this smear campaign has been launched by people without decency Jim Rassmann
• is a dirty campaign that tries to paint a war hero as unpatriotic; the ugliest thing I've ever seen in politics Lee Iacocca

...the issue is that some editors are trying to paint the basic fact as a mere personal "opinion" by attributing it to a single individual. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. I do concede your point that the previous wording was unnecesarily "politically-charged", so I have rewritten the content so that it conveys the basic fact using the most encyclopedic (and least inflammatory) terminology. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is cool, as I hope I made clear elsewhere. I had two problems with the text from before, the term "fact-free" which just seemed like bad writing if nothing else, and "compelling" which as I'd said before could never be tied to a factual statement, ever, by its very nature (if I have to use another analogy, it's like saying that it's a fact that something is delicious). Again, the rewritten prose is just fine with me, and I've since reverted the IP in question to preserve your text, if that shows you how strongly I support it. -- Atama頭 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(←) First, Xenophrenic rewrote the disputed bit of text to be very encyclopedic, and I'm grateful for that. Second, the IP in question has edit-warred to remove 2 reliable sources and has reached 3RR. I left the IP a warning that they are one revert away from being blocked, and reverted their most recent change to the article. Since I'm now "involved" with the article it wouldn't be appropriate for me to block in case they defy this warning, but I'll see that it gets reported at the very least. I've also warned the IP against unfounded vandalism accusations. -- Atama頭 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why this discussion is located here instead of at WP:NPOV/N. The IP editor has attacked other editors as vandals, liars, members of a "clique", all without justification. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys don't proof read when vandalism has been cited. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:13, 9 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)

Now satisfied that there is no more reason for me to be concerned about the specific issue of striking the CDA poll !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 10 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.[5] 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. [6] 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)

That's begging the question. You and a few others see it as an "injustice" but you appear to be in a minority, and your repeated assertions of this perceived injustice and consequent demands for sanctions resultant form it to be undone because you consider it to be an injustice, are counter-productive. What you need to do, as I have said before in several places, is go to the arbitration committee with a calm, cogent, well-documented request for amendment to the outcome, which is not founded on allegations of bad faith, insanity and cabals, but is instead an explanation of how this could be a mistake based on misinterpretation of good faith actions. If your only case is that those whose evidence led to the sanction are evil, and your criteria for judging evil are that they supported the case against Brews, then you are wasting our time and yours and are probably going to end up with an STFU restriction of your own. Is this really so very hard to understand? Guy (Help!) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, You are dabbling in something that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about. Did you read my evidence at the original arbitration hearing? If not, come back to us again when you have read it. David Tombe (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Read what, this? Yes, I believe it is safe to say that it had been read, and rejected. It appears that Trusilver is, thankfully, about to be desysopped for his out-of-process unblock. What exactly are you still arguing about? Tarc (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

David, it seems to me that the only people you will accept as "understanding" this are those who agree with you. Yes I read your evidence, so did the arbitrators and as Tarc says they rejected it. But that's not relevant here. What is relevant is that you are continually refighting the arbitration case and doing it in the wrong places. Stop it, please, it's not going to help anyone. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm not the one who is still arguing. I made my concluding remark yesterday which was "nice piece of bullying ARBCOM!". David Tombe (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 9 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,[7] 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)

• He was told all wikipedia space, he doesn't need someone else to come along and say, "and yes, we mean AfDs, and yes we mean projects, and yes we mean AN/I and yes we mean RFAs, and yes we mean...etc.etc." In the absence of any exceptions it means ALL wikipedia space.--Crossmr (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why he would or should be restricted from AfDs. Looking at discussions in which we both participated, his edits strike me as expressing valid viewpoints: [8] (1 edit to the discussion; explains why he thinks it should be kept) compared with say the far more antagonistic [9] from the same discussion by a different editor who says to "Build a bonfire and burn this crap." Or [10] (a single edit to the discussion, no attacks on other editors, not just a vote) and even if there is a concern that Kurt is somehow "too inclusionist," well, by that standard we would disallow delete votes in the same discussion from accounts that think they have a closed-minded "mission" to delete, would never argue to keep (that account never has, not once, as far as I can tell), and come here for sexual pleaseure... Now even something like here, he did not link to WP:Speedy keep or something, so his reply seems fair. Moreover, even if we disagree with his stance that existing is sufficient for inclusion, so what? It is just a stance. No one is forced to reply to him. A closing admin should be able to weigh the opinion accordingly. As for his more recent edits, this question is fair and reasonable and politely worded while being academically challenging. Many editors share that frustration with the repeated subjective use of "notability" in discussions. We have a whole category of editors with userboxes opposing notability and proposals that come up from time time saying to scrap this subjective/elitist term. I do not know the history between TPH and Kurt, so I have no comment on his accusation in his initial comment. Going back to his last AfD prior, we have this. Personally, I don't like copy and paste comments and the initial keep is similar to other keeps from this user, but the subsequent question might be valid and even with regards to the copy and paste, again, I see rapid fire "Delete per nom" and "Delete as cruft" style votes (sometimes three or even four in under a minute!) by several accounts over and over that don't really contribute anything to the discussion or reflect any interest in looking for sources let alone reading the article, but if those aren't banned, then I don't see why the opposite would be either. If anything, we should encourage Kurt, like all users, to not only participate in AfDs, but to go beyond the discussion to source searching and incorporating. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Because he was restricted from all wikipedia space without exception. That is why he was restricted. He should continue to be restricted since he demonstrates that he would prefer to take the route of most disruption rather than work with the community. That's why. Unlike many around here I don't use WP:TRADEAGOODCONTRIBFORBADBEHAVIOR cheat sheet that is so popular with trying to excuse and coddle disruptive users.--Crossmr (talk) 05:05, 10 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)

