Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Dwm Deletion Proceedings and User:Blueboy96

Hello. I've been contributing anonymously for a few years now, infrequently enough to never bother registering an account. I'm also a Reddit user, where recently two articles have been popular, Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software and the follow-up to it.

They struck a chord with me, and while I can't readily check my past contributions, it saddens me to learn that many lesser-known articles I've contributed to may have been deleted.

As per the two pages I linked to, I'm here about the dwm proceedings.

I think it's very unfortunate that the first AfD was closed and reopened at all, to me it seems like an attempt to quieten outside voices and go back to business as normal.

The semi-protection of the second AfD also makes me uneasy, as though the Wikipedia deletion process does not respect or want outside input. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy, so please forgive me if I make errors.

In specific, I came here about the blockings surrounding the dwm proceedings, and the conduct of the administrator responsible for them, User:Blueboy96. The following users were blocked by him on February 28:

Special:Contributions/0xd34df00d Registered in December 2007, voted in dwm AfD.

Special:Contributions/DoctorSinus Registered in October 2009, voted in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Gleb-ax Registered in October 2008, did not vote formally.

Special:Contributions/Grasagrautur Registered in February 2010, attempted good-faith source addition to dwm article, voted keep.

Special:Contributions/Ingwar-k Registered in January 2010, voted keep in wmii AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Iorlas Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm, QVWM, Evilwm, Aewm, wmii, Oroborus AfDs. Unblock requested and denied.

Special:Contributions/Jasonwryan Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Jeuta Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Necrosporus Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD. Unblock request repeatedly denied after the AfD ended.

Special:Contributions/Thayerw Registered in September 2008, did not vote keep in dwm AfD, had made several good-faith edits prior.*

• Users that I marked with an asterisk only commented once.

The administrator also made several comments that I would deem objectionable in the second dwm AfD, such as "Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event." and "Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue." as if people being interested in something means they should be completely ignored.

User:Anselmgarbe and User:ArneBab were also both blocked. The former is the developer of dwm, and was unblocked on March 3 after substantial discussion. Despite being a contributor dating back to 2004. Following false accusations, he was indefinitely blocked on March 4 following a discussion full of bad faith assumptions, and the block was not repealed nor justified despite opposition by User:Kim_Bruning. User:Henrik unblocked ArneBab today, 17 days after the block was added.

I don't think making one comment (or several) in an AfD discussion merits losing your account permanently (and having unblock requests denied very quickly), and I question the judgement of an administrator who bans so many users without investigating them individually. What happened to assuming good faith and all contributors being valuable?

I question the "meatpuppet" policy in general, it seems to severely punish people who were asked to come to Wikipedia despite not knowing all the policies, and I don't think they should be punished at all for attempting to preserve an article they happen to be passionate about. None of these users were vindictive or made personal attacks. Is it really necessary to ban a dozen users for a small policy violation like this?

At this point I don't think many (or perhaps any) of them will come back. They came to try to save software they enjoy and were met with extreme hostility, with attempts to keep them out of the discussion ending in bans for all of them. If I were in their position, I would not return.

Why is it that the only two who were unblocked had their blocks removed because of further scrutiny? I wonder how many unnecessary permanent blocks are given out every day. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This was exceptionally poorly handled by us, and a massive WP:BITE failure. Our notability policy is unpopular and hard to explain. The reasons why WP:N is a good idea are rather subtle, and imposing it with a heavy handed approach is guaranteed to alienate a lot of potential editors. This débâcle has generated a lot of bad will and strengthened the reputation of wikipedia as a bureaucracy. We're not growing any more, we can't afford to piss off potential editors. We have to be more calm and patient with new users. I don't want to point fingers to User:Blueboy96 or any other user in particular, but surely we can and must to better than this. henrik•talk 07:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not just by us, since the user persisted in recruiting meatpuppets long after it had been explained why that was not a good idea. I would, though, only have blocked any accounts until such time as the debate was finished, since the locus of disruption was the AfD. I also think the AfD was closed wrongly as the loud assertions of "it's teh notable!" were not, as far as I recall, matched by, you know, reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is a valid point. And yeah, the AfD should probably (objectively) have been closed as delete - but we can't go around pissing off everybody who isn't already an editor and knows the details of the system all the time. That is far more important than whether we have an article about an obscure X window manager or not. You and me and all other admins are already getting a poor reputation as needlessly bureaucratic jerks who delete stuff for just the hell of it. WP:RFA used to have a dozen candidates at the same time, now it's frequently empty. Our user base has plateaued. We need to do more to help people get involved and lower the initial hurdle. Sure, they'll make mistakes. Sure, they'll try to promote their own stuff initially. But we need them. And we need to figure out how to explain our policies in a way that make sense. henrik•talk 12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To close that AfD as a delete after the discussion would mean a complete redefinition of "consensus", or even WP:CONSENSUS. It would reduce commentators to the status of "suggested argument providers" and leave the final decision fully in the hand of whoever manages to sneak in a close first. Of course, that person then applies a magical process that gives hir perfect knowledge of all policies and guidelines, the ability to evaluate all sources with perfect understanding and unanimity, and to come to a fully justified decision. If we have those wondercreatures among our admins, why not let them come up with the input, too, and bypass all that nasty discussion in favour of admin fiat? We can assign AfDs round robin, or have a lottery on who gets to close what. By the same logic we could have bureaucrats appoint admins without those pesky and divisive community discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be an entirely valid interpretation of consensus, which is explicitly not a vote. There have been plenty of deletion debates closed against the majority vote where the minority correctly cites policy and the minority only blows smoke. That's why we have the whole "not a vote" thing, because votes can't override policies and AfD debates can't override the much stronger consensus that underpins guidelines like WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing against majority is something I've always been critical about. Closing against an overwhelming majority would be abuse of process. Consensus is the source of our rules, and the ultimate arbiter, not the other way around. If the rules were unambiguous, we could just write a small program to apply them. Since they are not, we rely on people to interpret them. And in this case, even discounting meatpuppets and even counting aggressive whiners, there is certainly no consensus to delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Except the majority doesn't exist only on the AfD, it exists in the policy pages and guideline pages that have been discussed. Just because everyone who helped form those pages doesn't show up at the AfD discussion doesn't mean their opinion on what kind of articles should exist here should be ignored. Yes, you and many others would be quite happy if they could meatpuppet any article they wanted into a keep on wikipedia, but that isn't the way it works. That isn't what consensus says, and you have had a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT during this entire process. Consensus is not majority no matter how you'd like to try and make it out and the entire proceedings that have gone on around this article have been a joke put on by those involved with DWM and their meatpuppets.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My silent majority is bigger than your silent majority. And thanks for the personal attacks and the good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How so? There was absolutely nothing in policy nor guideline supporting this article and it was allowed to be muddled into a false no consensus by a bunch of meat puppets. You've had consensus explained to you several times now, but more than one user. I find it rather disconcerting that an administrator apparently has so little grasp on what it is. Local majority has absolutely zero bearing on consensus unless you had hundreds or more users showing up at that discussion. The silent majority behind policies like V, NPOV, Consensus, and guidelines like RS and Notability far outweighed the few people who showed up at the AfD and promised on their mother's grave that it really was super duper important. As would they outweigh just about any AfD going. That is why WP:CONSENSUS specifically spells out that the arguments are supposed to be compared to existing policies and guidelines because those carry far more weight than any individual or group of individual's assurances on an AfD. Supporting the opposite would mean supporting including anything that could get a handful of people to show up and carry on about for a few days, which is something we specifically don't do. This article was kept on nothing more than mob fervor than it was on policies and guidelines. You want people to stop calling you out on things then pony up the evidence. Something you've been pretty shy of doing this entire process. You were asked a few time to provide the sources you claimed were so reliable and instead backed out of the discussion. So what silent majority do you think you have that is so much bigger than the existing policies and guidelines? What silent majority is it that you think you have that means you can ignore WP:CONSENSUS and make up your own rules of interpretation?--Crossmr (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I've made my points at the AfD, and I refuse to repeat them over and over again because I have learned that it's pointless to debate with someone who ignores arguments because he already knows the WP:TRUTH. Do you ever take a breath while you write? Or maybe a think? Note that the No consensus close was endorsed unanimously at DRV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that removing the blocks would be a good minimal first step, perhaps accompanied by an apology. Going past that, the "meatpuppet" policy should be closely examined. Wanting to save something you care about is not a heinous act. The canvassing policy reads like its main purpose is to prevent people who care about something from being notified about its impending deletion. Having completely disinterested people debating is biased towards deletion because few of them will spend much time looking for sources if they don't care about the topic at hand. Deleting an article doesn't need to be a bad experience. If the passionate community is simply told that if they can find good sources, the article's exclusion will be reevaluated, they will do their best to find sources. If you attempt to reduce the debate to an echo chamber by protecting it, and ban users that did their best to present arguments for keeping it, that community starts to loathe you. I don't even think User:Mclaudt should be banned. His actions are barred by current policies, but the policies are broken. He was just a passionate user trying to prevent a deletion, who had no recourse on Wikipedia, so he had to go outside it. I think that most contentious deletion debates should end in a keep if there are any verifiable sources at all. By blocking users and preventing them from participating in a debate, yet another community is alienated and the potential base of editors becomes smaller. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with largely everything you said. I propose to unblock all these accounts. The likelihood of any further disruption is low. Being passionate about an article is certainly not an offense worthy of an indefinite block, and treating infrequent contributors like some sort of second class citizens leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