I agree, should we just do it here, village pump or an rfc? Unomi (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You start making exceptions and they argue for me. Suddenly it was in the "spirit" of the rule and not the "letter". No. If they're restricted from editing wikipedia space, they're restricted from editing wikipedia space. If they have some vitally crucial to the debate (in the terms of sources), then it can be edited into the article as necessary and the discussion can carry on from there. I can't say that there is every a reason where a specific person "needs" to participate in an AfD debate. AfD debates usually come up on things like sources and they don't need to edit the debate to provide those sources.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions need to be noted, so that uninvolved admins requested to act upon an alleged violation know precisely the remit. A working model that an exception to WP namespace pages bans/restrictions would be AfD's/DRV's, GA/FA discussions relating to articles previously edited would be fine, but it would need to be spelt out within the topic ban wording. That way, there is no confusion as to the extent of the ban when the wording is reviewed (and people under total exclusion type bans would not need that reinforced within the wording). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have voiced this opinion previously, but unfortunately, the "specifying the exceptions" part has often been forgotten during sanction proposal discussions (rather than always deliberately left out). I tend to avoid letting that problem exist when I make a proposal precisely so that enforcement is practical, and does not become as much of a headache as the alleged violation(s) that might later occur. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be able to at least defend articles they created in AfDs, barring they were banned for something like real world harassment, i.e. in which they are permanently blocked anyway. Any unblocked account, under other restrictions or not, should be able to defend articles they created under the normal participation conditions, i.e. if he is not swearing and tossing out severe personal attacks, then okay, but in this case, he made a mere two edits to the discussion which do not strike me as the least bit disruptive. I understand some editors did not like his RfA comments and apparently admin board ones as well. Upon reviewing his Afd contributions, I see nothing overly wrong with them. Even if some accounts don't like when he says "Keep, it exists," so what? We see lame non-arguments ("Delete, it's cruft") all the time in AfDs. We should probably not make a bigger deal out of them then they merit as any reasonable closing admin will hopefully ignore the weak arguments anyway. So, yes, like all of us, no one should be making personal attacks and such, but if he wants to make a mere two edits defending an article he created and therefore might know something about, just let him and if anyone thinks his arguments are weak, ignore them rather than start admin threads that only exacerbate tensions and distract us from improving content. Take care everyone and best wishes! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Per WP:OWN, having created an article doesn't give an editor any special privileges relating to that article. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with A Nobody on this point. While no one owns any article, a major contributor, particularly when that editor is also the creator, is particularly likely to have useful information and views worth considering. That is why CSD and AFD taggers are strongly encouraged to notify the original creator, and all the scripted tools for that do so automatically AFAIK. The alleged disruptions by kmweber involved "mass-!voting". If limited to discussions of articles of which he was the creator or q major contributor, he could hardly "mass" comment, and the process would be more transparent. In the absence of a modification of the restriction, I would, in principle, be willing to post on his behalf any comments in any such AfD discussion, whether I agree with them or not. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A major contributor can't argue anything that anyone else can't. There is nothing any individual person can do in an AfD that no one else can do. Most AfDs comes down to a lack of sources and they don't need to edit an AfD to provide those. Kurt's language on his talk page had a tinge of WP:OWN to it and that isn't remotely a good reason to ignore your sanctions.--Crossmr (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course a major contributor can argue something that someone else can't, especially for marginal articles a major contributor may be the only editor who is familiar with the material or had cause to believe that the existence of the article had merit in the first place. Kurts arguments or behavior on his talk page is immaterial to a general discussion of how these things might be better handled in the future. At the very least a person in such a case should be granted a proxy or other means of informing the discussion. Unomi (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What? AfD discussions are supposed to be decided on policy. So what is it that they can argue that is going to make a difference. Their opinion that it should be kept shouldn't really influence the outcome unless they've provided evidence to support it that wasn't already in the article. Evidence they could add to the article without editing the AfD. There is nothing preventing them from improving the article or addressing concerns on the article and then posting on the nominators or someone else's page who is involved in the AfD and asking them to reconsider the improved article. If there are questions over a borderline source they would be just as free to defend it on the article's talk page (which is where a borderline source should be discussed first). Otherwise, in what scenario do you envision that someone would be incapable of addressing a deletion reason without being able to access the AfD, which no one else on wikipedia could do?--Crossmr (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I frequently find myself arguing with accounts in AfDs who have no real knowledge or the topic under discussion and nor are they even interested in looking for sources. Rather, they just decide that they don't like the topic and so vote rather than argue to delete. By contrast, an article creator might actually be familiar with the subject and willing to look for and add sources in order to rescue it, including sources that might not be fully accessible on a standard Google Search. Google Books, for example, only gives snippet views of some books and some editors might not even have access to something like J-Stor. Many subjects are actually discussed in reliable secondary source journal and magazine articles as well as even full length books that are not always accessible online or in the case of something like Google News, one needs a paid subscription to access. I would much rather hear from someone who has a greater likelihood to have these sources or an interest in acquiring them and utilizing them than ignoring such a crucial opinion. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge and what matters more is the opinion and efforts of those who have, look for, and incorporate the sources than merely accounts that just toss out abbreviated links to ever changing guideline and policy pages. And let's be frank, we know many accounts show up in an Afd to never acknowledge or return even if the article has been drastically improved since nomination. We need those improving it to indicate as much in the actual discussion so that key development is not glossed over. I cannot help but ascertain that simply allowing Kurt to have made his two posts and either replied or ignored them in the discussion would have been far more favorable and far more constructive use of everyone's time than making an issue out of something easily ignored at worst. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator is closing an article based on votes and not reading the policies and arguments made and checking the article itself than that is matter for deletion review or administrator review. It isn't a reason to allow disruptive users to start trying to make exceptions on their restrictions on the off chance they might have a close of an AfD on their article done by an admin who isn't doing his job properly. If someone has been restricted from editing wikipedia space because of their constant disruption, I don't find their opinion to be all that crucial to begin with. But you're not describing anything that shouldn't first be discussed on the article talk page. If sources are questioned, they should be discussed on the article talk page before being taken to AfD. If there is a question about the sources the party is more than welcome to give much fuller details about the source on the talk page, which is where it should go so future editors can find it if they also question it. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge yes and we're doing it as a community. What matters most is that the people who participate in that process can do so without being disruptive. That is first and foremost. he had choices and chose the most disruptive path before him. Something he was restricted from doing. As durova pointed out he could have contacted someone, as I've pointed out he could have addressed sources on the talk page and asked the nominator to look at that again. If admins are closing debates properly there is zero reason for any restricted user to edit them. They can address whatever concerns there are at the article level. If there is a problem in the process, creating further issues by creating exceptions for some users who are otherwise restricted doesn't solve that problem. It then gets into a battle over what is a "major" contributor. Someone says 50%, someone else says 30%, someone else says just 10%, do we count characters? Visible words on the page? If someone simply makes an edit to a page is he then allowed to go edit the AfD. Would we then see restricted editors simply making a single edit to a page so they can go get involved in the AfD? no. As I said above. Give them inch, they'll take a mile.--Crossmr (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AfDs come down to polices applied to the specific facts of an article. A creator or major editor can, in many cases, assist in establishing those facts. Such an editor may know better where to find sources than most other editors commenting -- not always, but often enough to take note of. Such an editor may have relevant information on which sources in a particular field are reliable and why. Such an editor may have relevant information about the context of the article that most editors do not. Granted, this info could be presented via a proxy. Granted also, a different editor might have any or all of this information, and might happen to see the AfD and comment. But that might NOT happen either. Yes an editor might be disruptive. In such a case that editor might be blocked (note that in the instant case kmweber was not disruptive, although he was also not persuasive). It is said above that no one editor can do anythign at an afd that anyone else can't. And in a formal sense this is true. But it is common at an AfD for one editor to do something that no one else in fact does. For one editor to present sources or arguments or information that persuade others and turn the result of the discussion. That is why it is a discussion, and that is who it is supposed to work. And it is not by any means inevitable that had one editor not offered those sources or arguments someone else would have. AfDs are limited in time and space. Most AfDs have only a few editors commenting, who are not always really representative of the community as a whole. This is a problem with the AfD system. Restrictions of major contributors to an article will be all to likely to worsen the situation. The possible benefits -- avoidance of some possible disruption -- do not IMO match the possible costs -- possibly valid arguments or views not being considered. DES ^(talk) 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

and again, it all can and should be provided on the article talk page if it the sources are questioned. Both to solve the immediate question and to help future questions. The sources can be edited or clarified on the article just fine without editing the AfD. The user can then ask the nominator via their talk page to recheck them or ask another user to make a note on the AfD. Sorry, but I still fail to see anything which necessitates a restricted user from having their restrictions lifted. If that editor didn't want to be in that position, they shouldn't have been disruptive in the first place. With proper process the admin should be checking the article before deleting it and comparing it to the argument. If the article has been significantly improved to render the argument invalid, he shouldn't be deleting it. If the admin isn't closing properly that is a separate issue from trying to make exceptions for restricted users. And you haven't even begun to address what is considered a "major" contributor. That alone could take months to hammer out and you'd still have wish-washing over it when it came time to try and handle users. We're not avoiding possible disruption when we restrict a user. A user only ends up restricted from wikipedia space after they've been significantly disruptive. It doesn't happen from a single comment. It happens after long term disruption so it isn't done without good reason, when it is done the community has decided that there contributions in that area are no longer welcome. What's going to happen is some restricted editor is going to go from AfD, to DRV, to AN/I or wherever because is tangentially related to the AfD for which they're exempted, which will only result in more drama.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are taking an excessively melodramatic approach to all this, why don't you just tell use how you really feel? In this particular case kmweber did not disrupt anything, he defended his article with 3 posts to the afd (as I recall) yet we are now faced with walls of text that read like the end of times is upon us, is this a disruption we should lay at his feet? Should there be actual disruption of an afd or improper use of ancillary venues then I trust that the editor in question will be made to regret it, but there is no reason to assume to worst without cause. Unomi (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being intentionally obtuse since you asked. The specific question is about users in general. Not just kmweber. In fact my last post had nothing to do with KMweber. We talked about Kmweber above and you didn't want to have anything more to do with it. So which is it? If you want to continue talking about him we can do so in the section above, this section is for discussion of sanctions in general and should exceptions be made for users to defend articles on which they are a "major" contributor (whatever that means). My answer is quite simply and will always be, no. There is zero reason to afford them that luxury if they've found themselves in a position to be restricted from editing wikipedia space. We don't just do that lightly. There is nothing that they could say in an AfD that couldn't and shouldn't be said on an article talk page that would genuinely have an application to the AfD process.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 10 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 [11], so replied on my talk to say "stop canvassing" [12].

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.[13]

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)

I could be wrong on this, since there's much history here, but looking at the block log, [14], it does look in fact like a community ban.radek (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. At least one of those accounts did have a banner saying banned at the behest of Jimbo and/or the Arbitration Committee. Regardless, the history of breaching experiments does not show good faith to me. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. All I'm really saying is there's a model that's had some success. If three of the people who want to see Peter Damien do an FA drive are willing to proxy and take responsibility for it, then let's settle a plan. ArbCom has approved that sort of thing before. Who wants to step forward? Durova⁴¹² 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be very wary, Peter Damian has been block evading and conducting breaching experiments by his own admission, that is really not a great reason to throw in the towel and let him back anyway. He's been pretty unapologetic. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, apology schmapology, Guy, and fiddle faddle to boot. I'll be one of the proxying users, if desired. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC).

No, I am not asking for ritual abasement, and PD did seem pretty reasonable when he emailed me about something, but there are real past issues and concerns and the sockpuppetry thing is really not good. I know it's a cleft stick but I do incline to the view that the sort of person who can't keep away when blocked is probably just a tad too obsessive. To be honest I can't even remember the full details of the original problem (outside of the FT2 business, which I think was separate), only that there were a lot of noticeboard threads at the time and even more since. The last discussion was only a month ago: [15]. It seems that accounts were blocked even without knowing they were PD, on the basis of editing behaviour. That is not a good sign. Neither is Think of the children (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I get a lasting impression that he wants to be here for purposes of Wikipolitics and activism against certain individuals. It leaves me feeling uncomfortable. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 10 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 [16]. 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)

Unfortunately, WP:VG/RS is not relevant in this case, as it discusses sites used as sources not ELs. SharkD  Talk  02:35, 10 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)

"Hacking" is not a bad action in general but "hacking AWB" to skip its checkpage and do mass edits against consensus and approval it is. Using AWB needs 500 edits in mainspace and APPROVAL, not hacking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See, you're highlighting the wrong issue. He was freely exercising his rights given to him by the developer. He made it skip the checkpage, that's a requirement to use it on en.wiki, not to use the software. Focus on the edit's against consensus and the unapproved bot, violations of our rules, because he did nothing to AWB that voided his license or right to use AND modify the code. Everyone seems to be getting pissed for the wrong reasons with this. --M^ask? 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no one is getting pissed off because he hacked the software. They are pissed off because of what that hacking demonstrates: a willful intent to defy policy. No one is complaining about him violating any software license (which he obviously didn't); that's not what hack means. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. AWB is open source. Take it, play with it, develop it, do whatever you want but not bot-like edit in wikipedia. The reason I emphasized in the title in the "hacked AWB" because the edit summaries where writing "using AWB". Well, it wasn't the official AWB and the edit summaries were misleading giving wrong impression on the policy around AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What I find odd about this discussion is that there are several editors at the very top of WP:MOSTEDITS, including one of the AWB maintainers, who routinely do 10-hour-long full-speed AWB runs from their user account. Leave them a talk page message in the middle of a run and their session will stop but they'll take hours to get back to you. Obviously they are away from their computer while it runs in bot mode. Obviously they have "hacked" AWB so that they can run it as a bot from their user account. This has been so obvious for so long that I had assumed it was an open secret. Personally I don't have a problem with it; but we can't very well complain about someone "hacking" AWB to bypass our approvals mechamisn, when we've been turning a blind eye to it for years. Hesperian 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly no fan of those editors flouting AWB rules of use but I am forced to admit that most of the edits they make are uncontroversial; this was clearly not the case here. –xeno^talk 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of folks that Hesperian is referring to above have BAG approval for (well, the vast majority) of the tasks that their performing, anyway. People aren't really "flouting the rules" if we give them permission to run in full auto, ya know. There's no hacking required to use AWB in full bot mode either, since it's built to be able to do so as long as the account that it's logged in to has both AWB permission and a bot flag.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm talking about user accounts not bot accounts. Hesperian 08:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? Because I never used my user account to run in bot mode. Check discussion in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_14#AWB_doesn.27t_recognize_bot_status_from_CheckPage. I am the one who asked the disactivation of this "feature" in AWB. Moreover, I think I reply to messages in my talk page fairly fast. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he's referring to you, you are not at the "very top of WP:MOSTEDITS". In any case, this is really an issue for WT:AWB as it is peripheral to this ANI, which I think is resolved at this point unless Lorson continues making mass edits without approval/consensus. –xeno^talk 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So is anyone going to explain why the spammers don't get reverted, but when I undo their spam I get blocked and reverted?--Lorson (talk) 20:39, 10 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 ([17]) 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:[18]--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)

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

• This group of edits, for example: [19] (incidentally, the "British Historian and author" Sir Max Hastings is known as "Hitler" in Private Eye and is better known as the exceptionally right-wing editor of the Daily Telegraph, he is primarily a journalist and editor, not a historian, as we say in our article on him; the insertion of "historian" in front of the names of supporters of the book does look very much like an appeal to authority - that's the kind of thing I'm seeing here) Guy (Help!) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding that particular edit, this is how he is described in Max Hastings, and the list of publications would seem to back that up, seeing as how we rarely distinguish between 'amateur' and 'academic' historians(unfortunately), we also tend not to denote which area of history academics have credentials in (this too I find unfortunate). Note though that I am not particularly versed in any of these people, but skimming their articles that we have here it seems that historian is applied liberally (likely for worse). Unomi (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, Max Hastings is a journalist first and foremost. The point is that by adding "historian" in front of the sources he agrees with, he is boosting one POV. It's just an example, nothing on which to pin an entire case, but looking at the contributions overall they seem to consistently advance a POV critical of Israel, a subject area which is rarely made happier by the involvement of new partisans. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, describing Max Hastings as he is described on his own Wiki page is a "novel synthesis?"

Synthesis is using sources to support information that is not directly supported by sources, i.e using a and b to say c. How is calling Hastings a historian a novel synthesis? When you are using someone as a source you should describe their _relevant qualifications_. He may be primarily a journalist, but his role as a historian is more relevant on that page.

I don't see how that is anywhere near being synthesis, so show me one real example of a synthesis violation I have achieved.

Since you "see a fair bit or material from this user which looks like novel synthesis" you shouldn't have any problem doing this.

Anyway as User:Factsontheground/POV shows, I often write for a pro-Israeli POV if the facts and the NPOV policy support it. I am hardly a POV-warror.

This is the second time in the last week that a person has made vague accusations against me without any evidence. What's going on?Factsontheground (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, describing him as a historian when he's a journalist and adding historian to the supporters of your POV is advancing a POV. You give the appearance of being on a mission. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be relevant here that, although we use Max Hastings as a source in military history articles, we are fairly careful to attribute him as a "writer" or "commentator" rather than "historian"; that label is generally reserved for professional historians. He writes engagingly and well, but his he is very much an amateur 'historian' of the 1980s revisionist school and needs to be understood in that context. EyeSerene^talk 13:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indef block: Roman888

• Roman888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Having originally blocked for 48 hours, I have indef-blocked Roman888 for repeated copyright infringements after it was pointed out to me that his previous 48 hour block, in September 2008, was for the same problem (I saw "disruptive editing", and I'm afraid I presumed it was edit warring; I didn't read far enough in the log, obviously). He is the current subject of a much-needed CCI, and he restored copyrighted content to the article Malaysian Armed Forces within hours of its removal, even though he had been explicitly warned that material must be completely rewritten. This material follows far too closely for this to be a simple misunderstanding, and he had been thoroughly warned before. The CCI itself provides evidence that this has been a long-running issue. It seems he does not intend to stop. Posted here for transparency & review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block, nothing more to be said really :) EyeSerene^talk 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Per the extensive evidence at the CCI page, fully endorse. Better nuke his uploads as well. Wonder if he's on Commons as well--if he is, better alert the admins there. Blueboy96 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Upload log here contains no active files (many deleted ones) [20]; upload log on Commons still has some problems: [21] --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons uploads have been deleted, and the user has been indef blocked over there. NW (Talk) 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. Just wanted to note that he has already begun IP socking (with which IP sock he restored the copyrighted content twice more) and is threatening at his talk page to sock further and to better cover his tracks if he is not unblocked. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I did some thinking, and given Roman888's stated intent to keep inserting this, I decided to semi-protect the article for a week. If we have a liberal semi-protection policy for BLPs, it would seem to make sense to do the same for copyright issues. Blueboy96 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock

For action - User:Orang77 appears to be a sock of User:Roman888. He has prolificly introduced copyvio content on articles on Roman888 introduced copyvios. On Malaysian Military Issues the restored content appears the same as the deleted content from Malaysian Armed Forces, just without the urls for the sources: [22]. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged conflict of interest and misuse of Administrator privileges during a GA review

I would like to report what I believe to be a conflict of interest and possible misconduct by administrator Geometry guy, regarding my quick fail of article Münchausen by Internet during a GA review. What took place is as follows:

• My review of the article was the second review that ended in a failing result (review one, review two). Upon learning about the result, the nominating editor (User:Moni3) was upset, which is understandable. Very soon after the review, User:Geometry guy proceded to delete the second review page, and he then removed all mention of my review from the article review history as listed on the article discussion page. He also moved my review to Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA2/archive. Next, Geometry guy took it upon himself to renominate the Münchausen by Internet article and signed User:Moni3's name on the Good article nominations page. The reason this all was done was somewhat vaguely explained to me by Geometry guy on my talk page.