The way you describe how deletions doesn't have to be a bad experience is already how the deletion process is supposed to work. It's supposed to be about working together to find sources and improve the article, or collectively deciding that it can't be done. We need to do a better job of explaining that. henrik•talk 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit, the mass blocks in this situation were rather heavy-handed. But considering the situation, there really was no other choice. Many of these users hadn't contributed in one or two years, then suddenly reappeared to contribute in the AfD. That, to my mind, is even worse than newbie accounts popping up simply to vote in AfDs. Add to it the fact that he continued to canvass even after being warned--and there was really no other option but to drop the hammer in my mind. Blueboy96 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What's occurred here goes beyond heavy-handed. 11 indefinite blocks laid out in 34 minutes, 6 of them within 1-2 minutes of the previous. Five of the users are established Russian Wikipedia editors in good standing: ru:Участник:DoctorSinus, ru:Участник:Gleb-ax, ru:Участник:0xd34df00d, ru:Участник:Necrosporus, ru:Участник:Ingwar. Three others (User:Jasonwryan, User:Thayerw, User:Anselmgarbe) are free software developers with domains similar to their Wikipedia usernames. Note that the latter is the developer of dwm. The outlier, User:ArneBab was blocked several days later despite a lack of consensus and no actual proof of his biased canvassing. These aren't vandals, they did not register random strings as names and vandalize the AfD repeatedly; they merely made their best arguments for the article's inclusion. Several of these users have been around for some time, and to throw good faith out the window so readily despite their transparency is alarming. Really, they were worse off than vandals - At least most vandals tend to get a warning first. You then voted delete 8 minutes after finishing the mass-blocking of the "meatpuppets", using their existence as a justification for the delete. Adding insult to injury, User_talk:Necrosporus was denied an unblock four times by other administrators who likely assumed the block was there for a good reason... and unlike most of the others, he's still blocked. Eleven ill-conceived blocks in half an hour constitutes far more than a momentary lapse in judgement. Fedbn (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, my blocks in this case were a knee-jerk reaction to what I saw as blatant votestacking by sleepers. If I had known that there were users in good standing from another project contributing to that AfD and not just mere sleeper accounts, I wouldn't have blocked. I just wish someone had informed me of this earlier. Had I known this, their statements would have looked more like people trying their hardest to contribute in a language they didn't know well, not just disjointed attempts to clog up the debate. Blueboy96 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to prevent deletion discussions from becoming Reichstag-climbing-while-dressed-as-Spider-Man contests and to properly reflect the community's (that is, a cross-section thereof) view of the whether something should be kept/deleted/etc., sometimes measures need to be taken to prevent those who do nothing but protest all over the place (like what is being done here). The fact of the matter is that those blocked accounts didn't have any other purpose here but to defend the Dwm article. With that said, blocking may not have been absolutely necessary unless clear disruption was taking place. –MuZemike 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with that “fact”. I was blocked, too, and the purpose of my account was and is to be able to contribute where I see errors I can fix quickly. I am no mayor editor, because I also work on other projects, a lot of them in free software, and want to spend time with my wife, too. But most times when I see an error and am sure that I can fix it properly (and have enough understanding of the topic to bring a real improvement) I set aside some time to fix it. Contributing to the AfD discussion might have taken much more time than a simple fix, but that was unintended and the result of seeing a glaring error in an area I am knowledgeable about. So please take back that remark. It’s unwarranted — and not only towards my account. Draketo (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Details of Blueboy96's handling of Anselmgarbe

It's incredible that we still have experienced editors here who are defending what happened. Let's take the example of Anselm Garbe, the developer of dwm. He:

• used a real name account and said openly who he was; [1]
• came to the AfD to provide information, nothing else;
• said openly that he was canvased; [2]
• introduced some borderline reliable sources into the discussion;
• did not insist that the sources he introduced were reliable sources;
• did not make any disruptive contribution whatsoever; [3]
• probably had a calming influence on the angry users who tried to save the article;
• did not make any attempt to !vote (unless you count "neutral"); [4]
• reacted positively to a proposal to merge the article into Tiling window manager and made an open-ended comment that might have resulted in a merge to a different article instead; [5]
• was polite, considerate, reasonable and intelligent throughout; [6]
• stopped commenting on 25 February. [7]

Then, half a week later on 28 February, Blueboy96:

• blocked User:Anselmgarbe;
• blocked him indefinitely;
• used the totally bizarre and counterfactual block summary: "Abusing multiple accounts: Self-admitted meatpuppet of Mclaudt";
• left no block message at all on the talk page.