Currently, a third review of Münchausen by Internet is taking place on the once deleted second review page. The correct page for the third review, Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA3, was never created. I do not mind that User:Moni3 questioned my experience in good faith... that is a non-issue; but is it appropriate for Geometry guy to use his administrative authority against my role as a reviewing editor, and then renominate the very article I was reprimanded for failing? Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the discussion your talk page, and geometry guy seemed quite willing to discuss the matter with you, so I'm curious as to what purpose is supposed to be served by posting here. What administrative action do you feel needs to be taken to resolve this? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate conduct; or do Administrators have carte-blanche authority to initiate a conflict of interest by renominating an article under someone else's sig AFTER deleting a review of the article because he disagreed with the result? I'd at least like my review restored to its correct location and context, and move the third review to the page it belongs. Also, a good faith reprimand of Geometry guy. I myself will assume in good faith that I'm not being considered a fly to be swatted if in the wrong :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is remotely appropriate and he should have his ownership of the tools seriously looked at as it looks like an attempt to push PoV using admin tools. I'd recommend an RfC, except its a broken process with no hope of accomplishing anything, but its unlikely anyone would do anything until one is done.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My actions were purely clerical and are misrepresented and/or misunderstood in this thread. I have replied on the user's talk page. Geometry guy 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And there is disagreement with your assertion that it was a bad quickfail. It would have been better to discuss it first rather than doing what you did.--Crossmr (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The GA process is a joke. "Nominate until it passes" is the name of the game. The article in question is largely based on a single paper from an obscure medical journal. Pcap ping 07:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And that's relevant to this discussion...how? Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the quick fail was entirely appropriate as I explained on User talk:Rcej#MBI, and the decision to ignore it and "restart" was surely not. Pcap ping 07:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK Rcej made a mistake in closing GA/2 - he/she [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AM%C3%BCnchausen_by_Internet&action=historysubmit&diff=348053142

Rcej's review was based on a very narrowly medical point of view, ignoring the social aspects - in fact Rcej wanted to merge the article into another wholly medical one. That's which Rcej's review was deficient. -Philcha (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the article should have been failed or not, Rcej's review falls well below the standard I would expect from an experienced reviewer. I accept that it may be at the reviewer's discretion as to whether to fail or to hold an article based on a variety of relevant issues that affect its GA quality - however, a detailed review is required, and that was lacking here. I see practically little reference to GA criteria even in what was supposed to resemble the review in this case. The lack of communication was also unhelpful. All this said however, I'm not sure what existing practice or policy/guideline pages Geometry guy relied on to wipe out the review as an inappropriate quick fail - even where it's been inappropriate, I'm not aware of any practice whereby it is wiped out of the article's history. It really should not have been moved in the manner in that it was. Unless I have missed something, it seems to me that this has been poorly handled at all ends. But I think by raising wider awareness of this poor quality GA review, Rcej has effectively done the opposite of defending his experience; GA reviews should do more than just fail/pass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• That the GA process isn't perfect at producing consistent results is irrelevant to this report and not exactly a secret - the GA reviewers are well aware of it and are on the whole a conscientious and dedicated bunch (and the GA WikiProject has improved the quality of thousands of Wikipedia's articles). I think Gguy's explained the reason for his "clerical actions" perfectly well on your talk page; it seems to me that you may be retroactively fitting the reasons you gave for quick-failing the article into the fail criteria, because you didn't reference them when making your assessment. I agree that your review was in good faith and you may have a point about merging the article, but surely that's a discussion point outside the GA review criteria (as is, for example, article notability - which is tangentially related to your concern).

  Your claim of tool misuse is, I assume, based around Gguy's use of the delete button? I may be misunderstanding what you're saying happened, but it looks to me like Gguy archived your review here: Talk:Münchausen_by_Internet/GA2/archive before deleting the original page - nothing has actually been lost. Therefore I don't see where he's supposed to have abused the tools. He's pulled rank only in as much as he's been with the GA WikiProject for many years and applied his understanding in an attempt to guide a newer reviewer in how project assessments should be carried out. EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the comments above. It is actually a fairly regular occurrence for GA nominations to be reopened when there are problems with a review. In such cases, as the nomination is not new, it should not have a separate entry in article history. It may instead be appropriate to link to the original review from the new one (and I've added such a link in this case). Cleaning up in such situations occasionally requires administrator tools, and that is how I use them: I have very much "the mop" philosophy in this regard; our purpose is improving the encyclopedia, and facilitating a fresh review in this case will likely have that effect. I have tidied up reviews that went awry in the past in a similar way.

Occasionally editors will misunderstand other editors actions, as here, but that is why User Talk pages exist. In this respect, I acknowledge that I should have notified Rcej sooner and in more detail about my archiving of the review, and for this I am more than happy to apologize. Geometry guy 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I too apologize for any rash decisions on my part. :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive vandalism on Israeli art student scam

This article is going through the AFD process but has been continuously sabotaged by those who want it deleted. Cptnono has just unilaterally blanked out the vast majority of the article (diff) without any consensus and in a way that completely removes a major topic of the article.

He made his intentions perfectly clear with this charming comment: (diff)

True. There is no consensus to delete. I personally will have fun raping it because it is a terrible article.

In other words, he is admitting to vandalizing an article because the AFD process is not going the way he likes. This certainly merits a block, IMO.

And sadly, this isn't the first attempt at vandalizing that page.

• Ucucha blanked 90% of it ([23])
• Gilabrand inserted hate material ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28])
• AMuseo moved the article to a ridiculous name ("Alleged Art Scam by unidentified, self-described Israeli art students") ([29]) (He also made a deceptive comment implying that an unrelated article was a "previous" version of the current one ([30]) and has repeatedly questioned the motives of those who vote Keep, disruptively accusing them of bigotry ([31], [32], [33], [34]))

I'm getting really tired of this. Can an admin please protect the page until the AFD is over or block the people who keep doing this?

It's concerning that these sabotage attempts may have made otherwise neutral users vote to delete upon seeing the sabotaged version and assuming it is normal. Factsontheground (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just deleted a good chunk of the article. Per the discussion, many editors believe it is not in compliance with wikipeida standars. Factsontheground made a comment regarding the lack of consensus to delete so I decided to be bold and get rid of the problem. He or someone else can revert if they don't like the change. There is o vandallsim and I am not attempting to disrupt the project. I thought 1/25 of the article might be acceptable. If I am wrong fix it but I believe I am not. I am also not vandalizing and have a clean block record. A simple "Don't do that" would suffice.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• As requested, DON'T DO THAT~! Silliness aside, perhaps you might want to go read up on WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Mind your own business? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain why you made that comment about raping the article then. Factsontheground (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No explanation is necessary (unless the crass term was inappropriate). The article is terrible. That is why there are so many deletes. If it would have been done right (in my view) it would have stuck to the topic and not been a coat rack for fringe theories. I would actually consider removing my delete vote (if you had not noticed my initial response was neutral asking for the article to be split) with it as it is. But Bold->Revert->Discuss if you don;t like it. Don't label trying to fix (and at the same time ripping out the garbage) as vandalism. Chill out. We are all on the same team right? I assume we are not by your last comment over there but we can at least pretend to be.

And edit conflict. Mind my own business? That doesn't apply. I will totally self revert per your request.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you are trying to improve the article, not rape it. How stupid of me not to see that! Factsontheground (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I said isn't it? I think the article is garbage and deserves to be deleted or redone. I am sorry since "rape" is a lame term to use. Do me a favor, next time don't hold it over other editors heads that an article might be kept on what many view as purely wikilawyering grounds. Don;t delete others comments. When you act a little nicer people are less likely to be knee jerkey back. Not to pin it on you. I did say I was going to rape the article but in this case it did make it better. Apologies for using such a crass term. I have also self reverted so are we done here or do we need to discuss blocks based on manners?Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about manners. The term is crass but that's not the real problem here. The thing is that the word "rape" has negative connotations. Raping something usually does not improve that thing. In fact, it generally makes it much, much worse. It's the meaning of what you said that bothers me, which is basically "I don't like this article so I am going to make it even worse!".

If you had said that I would have had the same objections. It shows that you are not trying to improve the encyclopedia but see it as battleground and you are not editing in good faith.Factsontheground (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took it that way. Are we done here or do you want to keep on arguing?Cptnono (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of posting this here was to get the attentions of some administrators. Since I haven't heard from them yet, I'm not done. You can do whatever you want. :)Factsontheground (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I am going to f off somewhere else then since I don't want to be disruptive. Apologies again if you took offense. I am really ticked off at the way the AfD is going and have not been on the best behavior. Consider my edit and consider what I said about how you act (not like I should give advise) since it really comes across poopey.Cptnono (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, was WP:RFPP not appropriate? Secondly, any admin who wishes to protect the page must await an incoming "that's the *wrong version*" comment. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 13:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question Factsontheground, who long are you going to complain about the changes that were made to your "terrible article" on March 4? In case you did not notice, today is March 9. At least one of the users you mentioned in your complain was banned, and even blocked. What else do you want?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Any protection will undoubtedly be the "wrong version" and lead to more debate on article and user talks. It is my own opinion that the AfD needs to reach its conclusion as soon as permissible by policy, and that should be the goal. Once that has given us a clear decision then we will know who might be stepping over what line. Without an AfD result there is no line, only circles... dancing and twirling... dancing and twirling... SGGH ^ping! 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If the concern is the obvious wrong version, if it's up at AfD... the lock should be the version just below the AfD being opened. No policy on this that I can remember, but that's the most common sense at it was *that* version someone felt needed to be deleted. No, this is not entirely fair since AfD'd articles can be improved during a discussion, but there's no other way to get it anywhere close at all without endless drama. Proposed new material or objections to content should be done on the article talk page, and preferably mention in the AfD that changes displayed may or may not influence their !vote. I'd do this were I an admin, but just stumbling into this thread it's the first thing I thought of. Suggest that parties take any new material or sources resulting in blankings to WP:RS in the meanwhile. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems a fair solution to me. The AfD seems to be slightly on the delete side of no consensus at the moment. But I take the concern of Datheisen that protecting means it can't be rescued in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: after I edited the article earlier today, it's unfortunately become the target of a banned harassing troll who follows me around [35]. Since this disruption is essentially quite unrelated to the actual dispute, it may become necessary to at least semiprotect the article to stop the content issue being further exacerbated by the troll disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, I take exception to your claim that I vandalized the article. I took out the part of the article about a conspiracy theory that appeared tenuously related with the supposed main subject of the article (people claiming to be Israeli art students selling fake art). You disagreed with that edit, and may even have been right. But my edit was not vandalism, and your claim that it was is groundless. Please be more careful with such loaded terms in the future. Ucucha 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since making the bold edit then reverting, a few people on the talk page have mentioned doing something similar. Factsonthe ground also engaged in a minor edit war after someone reinstated my edit. He was warned about approaching 3rr. I would like to know if he reverted as 79.191.100.231 to skirt 3rr. We dont need a check user or anything. Just a yes or no from the editor would be good enough for me. Iy looks like the edit warring has stopped so a lock shouldn't be needed. Besides using a crass term, my edit was beneficial but I self reverted at another's request. We should be done here.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't edit by IP, Cptnono and I welcome a check user. Factsontheground (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I was hoping that an administrator would do something about Cptnono declaring that I personally will have fun raping it because it is a terrible article. To me, that seems totally unacceptable behaviour. Am I completely wrong? Factsontheground (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly not optimal or desirable. However, at the moment, we have a multiway fight going on in the article, on the AFD page, with a number of people pushing buttons and acting abusively in some way (but not seriously breaching the peace).

It was the sort of comment that tends to make AGF go out the window temporarily, but wasn't followed by futher serious abuse.

As Cptnono has stood back and not continued provocative behavior, there seems to not be a preventive case to be made for sanctions. There was more drama than actual damage, IMHO.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I admit that the comment was knee-jerky and bad on my part. I'll make sure to not say something like that again.Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like the opinion of a neutral admin. Not one who appears in every WP:ANI I post advocating blocking me regardless. Factsontheground (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, not only was the intention you expressed antithetical to the goals of Wikipedia, but your use of the word "rape" is offensive.

Factsontheground, I advocate blocking you regardless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already said I shouldn't have used the term and will not do so in the future. Restructuring an article or maybe "ripping out the bad bits" (that might have been better) is not against Wikipedia's goals. The particulars on if that is to happen is ongoing over there though.

Why does it not surprise me that a female complaining about being personally threatened with rape gets blocked for her impertinence? Typical male Wikipedian admins. Factsontheground (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait what? Did you think I was threatening you personally? That was not my intent at all.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was joking about blocking you, Factsontheground, and I tried to indicate that with the little smiley at the end of the sentence. I don't advocate blocking you. I'm sorry if that sentiment wasn't clear. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, in that case sorry for not getting the joke. So many admins have told me they want to ban me that I'm getting paranoid now. Factsontheground (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational's repeated moving/redirecting of longstanding article without discussion

Unresolved

User:Linksnational gutted the longstanding article Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II with this edit on 6 March then moved the article to German brothels in World War II with this edit. Because the article was gutted and rewritten and moved to a different title essentially an almost completely different article was created. I disputed this move and returned the article with this edit and also tried to get some discussion going on the talkpage with this edit and subsequent notices both on the talkpage and a notice about article moves on Linksnational’s talkpage. Linksnational then tried to do the move again by the backdoor by twice redirecting the article to his new preferred title with this edit and this edit. When I undid this new redirect that had taken place without any two way discussion he then moved the article to yet another new title Camp brothel with this edit. The article has now been effectively moved twice and redirected twice without consensus. There are concerns with the original article but I cannot deal with Linksnational’s attempts to deal with this by a ‘’backdoor deletion’’ and no two way discussion. Can someone please restore the article to its original place (as I cannot do this over a redirect) and encourage Linksnational to gain consensus before major moves and wiping out of text and sources. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Waggers, who marked the article "Resolved" above, moved the article back and warned Linksnational.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry should have given this a  Done :) waggers (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've rollbacked his various changes pointing to his preferred article titles -- someone else should take a look at his edits relating to German war reparations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

tried to get some discussion going on LOL. You haven't responded to my arguments and disregarded my proposal for solution. So stop crying. -- Linksnational (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational undid all the changes that were made by Waggers and SarekOfVulcan, so I've marked this unresolved. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article written at the new name is substantially different from the old one, why is it done as a move-and-edit instead of just writing a new article on a new topic at its appropriate name? DMacks (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@DMacks Sexual enslavement is not a appopriate lemma. It's mispresenting the factual situation already in the title.

How shall someone reach a consensus with nobody ready to discuss? Skydeepblue's claim "stop making changes until you reach consensus with everybody" is absurd, if you don't join the discussion. It's a phrase to protect the article in status quo and results in a prohibition to edit. And I proved that this version contains total bullshit, which has to be changed immediately - in favour of wikipedia's reputation. This article is ridiculous. I showed Polargeo, where the article is wrong and he has conceded. Bullshit doesn't become reality by being part of an article for a long time. The article is not based on reliable sources, but on internet rumours, half knowledge and suspicion. I brought sources, which disprove the current version. The German version doesn't say anything else. -- Linksnational (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see at least one other editor contributed to the talk-page discussion. This issue isn't so urgent that it can't wait a few days to be discussed further. As you can now see, it's not a clear-cut issue in many people's minds, although it's apparently quite clear to you how you understand the pages should be titled/written. If you think the article is mis-titled, file WP:RM to draw wider attention to that issue. If you think the content contains a mix of two separate ideas, split/particially-rewrite it into to separate articles at new titles. Page-moving is a way of saying "what we have here now is actually better titled something else" not "what we have here is a mess". Maybe create those two new pages each on the specific topic you see in temp space so others can see really what you propose. They might have a better understanding of your position and how this will be a good result once they see it rather than just seeing you destroy a long-existing article. File WP:RFC if you want to draw wider attention to the general content concern. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not destroy the article, I have improved the text. But still the title is misleading. I suggested to split the text as in the de:WP to two articles: camp brothel and soldier's brothel. Polargeo admitted, the current article is mixing the phenomenon, but didn't respond to my suggestions anymore. Since the article contained fatal mistake, immediate action was needed. I showed, that the statements "rape camps", "prevalent", "sexual gratification for the soldiers" were not sourced and wrong. The article became a deposit of Anti-German sentiments, supporting rumours, mispresenting the facts. Is this an open project or not? How long an article exists, doesn't matter. Facts and reliability matter. Mischief doesn't get better, if you stick to it out for a long time. The deletion is the best idea. Sourced information can be found in the two articles corresponding to the structure in de:WP. -- Linksnational (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been given information about how to reach WP:CONSENSUS for your ideas. "Immediate action" is not needed, rational discussion to find a good solution is the way. You boldly made a change you felt was very important, others disagreed with both the process and the solution and reverted. Now it's on your shoulders to get more support for your idea, given that it's not presently the generally-appreciated solution--that's how WP:BRD works. DMacks (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by Vote (X) for Change