When this was noticed and two editors asked for an unblock (Pcap and Psychonaut), instead of immediately unblocking Anselm Garbe and apologising, Blueboy96:

• wrote: "If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked." – note that this was completely delusional as Anselm Garbe never did anything wrong in the first place;
• wrote: "Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing." – Note: 21 hours later, Anselm Garbe replied to my email and was confused because he had never received Blueboy96's email and did not even know that he was blocked;

I can confirm this, I wasn't aware that my account was blocked and I learned about it from a mail of Hans Adler on 3rd March 2010. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• did not apologise, or at least not publicly, after Anselm Garbe was unblocked [8] (this clearly doesn't count.

I thought this was an isolated mistake, but now, with the knowledge that Blueboy96 handed out indefinite blocks en masse for the egregious "crime" of being canvased, I think this is firmly in desysop territory. Hans Adler 11:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This as punishment for this and this after two years of inactivity is also totally outside policy.

How hard is it to read a short guideline such as WP:CANVAS and to note that it never even once mentions blocking the targets of the canvassing (or calls them "meat puppets", for that matter)? Hans Adler 11:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem here, as already mentioned above, is that WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest and most misguided Wikipedia guidelines (not policy). Why this is so can be seen by the history of its development. It was spun of off WP:SPAM, initially called "internal spamming" the policy on canvassing originally referred only to unwanted notifications (i.e. spam). Then someone who had just lost some AfD or something, with an axe to grind [9] realized that it provided a convenient stick (or a heavy bunch of sour grapes) to beat their opponents on the head with and thus WP:CANVASS was born [10] (note how obvious the sour grapes are there). Basically a bad selfish guideline conceived and written for less than noble reasons from some long forgotten deletionist vs. inclusionist debate. And then it got ossified as status quo.

In the real world, informing people who are potential stakeholders in a particular issue is seen as a *good thing*. If I remind somebody that a city council election is taking place and they should go vote (even if I know that person's political affiliation) that's usually considered "good citizenship". But here on Wikipedia, where apparently it's considered a good thing that many proposals are "flown under the radar" to get a particular result, it's all topsy turvy.radek (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the problem here, since Blueboy96's actions were in no way justifiable even by WP:CANVAS. Hans Adler 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that it's the misguided nature of the guideline itself which is partly responsible for these kinds of "misunderstandings".radek (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully apologize for my handling of Anselm Garbe. Having always been militantly anti-spam in any online community (not just Wikipedia), my block of him was purely reflexive. However, it wasn't within the spirit of WP:MEAT since he did make a good-faith effort to suggest improvements to the article. Blueboy96 12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no worries. Apology accepted. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in case my remarks got lost in the ether ...

When I was alerted to what was going on in the first Dwm Afd, I thought I saw egregious votestacking, a good bit of it perpetrated by sleeper accounts. However, if I had known that those five .ru users were contributors in good standing on another wiki, I definitely wouldn't have blocked. Seen in light of that fact, they were merely trying to make a case for keeping the article in a language they didn't know well.

The Anselm Garbe case--it was a reflexive reaction on my part to block, as I have always had zero tolerance for spamming and votestacking. HOwever, I freely admit that he made a good-faith effort to suggest improvements. For that reason, my block of him wasn't in the spirit of WP:MEAT, and I apologize for my reflexive block of him.

Hopefully this clears this matter up. Blueboy96 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly a good sign when an admin admits to blocking due to a "kneejerk reaction". Surely a certain amount of reasoned thought should precede any blocking? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no way anyone could have known at the time that we were dealing with users in good standing from another project. As far as Anselm goes, as I said earlier, while it was grounded in policy, it wasn't within the spirit of the rules. Blueboy96 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn’t say how you will react should something similar happen again. And you only offer excuses to the ones who ‘were in good standing in another project’ as well as Anselm. What about the other blocks? And why is the treatment people got suddenly only wrong when they turn out to be ‘in good standing’? If it was wrong when done to people in good standing, how could it be right when done to newcomers? Draketo (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Blueboy96 needs to avoid repeating such scattershot blocks of alleged 'meatpuppets', or I'll happily pick up a torch and pitchfork and call for his desysopping. Remember: you are not Judge Dredd. Fences&Windows 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that some of the users blocked happened to be users in good standing on another project is beside the point. Draketo here has been a user since 2004 and was still summarily blocked. If you've been fighting vandals and spammers for a long time it's easy to become jaded and hard to remember that all new and infrequent users deserve the same respect and assumption that they're here to help. However, that is no excuse. We should always be careful not to create special rules for some in-clique and other rules for those not already in the group. who I don't think it's productive to call for someone's head, but some sort of acknowledgment that you'll treat similar situations differently in the future would help. henrik•talk 10:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are intended to be a last resort, when a user's disruptive activity continues after warnings. Indefinite blocks doubly so. The assumption of good faith should be granted, with the status of most of the users herein merely reinforcing it. It did not, however, appear to be present in your actions. In this case you played judge, jury and executioner. Given that you played all three roles, it was your duty to inform yourself as to the status and outside connections of these users, but you did not. To not evaluate each of these indefinite bans carefully before placing them is a massive breach of the trust instrinsic in the community selecting you as an administrator. Apologies are insufficient - If this issue hadn't been illuminated recently these innocent contributors would have remained permanently blocked. Lastly, you have yet to address the misinformational block summary left for User:Anselmgarbe, nor the serious accusation that you claim to have communicated with him, which Anselm apparently denies. I've asked him to come here and clarify. Fedbn (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I took Anselm's statement on the AfD that he'd been alerted to the discussion as an admission he'd been canvassed. That being said, in the future unless an account that appears to have been canvassed to take part in an AfD is being clearly disruptive or it's unmistakably obvious that they're SPAs, I'll simply warn them on their talk page. Blueboy96 13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That Anselm said he was canvassed is completely irrelevant. The fact that you are repeating this now in this way makes me wonder if you have understood this. There was obviously a problem at the last ANI discussions with several editors who thought being canvassed can be held against someone. It cannot, as it is simply not their fault. The idea that someone with a block button might remain under this misconception even after the fact has been pointed out to him makes me very uneasy, so please clarify. Hans Adler 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize now that accounts that come here in this way have to be looked at on an individual basis, and can't automatically all be assumed to be disruptive. Blueboy96 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TechnoFaye