Resolved

 – Blocked at WP:SPI. –MuZemike 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Vote (X) for Change is evading blocks placed on 156.61.160.1 and 62.31.226.77. and 62.140.210.158. This edit by 62.140.210.158 was substantially reinstated in this edit by Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This should probably go to WP:SPI. Other admins might differ, but I can't see anything with which I can justify a block or even a warning. Tan | 39 17:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think there is any problem inserting obvious falsehoods such as "The reformed [Gregorian] calendar violates the canons so it is anathema to Catholics." I'm pretty sure Gregory XIII was a Catholic, and he's the guy the calendar was named after. No calendar article on Wikipedia is safe until something is done about this editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance; I'm not Catholic or even religious. Nothing in that statement is an obvious falsehood to me. I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about, but I cannot see that the motive of this editor is in bad faith. I could be wrong. Tan | 39 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know Catholics have some weird beliefs, but that the calendar is satanic is not one of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, hold your horses JC. You asked for a block for evading a ban and sockpuppetry. Tan was spot on with his reply. Please revise your comment. JodyB _talk 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My point about Catholics not considering the Gregorian calendar to be anathema is intended to support my claim that 62.140.210.158 and Vote (X) for Change are the same person, and thus the later edit by Vote (X) for Change constitutes block evasion. I find it not believable that two independent editors would want to insert such an absurd statement. (Fine print: "Catholics" can cover several different denominations, some of which would consider the Gregorian calendar to be anathema, but in the context of an article about a calendar ordered into force by a Roman Catholic pope, the word "Catholic" can't be used in a way that totally ignores Roman Catholics.) Jc3s5h (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone link me to the sockpuppet investigation? Tan | 39 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change/Archive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

More thorough explanation to you, Tan, on my talk page (Sorry, saw it there first). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, block evasion etc... by User:199.60.104.56 who is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Haida chieftain

Resolved

 – IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Haida chieftain was blocked for sockpuppetry and general asshattery and has since been reincarnated as a string of different IPs. Semi-Prot has been applied to Canwest to stop his vandalism and unconstructive editing, editors to that article (including myself) are now the targets of some strange smear campaign where he's making comments accusing me of being hare krishna (where he got this idea I'll never know), censoring a small nation's (Canada) free press, being a zionist spy, and a zionist agent. I'm not particularly tweaked but considering the disruption on the article talk page is now spreading to user talkpages is there any chance an admin would be willing to review and consider a rangeblock? Nefariousski (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:C.Fred blocked him for 24 hours last night.--Iner22 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. I'm requesting a longer term rangeblock since there is a long history of sockpuppetry and IP jumping from Haida. I'd bet money that we'll see even more postings at Canwest or in related userspace from related IPs before the day is out. Nefariousski (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've applied a rangeblock, slightly smaller than the one suggested in Haida chieftain's SPI case. Chance of collateral is low. We'll see how it goes from here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I appriciate it. If any additional IPs pop up I'll let you know. Nefariousski (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He has also edited from 24.69.128.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which looks like an ISP's address. I think collateral is way too high to go blocking that subnet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm right there with you C.Fred. By no means do I feel we should rangeblock on sight but I'll still keep track of the IPs he uses for review on a case-by-case basis. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also, for dealing with Haida chieftain on a go-forward basis… I may have been the last editor willing to work with him, and then he launched into the aforementioned round of personal attacks, which burned his last bridge with me. Since we're now in a state where no administrator is willing to lift his block, is he effectively banned at this point, and should we treat him that way from now on? —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to consider him banned. Then again, I'm a nasty piece of work so take that with a grain of salt. -- Atama頭 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the Oh Henry! bar reference. Tan | 39 17:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a very good one. When I was growing up, I used to see Oh Henry! bar commercials on Canadian television (I'm from western Washington state and we're close enough to Canada to get CBC broadcasts). Recently some friends from Canada came to visit and brought Oh Henry! bars, because they sell them up north but not where I live. What I didn't know is that they do sell them in certain parts of the US. So it's not a Canadian candy bar at all. Maybe a Mr. Dressup reference would have been better, I used to watch that show as a kid. -- Atama頭 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, my childhood neighbor's father was caught cross dressing by his wife and son one day (they came home early I guess) and it was quickly the gossip of the block. So we started calling him Mr. Dress-up (instead of Mr. Dresden). Nefariousski (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And he made another personal attack on his talk page, so he no longer has the privilege of editing that page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

Resolved

 – Blocked by another admin. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone block this user 23prootie's God (talk · contribs). It's evidently banned user 23prootie (talk · contribs) trolling and evading their block. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I nuked the site from orbit. It was the only way to be sure. Syrthiss (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick block. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bravo for the meme / movie reference. I would have gone with Kill it with fire! personally but I like yours better. Nefariousski (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Future events such as these will affect YOU in the future! (watched it yesterday) Guy (Help!) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but we just got our asses kicked! Game over man, game over! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week by Calmer Waters (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

D.red.devil (talk · contribs) seemed to be a good faith editor until starting multiple vandalisms today. Woogee (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lloydkaufmantroma

Resolved

 – Subdued he is. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please ban User:Lloydkaufmantroma and protect My Big Fat Independent Movie, Chris Gore, Philip Zlotorynski. Under various names, Lloydkaufmantroma has repeatedly vandalized My Big Fat Independent Movie and Chris Gore (as well as Philip Zlotorynski though we've made that one a redirect now) for over three years. A big part of this vandalism includes repeated claiming that Philip Zlotorynski is a pseudonym of Chris Gore. I have reverted a number of times and warned the guy, but he's a pain in the ass and keeps coming back. I don't know that its only one person, but his behavior strikes me as someone who gets his jollies by making this his passion. Names and IP used to vandalize these articles over time, here are some key points:
• 20-May-2007 IP 24.9.103.208 adds claim to Philip Zlotorynski article claiming he is pseudonym of Chris Gore.
• 11-June 2007 Editor "GBone77" reverts vandalism to all 3 articles. Edit summary "Article is completely inaccurate and filled with incorrect and information intended to be vindictive and harmful." "Gbone77" is gamer name used by Chris Gore [36].
• 8-Jul-2007 Editor "Tromaintern" reinserts "box office bomb" language to movie article, also adds the pseudonym claim, "it was produced, directed and co-written by failed film critic Chris Gore, who founded the now bankrupt magazine Film Threat. Gore directed the film under the pseudonym Philip Zlotorynski."
• 19-May-2008 IP 66.133.226.49 (self-identifies as Philip Zlotorynski) repairs vandalism to his page. First edit summary, "I am Philip Zlotorynski, I am a real person. Do not make false claims connection me with ANYONE. That is illegal." Second edit summary: "I am Philip Zlotorynski. I am a real person. Do not falsely associate me with ANYONE. It's illegal and I'll sue.")
• 22-Dec-2008 New editor "Indiefilmrules" makes 6 vandal edits, 5 to Philip Zlotorynski, 1 to My Big Fat Independent Movie.
• 29-Nov-2009: IP 69.146.192.45 edits to all three articles in restores restores fake photo to Zlotorynski article.
• 13-Dec-2009. New editor "Moehoeheehaw": vandal edits to all three articles, restores fake photo to Zlotorynski.
• 28-Jan-2010. I stumble across thread on Wikpedia Review[37] describing this vandalism problem and asks "some admin" to fix and protect pages. I fix pages and watchlist them.
• 2-Feb-2010. New editor "Lloydkaufmantroma" - vandals edits to all three articles, restores fake photo to Zlotorynski article.
• 5-Feb 2010. "Lloydkaufmantroma" vandal edits to all three articles. He also creates a userpage that says "Support truly independent cinema, donate to Tromadance!!"
• In last thirty minutes. He came back again.