I have previously created a thread here but was referred to WP:WQA. However the thread to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:TechnoFaye has not been taken seriously. It is not the first time, WQA has numerous problems and at present is not adequately equipped to handle civility problems. I am aware of the policy on forum shopping but I have felt it necessary that this issue be handled at ANI, because there are many more experienced editors here. My main complaint is that TechnoFaye keeps on saying "Blacks are stupid". I find these comments offensive, and have tried to ignore them and put them in context. But because she keeps repeating them, I felt it necessary to get outside input. Some of the quotes include

• So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?. [11]
• My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied 'even if it is true.'[12]
• "It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid".[13]
• What do you think of the theory that the IQ difference is due to everyone else believing that blacks are stupid[14]
• No, it means it's extremely unlikely that one exists, because it would have to be something powerful enough to make a whole race of people stupid, yet hidden and secret enough that no one ever thought of it[15]

These comments have been occurring over a period of at least one month. According to the user's Block log, the user has prior blocks for incivility. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would echo the comments made at WQA; these edits are not incivility. Also, it seems to me that you're putting words in her mouth when you say she "keeps on saying 'Blacks are stupid'.". An uninhibited exchange of ideas is usually a good idea during a mediation. I encourage you to disagree politely with her comments, but not characterize them as uncivil. I'd recommend no action here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, TechnoFaye is not having words put into her mouth. To quote from her MySpace blog on the topic of the Race and intelligence mediation: "Why is "they're stupid" an okay explanation for everybody else's low IQ score, but blacks' score of "retarded" is due to some mysterious, unknown reason other than that they're retarded?" and "negroes are so abysmally stupid."[16]Her blog is v NSFW Repeated racism does fall under WP:CIVIL as far as I'm concerned. If she can't reign herself in to refrain from making bigoted and inflammatory language, she should be indef blocked (regardless of her autism). Fences&Windows 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. It seems to me that either a deliberate misunderstanding of what she is saying is being used against her and/or the quotes are being used massively out of context. I can't see any racism or bigotry, at least not from TechnoFaye. What I do see are kneejerk reactions to non-politically correct statements of unpopular realisations. Personally I see her autism as a perfect way to be unencumbered with the pervasive and ever-present PC bollocks screwing up this project. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is that her tale of a crazy-bum-woman-living-in-the-forest to suburban-sex-slave-who-wants-to be-raped transformation story on her blog was one of the more disturbing things I have seen in a while. I couldn't get past that to actually look into the on-wiki dispute. In fact now I think I'll sign off for a while and go take a long walk. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Whereas all I see on that page is someone wanting to do exactly what they want to do with their own life... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If one says "blacks are stupid" once, it may be said in context, it may be literature or a creative way to discuss something. I would be willing to overlook a one-off statement. But to repeat the same statement 6 or 7 times is no longer creative or an uninhibited exchange of ideas, its more like taking advantage of the fact that nobody is complaining. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

@Fred: Not to wander too far off topic here, but I never suggested she was not free to make those choices, just that I personally found it very disturbing, and frankly indicative of deep-seated mental health issues that cannot be explained by autism alone. But of course none of this is actually relevant to her on-wiki actions with regard to possible racist comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't believe her comments are racist. They can appear so when listed like they are above, but that is of course Muntuwandi's intention to strengthen his/her case. As usual it's politically incorrect to refer to possible deficiencies in ethnic minorities and as ever there is always someone wanting to appear to be a crusading liberal. If anyone is causing disruption it's Muntuwandi with his/her forum shopping. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To set the record straight, the complaint here is specifically about incivility. Unless there has been a major paradigm shift that I missed, but according to my understanding it is generally uncivil to refer to any individual or ethnic group as stupid. WP:CIVILITY specifically states:

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: 1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;

Without Wikipedia's civility policy, we would not be able to discuss difficult, controversial or politically incorrect subjects. The complaint is not about the subject matter, that remains an independent matter altogether. If we were editing an article about how to bake cookies and an editor persistently stated that an individual or ethnic group were stupid, I would still bring it up as an incivility issue, because it distracts from editing the article and creates an "uncivil environment". I have noticed a few editors want to blame the messenger for bringing this up, but I have done so not to score political points. I would like to know if it is now acceptable in wikipedia discussions to refer to any ethnic group as being "stupid". Wapondaponda (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda: just as an aside - the nature of this article means that we have to treat civility issues with circumspection. a few editors on the page (Faye included) stray over the line into personal attacks on other editors, and that needs to be dealt with, but Faye's racial comments aren't so much incivility as a deeply held belief that there is a biological/genetic/racial basis of some sort to intelligence. I'm pretty sure she's guilty of syntehsis from published materials on this point, but I don't think she's trying to be uncivil or racist as much as she's trying to be (what she views as) accurate. she has an extreme view, and a fairly ham-handed way of presenting her opinions which comes off a lot worse-sounding than it actually is. I'm less worried about the implicit racism than about the implicit synthesis, but I haven't yet got her to see that. --Ludwigs2 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Faye had not been alerted to this thread. I have notified her (Wapondaponda, here's a trout slap for you) and I have given her notice that she will be blocked if she continues to make derogatory comments about groups of people. This is not about "political correctness", this is about Faye being deliberately offensive. Arguing that the average IQ of black populations is lower than that of other populations and discussing why that might be is OK. Saying that "black people are stupid" is not OK. Fred, do you see the difference? One is acceptable scholarly discourse, the other is derogatory and inflammatory. Fences&Windows 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I understand the difference, I'm also able to read at a sufficiently advanced level to understand that she didn't actually say that "black people are stupid". She asked a question about a theory, someone else's theory, she did not say that she held with that theory or even accuse anyone, let alone Blacks, of being stupid. All people seem to be doing is seeing those 3 little words "blacks are stupid" and instantly go into paroxysms of spluttering and the equivalent of "you can't say that these days". The point is that some people DO think blacks are stupid, some of them even scientists who aren't being racist. Therefore it's, in my humble opinion, fine to ask the question she asked, It isn't fine to say that she thinks they are, it isn't fine to accuse any particular person of stupidity, but in this world there are a lot of stupid people, some of them do happen to be black. Similarly an awful lot are caucsian/asian/chinese/manchunian/blonde/freckled/female/lactose intolerant. In her defence her autism is going to be a distinct disadvantage due to the social filters not functioning properly, after all it is a communication disorder and I believe she should be given more latitude than normal. It's not her fault she doesn't have that little voice over her shoulder warning her "don't say it quite like that". It would also be helpful if there wasn't so many knees moving through 90 degrees from the faux liberals. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My error, I apologize for that, I did inform her of the thread at WQA where the user did respond and I posted a link from WQA to this thread. But I should have specifically informed the user about this thread. I agree with Fences and windows that there is a difference between scholarly discussion of group differences and referring to certain groups in a derogatory manner. I think latitude has been given, these comments have taken place over a period of 5 weeks so this not a knee-jerk reaction. Regardless of the user's condition she is aware that she makes offensive statements. Obviously one needs a thick skin when editing controversial articles, but even with thick skinned editing, the above comments are quite unhelpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A little off topic... but has anyone else noticed that User:TechnoFaye's user page displays what appears to be a giant naked photograph of her? I'm aware of WP:NOTCENSORED but as far as I'm aware user page content is supposed to be at least marginally related to Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I scratched my head over that too. I figured it's relatively tasteful, and wasn't overtly violating any policies, so it got filed in the 'too trivial to worry about' category. --Ludwigs2 09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<- TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) claims to have taken this picture [17] herself File:Bpesta.jpg. This is clearly not the case and is a copyvio. Why did she lie? Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Faye has (as should be evident, and as she herself admits) some form of mild autism (or perhaps some other minor developmental disorder - I'm not sure if her claims of autism stem from self-diagnosis). I have been trying to be tolerant of that, and guide her towards some more socially acceptable modes of interaction, with limited success. however, because of this thread (and Mathsci's complaints below) I am putting the mediation discussion on a strict civility program; I am going to start insisting on 3-day breaks from the discussion for any editor who cannot refrain from making disparaging comments about other editors. I'm going to try a firm hand for a little while on the page, and see if we can capitalize on the progress we'e made and break through the points of stubbornness that are currently plaguing the page. If you ask me, we can close/table this discussion for a week and see what progress a new approach can make. --Ludwigs2 09:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think she's likely a fantasist, that's not really relevant except in that it informs judgment of her on-wiki behaviour. Which is ... eccentric. I think there is a need for a mentor of some kind. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of mediation on Race and intelligence

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence
• Race and intelligence

I looked at the main page to which TechnoFaye contributes and there seems to be a much deeper problem. Mediation started in November on this topic, initially under the supervision of Reubzz (talk · contribs), who shortly afterwards disappeared and had no prior experience at all as a mediator. The mediator was changed to Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) and then Wordsmith (talk · contribs). At present mediation is unsupervised - a completely chaotic free-for-all. At the very beginning of mediation last year, there were sensible statements and discussions. That does not seem to be the case now. Various users involved in the mediation are no longer present (eg myself, on wikibreak in Cambridge, and Ramdrake (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited wikipedia for 2 months). Currently the page does not seem to be serving any useful purpose. It seems to be frequented largely by WP:SPAs and a coterie of highly problematic users, with some exceptions (eg Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)). TechnoFaye's contributions and directing of the mediation page do not seem to be particularly helpful, nor her choice of language. The page is in no way a mediation page any more. Please could administrators or mediators explain what is going on and attempt to restore some order? There is no record on the page as to who is moderating at present (surely not Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)?). Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how this kind of poorly written synthesis[18] by an anonymous IP from Brussels

• Race_and_intelligence#Ten_argument_supporting_the_existence_of_race_differences_in_IQ_scores_between_whites_and_blacks.5B71.5D

from a single questionable source (Richard Lynn) made its way into the article Race and intelligence. I'm afraid this kind of writing reminds me of what can be read on far right websites like Stormfront (website), except their English is better. It is some of the worst writing I have seen on wikipedia to date, ungrammatical, picked from one dubious source and sometimes making little or no sense. It shows that there is a major problem with the article and mediation. The article has never been in such an unbalanced and unreadable state before. SPAs, who now seem to dominate the article, have left this unencyclopedic and completely WP:UNDUE material in the article, still claiming there is some kind of neutral mediator in their recent edit summaries. That does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci - nice of you to ask me, but yes, I am still mediating there. I've been letting the page run a bit, for a number of reasons: (1) to save myself from burnout (it's a difficult crew) (2) to keep myself looking draconian (I have the urge to impose order severely at times, but I resist - don't see that as my position), and (3) to let some of the steam of the participants burn off. if you have a problem with my mediation style, you are free to use my talk page to discuss the matter with me, but I'd prefer that you don't go posting notices about me on ANI without notification. since you've brought it up, however, would you like to discuss the matter now? --Ludwigs2 07:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments make it quite clear that I had no idea who the mediator was. It is not announced on the page. Presumably, since I was inscribed early in the mediation, you should have sought my approval. Unfortunately I think there have been many long term problems with your own edits on wikipedia, which indicate that you are not a neutral party and completely unsuitable as a mediator. Your edits are wikilawyering par excellence - you've been doing so above. From the archived talk page, you appear to have hijacked the initial stages of mediation conducted under the two experienced mediators mentioned above. I suggest the mediation be terminated and the article returned to some previous state, so that it looks slightly less like illiterate right wing propaganda. No experienced mediator would have allowed this nonsense to stay in the article for two weeks. This is just disruption, Ludwigs2, and possibly worthy of a block of some kind. This should be discussed here by administrators and experienced mediators, not hidden away on your talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Just a reminder of what you as mediator allowed in the article for two weeks:

Ten argument supporting the existence of race differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks

• 1. The two races have evolved independently of one another and in different environments over a period of one hundred thousand years. When two populations evolve in isolation from one another during such period there are differences that appear in all areas where there are possibilities of genetic variation. The extreme environmentalist position, assuming there are no intellectual differences between races defy the general principle of biological evolution and can be seen as impossible.
• 2. The Africans obtain an I.Q quite similar in many different locations: this must be regarded as evidence of a strong genetic factor.
• 3. The high heritability found among twins in America, Europe, Japan and India shows that intelligence is largely determined by genetic factors.
• 4.The cranial volume differences between Caucasian and black show the existence of genetic factors, because the heritability of cranial volume is 0.9 and the correlation between intelligence and cranial volume is 0.4.

• 5. Many egalitarians have suggested that white racism could reduce the IQ of blacks, but there is no explanation that can explain how racism might reduce IQ, and then why the IQ of black Africans in Africa would he 67? If racism diminishes intelligence, it is curious that the Jews of America and England have an IQ of 108, then they have been exposed to racism for centuries. The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930.
• 6. Black children adopted by white parents get the same scores as predicting racial. There is still difference of 17 IQ points between whites and blacks raised in the same conditions. Being raised by white adoptive parents had no positive effect on the intelligence of blacks.
• 7. The IQ of hybrids is intermediate between the two parental breeds, as well as the cranial volume, which is also the intermediary between the two parental breeds.
• 8. It has been shown a significant difference between races in terms of reaction time. The reaction time is correlated with IQ, because both of them are eficiente signs of central nervous system. The average Caucasian react more quickly to a stimulus.
• 9. The more white admixture, the greater the average brain weight of an African high (genetic testing beyond the color of the skin).
• 10. Racial differences in cranial capacity are correlated with 76 musculoskeletal traits identified in standard works of evolutionary anatomy as systematically related to an increase in cranial capacity in hominids.

Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I offered to take over the mediation a good long while ago, when the last mediator quit in frustration: there was a sizable discussion about it, and the editors who participated in the discussion all agreed. I'm sorry you missed that discussion, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it now unless you want to reopen the issue on the mediation page.

I have been expecting the participants in the mediation to reach some consensus which would mean a major revision of the entire article, and I was aware that the participants were monitoring the article itself for changes. sorry this bit slipped in, but it would have been gone by now had the consensus been reached

In deference to you, I've gone ahead and announced a stronger approach on the mediation page, and will begin pursuing it tomorrow. beyond that, I am not concerned with your (thoroughly misguided) impressions of me. As I said, if you have a problem with me personally, take it up on my talk page (or through one of the numerous dispute resolution processes wikipedia has to offer). However, if you just want to talk shit about me, no one is interested. --Ludwigs2 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is in a hopeless state. I have no idea why you sought to mediate such a controversial article, given your own record on wikipedia. (It is not dissimilar to GoRight offering to act as Abd's mentor.) That you missed the above glaringly awful insertion, until I pointed it out now, is a clear sign that you don't have the qualities required to mediate. At least User:Reubzz left personal messages on talk pages and clearly edited the mediation pages to explain what was going on. You don't even seem to have bothered monitoring the article recently. Please stop treating wikipedia as some kind of game. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

again, this is a topic you should bring up on the mediation page. if you don't want me as mediator, I'm certainly not imposing myself on the situation, and a nice discussion of the matter there would resolve the issue. or is there some reason you keep wanting to harp on it here, where it won't do a darned bit of good?

with respect to your problematic passage - if you have good reason to remove it, remove it. you don't need a mediator for that, unless it becomes a matter of contention between you and another editor. as I said, it is not my place as mediator to make content decisions for you. --Ludwigs2 09:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Mathsci, we have you yourself not removed this section, since you seem to object to it? I am mediating this article, which limits my capacity to make editorial decisions (I'm not here to take sides in editorial disputes, but rather to try to develop some kind of consensus). as an interested editor, you should be the one monitoring the article for inappropriate material. --Ludwigs2 08:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In its present state I wouldn't touch the article - this was only one of the things wrong with it. I wrote above that it should be returned to a much earlier state. I see very little hope for it at the moment, given the current circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

if you are not going to touch the article, then shall I remove your name from the list of mediation participants?

The possibility of reverting the article to an earlier state was discussed in mediation, but there was no consensus on the matter, and I didn't want to impose a solution. the issue will be resolved as soon as we reach a consensus in mediation, since the entire page will be revised, or you can reopen that thread for further discussion if you like.

so, now, what is your reason for wanting this section removed? is it unsourced? no. is it a misrepresentation? I don't know, do you? is it clear synthesis? not that I can see, but I'm willing to be convinced (because I don't like the passage any more than you do). give me an argument for removing it and I will remove it; don't expect me as mediator to remove material that (superficially, at least) seems to conform to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ludwigs2 09:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I only add citations and sources to that article, and very seldom. I am aware, however, of the academic literature. I'll leave you to figure out on your own what is wrong with the above passage and why it blatantly violates several of wikipedia's core policies. As a clue, here is an article edit I made yesterday.[19] Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

well, thanks for the hint, but I have no idea what it means. are you making some comment about referencing or complaining that the statistics in the section is bad? can race be modeled using hermite polynomials? and what does this have to do with core policies? --Ludwigs2 09:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking questions like that, you seem clueless about editing wikipedia. The statements are improperly sourced from a single source. Statements like "The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930" need some kind of inline citation and exact quotation. Controversial statements, that are improperly sourced, are not normally permitted on wikipedia. Likewise the statement about the average African IQ. Honestly, Ludwigs2, your statements about editing articles are singularly clueless. With less than 1,500 article edits to your name, that doesn't seem very surprising. Your replies at the moment are verging on "trolling". Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some of Mathsci's observations, some oversight by experienced editors may be necessary. I get the feeling that this mediation is taking place tucked away in a hidden corner of wikipedia and without the support of the broader community. It would be also useful if some experienced editors could evaluate whether the mediation in its current state has the potential of being fruitful. If it has no potential, then maybe as Mathsci suggested, it would be best to have it terminated. If there is still hope, then some supervision would be necessary to ensure that the mediation process and its results are consistent with the views of the broader community. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Mathsci:If that's your belief, then again, I don't know why you haven't removed the passage. someone else went ahead and did it, and so the problem is obviated, but still...

@ Wapondaponda: again, I'm not doing this for love or money. if you don't want me to mediate, bring it up on the mediation talk page as a matter for discussion. I'm not interested in being supervised (though I'm happy to take any advice anyone has to offer). if you want another mediator to take over, find one and suggest them

Now, let's close this discussion (which is not an ANI matter in any sense of the word) and reopen it on the mediation talk page if you so desire

To be precise the material was removed [20], then reverted [21], then removed again [22]. Hardly straightforward. If I hadn't pointed it out, this nonsense would still be in the article. How I edit has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. When mediation started I made a careful statement about what should happen to the article, which had consensus. Your own actions as self-appointed "mediator" have not helped in the slightest. I only see complete disarray. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I have not made any comments concerning you being a mediator. My concern is with the process in general. With the persistent incivility, I have just gotten the feeling that the mediation is on autopilot, and nobody cares. Currently Slrubenstein is probably the only experienced editor participating in the mediation. I would be happier if there were more experienced editors who are not effectively WP:SPAs looking at the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<- I have to agree with Muntuwandi here. Slrubenstein is one of the few experienced editors remaining in the discussions. My own feeling is that an administrator experienced in mediation, such as Shell Kinney or WJBscribe, should be consulted about the current anomolous situation. Since Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is relatively inexperienced both as an editor and a mediator, he should certainly not be trying to suppress discussion, which involves his role amongst other things. Mathsci (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There also seems to be an inaccessible part of the talk archives result from this edit.[23] That is now in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 0. It contained the opening statements amongst other things. I have no idea how that can be corrected. Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

okie dokie. feel free to continue this discussion and let me know if I'm needed. for my part, I will ignore this thread (and and any results it produces) and wait for you to open a discussion of the topic on the mediation page, where it belongs. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record: Ludwigs did not "appoint himself" mediator. We held a discussion about Ludwigs taking over the role of mediator, and all of the then-active editors (myself, Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, Aprock, Alun, Mikemikev, Captain Occam, TechnoFaye) agreed to it. I think Ludwigs is doing just fine given the circumstances, and I don't think the hyper-criticism taking place here is helping anything. --Aryaman (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig is not doing an unreasonable job, although he certainly has a hands off approach, and seems to be aligned with a specific faction of editors. This hasn't been a huge problem, but it does creep out from time to time. A.Prock (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the mediator is not impartial, but aligned with one of the factions involved in the mediation, and he allows stuff to go into the article without check (just curious - is it stuff that's favored by the faction he's aligned with?), but all that is just peachy with you and he's doing a bang-up job, all considered? Is that the gist of what you've just said?