This is not an issue about unsourced BLPs (the articles always seem to have some sources), its just a lone crank who needs to be subdued.--Milowent (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• UPDATE: User returned today on a new account, User:Fishedmouth, and has already been banned.--Milowent (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – All clear now! (But for how long..? How long?!)-- Atama頭 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged. If an admin could clear that out, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with my talkpage, huh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's all covered with words and stuff. -- Atama頭 00:57, 10 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)

Update: And now, talk of pedophilia

[What's above is brought in from archive 601]

Having earlier wondered about my reaction if somebody were to claim that "Wikipedia" were a blend of "wicked" and "pedophilia" (a thought experiment that did not offend me in the slightest, and to which I think I replied courteously), 71.246.35.80 most recently writes, I would not be surprised if a pedophile porn web-site suddenly appears with the name Hory's Wickedpidiah very soon.

This was several hours ago; 71.246.35.80 has had ample time to think better of the remark and amend or delete it. But he has done neither.

If 71.246.35.80 is just blowing hot air, the hot air is unusually malodorous. If he's not just blowing hot air, then the world really doesn't need "a pedophile porn web-site", whether it's named after Wikipedia, a musical, some village, or myself. But the naming would surely not be coincidental; is 71.246.35.80 perhaps planning to create such a website himself? We alert "the authorities" when there's something that might be interpretable as a suicide threat; perhaps we should alert them here.

As an administrator, I'd take prompt and strong action against this IP. But since this seems to have become personal, I'll refrain from touching my own admin mop, bucket, and red buttons, and I'll instead leave the decisions and actions to others. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, because warnings haven't worked. If diruption continues when the block expires, I suggest a quick escalation to a long block. This user has all the hallmarks of a serious timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block - I cautioned this editor about this exact type of activity when he was using the account Ernie A. Smith Ph.D. (talk · contribs). Dr. Smith has a reputation of activism and pushing his viewpoints on Ebonics, which largely are not accepted by mainstream linguists. I gently tried explaining that neither are acceptable here, but it looks like I have been ignored. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Puzzlement at Caknuck's comment. The IP seems to be doing various things that he shouldn't be. However, there's a reason (explained both in Ebonics itself and in AfD/Ebonics) why there's an article on Ebonics as well as on AAVE, and much of the reason concerns minority positions in linguistics. John Baugh has analyzed the term "Ebonics" has having four interpretations, and he attributes one of these to Smith. As far as I'm concerned, Smith is welcome to use the article talk page to help in an understanding of this or any other of the three interpretations, or to explain how Baugh is mistaken. However, he has to present his PoV as dispassionately as anybody else might, and briefly. He's also free to insult me (briefly), if doing so amuses him. (Later, I may adorn my user page with one or two of the juiciest examples.) However, he should clearly cite published work, should argue rather than rant, and should not hint at an intention to create a kiddyporn website, especially one under a false flag. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That and he should use about a tenth as many words. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 matter was not resolved

Resolved

 – DNFTT. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter of not providing evidence that truthseeker666 had not done anything to deserve his suspension was not resolved. Admin:rkwaton and others repeatedly asked for the factual proof Ttruthseekers had vandalised Wikicommons. Admins here denied to give the proof and instead classed the matter as resolved and closed and deleted the thread. .Why. If the proof of this vandaqlism never provided then matter was far from resolved and Truthseeker suspension unjustified. Do not ignore users and admins like this. Explain these actions. PeteyJ Bristol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No explanation is required. He was editing tendentiously and spamming his website. If he feels hard done by he can ask for his money back, I guess. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this IP be blocked per WP:DUCK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh. One edit from early this morning and nothing since. TNXMan 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quack! Call the CUs for help... then again, maybe not since there's only a single edit (read up on point 64 of WP:OWB). --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evading and sockpuppetry by User:Njirlu

Ianisveria (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of banned user Njirlu (talk · contribs), based on his editing style and the content he adds on the Aromanians article. Njirlu has also previously created another sock Victorminulescu (talk · contribs), now blocked, and GeorgeSamarina (talk · contribs) is also a possible sockpuppet. Constantine ✍ 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to block suspected sockpuppet

Hi there - could someone please urgently look at blocking User:Orang77 as a sock of User:Roman888. Details are in the thread higher on this page about User:Roman888. I'm struggling to keep up with reverting and blanking this guy's copyright violations . Cheers - --Mkativerata (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Orang77 as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888 since they were adding the same material Roman888 did to articles. I have made the block indefinite with account creation blocked, and asked the user to appeal on the talk page of their main account. Review, or alteration if necessary, would be welcome, as I don't do these kind of blocks often. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block. This was a warning sign, and they had even threatened to sock from their old account. -- Atama頭 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I really think that a checkuser needs to check the accounts before any conclusions are made that Roman888 sockpuppeted as Orang77. While Roman888 did threaten to sockpuppet, until a check is performed, there is no proof that Roman888 and Orang77 are related in any way. That said, Orang77 should not be blocked as a sockpuppet until there is proof of the suspected relation. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pat1425

I've been watching a series of mostly IP users for a while now, and I'm quite concerned. I believe them to all be Patrick Syring, a man sentenced to a year in prison for threatening some prominent Arab Americans. First, the articles and edits:

1. Patrick Syring. The top editors, who together made 49.9% of the edits to the page, include:
   • Pat1425 - 118 edits (22.5%) - indefinitely blocked for "serial violation of WP:BLP"
   • 98.204.183.125 - 53 edits (10.1%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
   • 96.231.69.49 - 38 edits (7.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
   • 76.111.92.51 - 22 edits (4.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
   • 96.231.75.103 - 17 edits (3.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
   • 68.49.45.180 - 14 edits (2.7%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
2. James Zogby - the most prominent Arab American Syring threatened. The top editors, who together made 25.3% of the edits to the page, include:
   • Pat1425 - 23 edits (8.0%) - same as above.
   • 69.137.227.99 - 14 edits (4.8%) - traces to Bryans Road, Maryland
   • 71.178.109.156 - 13 edits (4.5%) - traces to Arlington, Virginia
   • 71.163.234.23 - 13 edits (4.5%) - traces to Falls Church, Virginia
   • 71.191.30.72 - 10 edits (3.5%) - traces to Alexandria, Virginia
   • Jockgerman - 9 edits (3.1%) - found to be a sockpuppet of Pat1425
3. Arab American Institute - the group whose members Syring was convicted of threatening. The top editors, who together made 42.3% of the edits to the pages, include:
   • 98.204.183.125 - 61 edits (25.3%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; same as the Patrick Syring article IP editor
   • 71.178.109.156 - 22 edits (9.1%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; same as the James Zogby article IP editor
   • 71.163.234.23 - 13 edits (5.4%) - traces back to Falls Church, Virginia; same as the James Zogby article IP editor
   • 96.231.75.103 - 6 edits (2.5%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; sames as the Patrick Syring article IP editor

Based on their locations and edit habits, I believe all these IP editors to be the same person as the banned user Pat1425. I garnered Pat1425's location from the following websites:

• pat1425 on the DCist website, a blog focused on Washington, D.C.
• pat1425 on twitter, which lists his location as Washington, D.C.
• pat1425 on the AARP website, which lists his location as Arlington, Virginia and his birthday as August 30

Now the kicker: Pat1425 not only has the same location and same edit pattern as the various IP editors, he also shares the same birthdate as that listed for Patrick Syring. Furthermore, both Pat1425 and at least his latest IP address, 98.204.183.125, have made extremely racist remarks - similar to Patrick Syring, who was sent to prison for threatening Arab Americans:

• 98.204.183.125 labelled Janine Zacharia "an evil Arab Palestinian journalist whore and a pig who shills for Hamas and Hezbollah"[38]
• pat1425 wrote: "A world without Palestinians will be a world without terror. God Bless the State of Israel and the IDF." (off-wiki site; warning, graphic images)
• pat1425 wrote: "America free of Arabs = America free of terror." (off-wiki site)

Proposed remedies

1. His current IP address is 98.204.183.125, and it seems fairly consistent, so I suggest blocking 98.204.183.125.
2. Unfortunately, this user seems to change IP addresses from time to time, so I don't think blocking one IP address will be sufficient long term (the user has been editing under various names and IP addresses for at least 2.5 years). I suggest permanently semi-protecting the James Zogby and Arab American Institute articles.
3. The editor has been used the Patrick Syring article as an autobiography. I suggest deleting the Patrick Syring article, possibly merging information about the threats he made into either the James Zogby or Arab American Institute articles. It had been nominated at AfD before, and while at least a couple of the voters appear to be sock puppets, most were not, so if there isn't consensus to delete it, it should at least be semi-protected.