Who's in charge of that zoo? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two things you ought to keep in mind about this. The first is that assuming Aprock’s opinion here is the same one he’s expressed on the mediation talk page, his opinion is that Ludwig is biased against his side, not in favor of it. So if Ludwig’s possible bias against Aprock’s position isn’t enough to bother Aprock, that should mean it probably isn’t enough to matter significantly.

And the other thing to keep in mind is that both of the “factions” involved in this article have claimed that Ludwig is biased against them. If you look at some of TechnoFaye’s posts on the mediation talk page, you’ll see that she’s accused Ludwig of being biased against her position at least as often as Aprock has accused him of the same thing in his own case, even though within the context of this debate, TechnoFaye’s and Aprock’s positions are pretty much exact opposites of one another. Ludwig gets accused of being biased against both positions about as frequently as one another, and which it is depends on the position of the person making the accusation—everyone always claims he’s biased against them, not in favor of them.

I don’t think it’s possible for Ludwig to be simultaneously biased against both of the two groups that are debating over this article. What looks more likely to me is that both of these groups are unhappy with having to compromise, so Ludwig’s unwillingness to concede to all of the demands from either side is being mistaken for bias. And that’s a problem with some of the users involved in the article, not with Ludwig.

Personally, I’ve found Ludwig’s hands-off style of mediation to be bothersome on occasion (such as when he didn’t intervene in situations where we’d asked him to, or where he’d told us he was going to), but bias is one problem that I don’t think he has. I’m also expecting the inaction problem that I mentioned to improve now that he’s promised to become more actively involved in the mediation. I think that Ludwig’s ability to continue mediating the article at all says a lot about his ability in this respect, considering that two mediators with considerably more experience (Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith), working together, gave up on this after spending less time on it than Ludwig has. Based on what happened with Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith, I suspect that almost any two mediators placed in Ludwig’s position probably would have given up long before this. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Ludwigs2 has longstanding problems on wikipedia. In the past on Race and intelligence, there have been a series of problematic editors. Fourdee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by Jimbo; MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked; Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a long-time problematic editor who with Zero g (talk · contribs), was taken under Elonka's wing. Ludwigs2 was one of the few users who claimed that Jagz should return to editing (he used to make good edits to scouting articles, as Rlevse pointed out). Ludwigs2 is currently having a feud with BullRangifer/Fyslee and has a history of pushing fringe science ideas on altmed articles. His cavalier attitude to the nonsense that was inserted into R&I underlines why he is totally unsuitable as a mediator in a controversial article where the mainstream academic viewpoint has to be made crystal clear. His reaction to this material seemed to be an attempt to game the system rather than assume the reponsibilities of a mediator: he immediately personalised the discussion in a kind of wikilawyering way, asking why I didn't like the material and why I had not removed it; at no stage did he recognize it for the blatant violation of multiple wikipedia policies that it evidently is. It might be that he has been sympathetic to users pushing a certain point of view, like Captain Occam and Varoon Arya. Irrespective of this, however, his past and present activities on-wiki disqualify him from acting as a mediator. There seems to be no good reason for continuing mediation in these circumstances. It started off fine, once events had moved past the brief guest appearance of would-be mediator Reubzz (talk · contribs), but is now in a total mess. Those pushing minoritarian points of view might possibly benefit from this mess, but the article certainly won't. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, mediattion is not about control of a page, it is about resolving disputes among editors. So far, mediation has focused on resolving disputes among a list of editors who have been regular or active contributors to the page; the mediator has focused on disputes among these individuals, and has not focused on the article itself. I have no problem with this - I think the plan is IF we can all agree on the overal structure and contents of the article, at that point the entire article will be redrafted. Again, I have no problem with this.

Ludwigs2 is mediating because no one else would. I think that the mediationis taking a long time and could use a more forceful mediator, but given the questions about Ludwigs2's sympathies, i can understand why he has not been very forceful. Mathsci, are you volunteering to take over mediation? Is there someone else who is qualified, acceptable to parties, and willing?

I will tell you my major complaint about the mediation and the mediator. Several people who signed on as parties to the mediation - Wobble, Ramdrake, and Futurebird, among others - have not participated for some time. This in my mind realy delegitimizes the mediation, because it is no longer a mediation between editors who are in conflict, it is becoming a discussion board for editors who all agree with one another (Varoon Arya, Captain Occan, Mikemikev, Technofaye, to a lesser degree DJ). I am not saying that these people should in any way be silenced or their views deprecated. I am saying that when the people who have most been in conflict with the parties I just named ar not actively participating in the mediation, then it is no longer a mediation, it is no longer a form of dispute resolution - it is turning into a wikiproject run by Varoon Arya and Captain Occam and friends.

I do not want Varoon Arya and Captain Occam to leave - they are important parties to the mediation. But if this is to be an honest form of conflict resolution, then the parties n conflict with Varoon Arya and Captain Occam have to participate too.

I do not know why Futurebird, Ranmdrake, and Wobble are not active. There may be other editors who have contributed to the article and who have been in conflict with Varoon Arya or Captain Occam, who have not been actively participating in the mediation. (Maybe including MathSci??) I think one of the tasks of the mediator is to ensure that an environment that makes parties feel that their participatin in the mediation is worth it, be maintained. Rather than question the mediators motives or agenda, I ask him simply to contact those partices to the mediation who seem to have disappeared; find out why they are no longer active; if any of their reasons have to do with the dynamics on the mediation page, then I think themediator has a responsibility to change the dynamics so that all parties feel that the mediation is making progress and that their participation is worth it. Ludwigs2, you could start by communicationg with Futurebird, Ramdrake, Wobble, I suggest off-wiki - to learn their perceptions and views and discuss what kinds of changes could bring them 9and others) back, and then consider whether such changes really would help the mediation.