I've created this account as a legitimate alternate account because Patrick Syring strikes me as a mentally deranged individual, and I would worry about my personal safety if he learned my identity. I won't be replying to this thread, but I think I've laid out everything important here. Wikixote (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pat1425 is the original SPI that identified Jockgerman, FYI. SGGH ^ping! 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have uw-3 warned the IP 98.204.183.125 for the vandal edit on Janine Zacharia [39]. Furthermore, Arab American Institute is already protected and hasn't been edited since October 2009 so we can discount that one. SGGH ^ping! 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Article vandalism: Average frustrated chump

Resolved

 – Offending link removed; vandalism removed; sanity restored

I am unable to fix some of the damage; something about a forbidden link. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rklawton (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated, undiscussed renaming

Karim Hassan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has on several occasions ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44]) renamed articles without prior discussion. The renamings have all been reverted as they were contrary to most commonly used English names or in other ways violated the naming conventions. The editor has received reminders ([45], [46]) not to perform such actions without discussion, but that hasn't stopped him. Previously, the editor (sometimes as 196.219.76.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) had an obsession with changing years of birth/death of historical persons to not commonly accepted values, but apparently gave it up following stiff opposition, including a temporary block of the IP. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The first mentioned reminder indicates that such moves should not be performed due to the fact that the guideline linked reads that titles of articles should be named after the most common English name. I don't know what "Saladin" is so I don't know what the most common English title for "Saladin" is. I think this issue should be about whether the moves violate the said guideline. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've seen Ridley Scott/Orlando Bloom movie Kingdom of Heaven (film), Saladin was the character played by Ghassan Massoud, the sultan and leader of the Muslim army. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this discussion? This discussion is about the behavior of Karim Hassan, not Saladin's appearances in movies. Please discuss what is relevant to the discussion and not what is irrelevant. Also, please see WP:NOTFORUM as the comment falls under that policies prohibitions. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he was just explaining who Saladin was, since you said you didn't know. WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I was trying to explain who he was in a context that someone generally ignorant of history might understand. He is generally known as Saladin in English, but it could be transcribed differently. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Saladin did not appear in a movie, an actor playing Saladin appeared in a movie, but you right that it is irrelevant. Saladin is by far the most common English name of the person who conquered Egypt, Syria, and parts of Palestine in 12th century. His name in Arabic is صلاح الدين, pronunced Salah ud-Din and sometimes transliterated as Salah al-Din (for differences in pronunciation and transliteration, see sun and moon letters). Karim has repeatedly moved article to what he feels is the correct English transliteration of the topic, not the most common English name for the topic. nableezy - 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The issue is not that the Saladin page move violated a naming guideline; you can be bold and move a page in good faith that violates a guideline you don't know about, and once reverted, move discussions can take place on article talk pages, not here. The issue is that he has not, ever, responded on a user or article talk page to any of the many comments made to him, and is repeating the actions after finding out he may not understand naming guidelines. This, coming on top of his earlier date-related edits (and page creation issues), makes this a valid ANI issue.

  Karim Hassan should not make any more page moves without first bringing the issue up on the article talk page, until he has a better understanding of our conventions. I see he's never been given a welcome template, I'll do so now. He seems to edit sporadically, so if he doesn't reply here before archiving I'll try to remember to leave a more detailed message on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User Andrewrp

I've just indeffed Andrewrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism after a final warning. I think that the account may have been compromised which is why I indeffed it. Previous recent edit history before today shows evidence of vandal fighting, not vandalism. Am happy for any other admin to review the block and amend if necessary. I'll let Andrewrp know of this discussion and that he can comment on his talk page if he so desires. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrewrp has been notified Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Jon Osterman

The editor got a bug about using World Net Daily as a source and, after edit-warring a little in Ilana Mercer, started a discussion about it at RSN, which was the right thing to do. And, so far, the discussion about it is not as clear cut as he'd like. But the editor has gone to multiple articles and started removing WND sources,[47] citing the discussion at RSN as the justification. This is after a discussion that has been taking place for less than 2 hours. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility / application of G7

{{resolved|Editor blocked 31 hours for personal attacks, pointy/tendentious editing}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How should I deal with this edit to my user talk page? Another editor, Atmoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), appears to feel that he owns certain articles that he created, and has incorrectly labelled my edits (including adding a {{hangon}} tag to the disputed articles) as vandalism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the vandalism thing. Not the rest. -Atmoz (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Once other users have made substantive edits to articles you created, G7 no longer applies. This is not a reason to remove G7 from the speedy criteria... –xeno^talk 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a "substantive edit"? And that's not what G7 says. It says "substantial content". What substantial content was added to, for instance, Owen Toon by another editor besides myself? -Atmoz (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as commented at my talk page, you are probably right in that you were the only one to add substantial content. However, DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) declined the speedy so fulfilling it at this point would be wheel warring. –xeno^talk 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) G7 may very well have been satisfied in the case of Owen Toon. However, speedy deletion is discretionary, which means that other factors can be considered even if a criterion for deletion is met. It was open to User:DGG to decline your G7 tag on the basis that the subject is notable and warrants an article. Please don't keep making edits to WP:CSD to remove G7: if you think G7 is an inappropriate criterion or should be amended, discuss that on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given Atmoz a uw-npa3. No need for such a header. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz has removed the warning, which means that it has been read and understood. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that some of you have fragile ears. Although I'm not sure why you needed to post it here. -Atmoz (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside Atmoz's blatant personal attacks and using Twinkle to revert non-vandalism and labeling it vandalism, his complaint may have merit. Look at the version of Robert Lin when this user first tagged it; the only contribs besides the author were one bot categorization and 1 user adding a default sort. The article at that time certainly qualified for a G7. DGG did not decline the speedy because the article was deemed to be G7-ineligible, but because that admin declared such people to be "always notable". A bit moot now on edit conflict, but I am concerned about DGG substituting their own very pro-inclusionist POV on what should have been a simple G7. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As above, speedy deletion is discretionary. In my view, it was open to User:DGG to decline a tag that met G7 for countervailing reasons (ie the subject was unquestionably notable). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec}@X: Wheel warring is a crappy policy. If an admin makes a mistake, it's the job of another admin to fix it. I don't want my name on these articles. I don't care if Wikipedia wants to have articles on them. I just want someone else to write them. I don't think that's too much to ask. I'm okay with them getting deleted, and then having someone use exactly the same characters in exactly the same order as I wrote them. I just don't want my name on it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz doesn't want their name attached to these, so perhaps to fulfill their wish (and if others are adamant about keeping the articles around), the article could be deleted and one could re-create it under their own hand (noting the other previous minor contributors in the initial edit summary). If Atmoz releases their contributions to the public domain their name does not need to be in the edit history. –xeno^talk 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do such on those articles. -Atmoz (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Just those articles. An alternative would be to use WP:RevDel to remove their name, but I'm not sure if this is permitted per the policy. –xeno^talk 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSDX (a useful page of explanations of speedy criteria) says of G7 "Does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject." Tagging an article about 14 months after writing it would seem to me to be far too late to use G7 on this basis. Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad block

• I don't think a block was necessary here. It was heavyhanded and premature. Moreover, the issue is not resolved, the user still has live edits they want to detach themselves from. –xeno^talk 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Grounds for block are on the user's talk page - including ongoing personal attacks. User has no right to detach themselves from live edits - so far as I know, so that point is moot. Rklawton (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • They had been warned about both the issues you highlighted there and had not persisted. God forbid we entertain wishes (regardless of their "rights") from our long-time constructive contributors. –xeno^talk 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolving issues is too hard. Much easier to play with the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks by user:Mehrshad123

Take a look at his contributions in Fereydoun Farrokhzad and its talk page. He persists on removing sourced material from that page and the reason that he mentions in its talk page only consists of personal attacks and calling other users as propagandist and agents of political groups (for example, he calls me a member of MKO, which is a political organization with a history of terrorist activities). He also persists on repeating these claims in my talk page [48]. Alefbe (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)