But when half the parties to mediation have disappeared, I take it as a sign that there is a major problem with the diation. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And while the mediator is concentrating on the parties and ignoring the article, we're presenting very egegious misinformation to the public. The mediation process must take a reasonable amount of time, it can't go on for so long that the project's quality control suffers. WP:FRINGE needs to be applied to this topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Witchhunt

Allow me to point out that User:Mathsci and user:Beyond My Ken have hijacked this thread entirely to make bizarre and uncivl attacks on me and my character. let's point out some basic facts:

1. The thread was originally about user:TechnoFaye, but that discussion seems to have disappeared
2. The consideration of whether I should stay or step down from mediation belongs on the mediation page. I'm happy to do so if that's the consensus, and will not do so if the consensus there is that I should remain
3. The issue of whether the mediation has failed and should be closed belongs on the mediation page
4. The issue of the state of the article itself is irrelevant: I'm not an admin, I'm not the page watchdog, and I am trying to maintain a neutral position in any disputes.
5. The issue of whether I have a particular bias, while relevant, belongs on the mediation page with respect to point 1. I don't personally believe I've displayed anything like a bias on the page (and have made an effort to keep my viewpoints, where and when I have them, strictly private).

I have had disputes with both of these editors before, and apparently they are holding a pretty strong grudge against me, but that is not an excuse for them to go off spitting and screaming whenever they see my name mentioned in any context. If they have some actionable claim to make against me, let them make it in a proper place and context. If they don't, to hell with them both.

ANI is not the correct place for a pair of editors to indulge in overt idiocy of this sort.

I'd like an admin to formally close this discussion as a witchhunt, please, otherwise I will be obliged to open a new section on this page asking for sanctions against these editors under wp:NPA, and this situation will get progressively more unpleasant. --Ludwigs2 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no response. with that in mind, I will once again archive the above section as non-ANI material. Fair warning: any editor who wants to unarchive it should first provide a detailed explanation of why this is an issue needing ANI attention, in this section, or I will ask to have you blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing. --Ludwigs2 (adding belated sig)

It's unlikely that such a demand would have any effect other than to get you blocked for WP:OWN and WP:DE. 24 hours is the usual minimum time allowed for people to make comments, not five. People here come from every time zone on the planet. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. indeed. I can only say that Ludwigs2 is quite mistaken and again, by his intemperate and exaggerated response, illustrates his unsuitability for any role in supervising other users' edits on wikipedia. Since Ludwigs2 is now using intemperate words like "idiocy", here is a reminder of the opening statement in mediation, incorrectly archived in Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence/Archive_0. "I by and large agree with Slrubenstein's statement, particularly that the focus of the article should become stable and that the article talk page should not become a forum for open-ended debate. The article at present does not cover all of the recent major academic contributions to this debate and should make every attempt to do so in an even-handed way. The hereditarian point of view should be carefully outlined, but without giving a false impression of its degree of acceptance. As Slr has written the "open letter" in the WSJ by a self-selected and like-minded group of academics should not receive WP:UNDUE weight, if other distinguished academics have expressed disagreement (as is the case). At present there has not been a systematic attempt to ensure that the broad spectrum of mainstream academic opinion has been properly represented. One problem is that the very narrow topic of a possible correlation between race, whatever that means, and intelligence, whatever that means, has not been widely studied in academia. This makes it hard to write an article on it for an encyclopedia, since many aspects will remain inconclusive because they either have not been sufficiently studied or have not been deemed worthy to be studied. Scrupulous attention should be paid to not ignoring or dismissing important sources, particularly those by eminent academics. Perhaps the most important point is that all key sources should first be carefully identified. These should be carefully summarised in the article, without prejudice. If only a handful of academics favour a particular viewpoint, i.e. it is a minoritarian viewpoint, that should be made clear. There does not seem to be any evidence that "Race and Intelligence" is a major topic of research, discussion or debate in the majority of academic departments specializing in psychometrics or related disciplines. We should be extremely cautious not to approach the writing of this article with that viewpoint. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is not assisting in any way in helping the article to become stable as I described in November. Quite the contrary - there has been a proliferation of minoritarian viewpoints. The threats, bullying language and unsupported insults that Ludwigs2 has now resorted to are inadmissible. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

The evidence presented by Mathsci above indicates that Ludwigs2 lacks the necessary experience to mediate such a contentious case, and some questions have been raised about his impartiality. I think we should thank Ludwigs for trying to help, but ask that he step aside and allow someone with more experience, especially in judging and weighing academic sources, to take over. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. Two mediators with considerably more experience than Ludwig, Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith, have already attempted to mediate this article and given up after approximately a month. Whatever you think about Ludwig’s lack of experience, he’s been able to accomplish more in terms of reaching consensus than these two experienced mediators were able to accomplish working together. We now have a list of resolved points that all of the editors actively involved in the mediation have reached consensus about, and we’re also very close to reaching consensus about the article’s overall structure. And this isn’t just because certain perspectives about this topic aren’t being represented in the mediation case: even though Alun and Ramdrake have stopped participating in the mediation, their perspective about this does not differ significantly from the perspective of Slrubenstein, Aprock and Muntuwandi, who have been included in the consensus we’ve reached about the items I mentioned.

Experience evidently isn’t the only thing that matters here, since a pair of experienced mediators were able to accomplish virtually nothing with this article, while Ludwig has enabled us to reach consensus on a fair amount. If Ludwig is replaced with another mediator based on this criterion, it will most likely be a repeat of what we experienced while Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith were mediating it.

Mathsci was part of the mediation for this article early on, but for some reason he dropped out of it shortly after it began. Since he hasn’t been able to influence the direction it’s taken beyond that point, some of what the rest of us have decided since then evidently differs from what he would have preferred. If he had continued to participate in the mediation over the past four months, this might not have happened. But it has, and that’s really what this discussion is about, apart from the personal conflicts Mathsci is bringing up that he’s had with Ludwig in the past. If Mathsci is dissatisfied with the direction this article’s mediation has taken, the proper place to bring it up would be in the mediation itself. He’s been signed into it for months; he’s just been choosing to not participate in it, and now he’s bringing up his resulting disagreements with it at AN/I instead.

I agree that this discussion doesn’t belong at AN/I. Where it belongs is on the mediation talk page, and if Mathsci were to bring up his issues there in the same way as everyone who has expectations for this article, then Ludwig would probably listen to them in the same way that he’s listened to the same thing from everyone else there. You’ll notice that everyone commenting in this thread who’s actively involved in the mediation, regardless of the position they take, approves of the job Ludwig has been doing with this. All of us who are actually subjected to his authority think he’s using it in an acceptable manner, and the only person who thinks otherwise is someone who’s been voluntarily choosing not to participate in the mediation since before Ludwig was in charge of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory Debating Union, User:JJJ999, 121.45.216.232 & 121.45.196.175

I would like an administrator to review the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union.

It appears to me that User:JJJ999 (plus the IP's he uses 121.45.216.232 & 121.45.196.175) are acting as if he/she are owners of the article.

I have a number of issues with the article :

1. I question the notability of the ACTDU (it has been questioned before see Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#Article issues). Every time I have tried to tag it it gets reverted here or here.

2. It contains many 'refs' that are not in any way relevant to the article, that he insists on having in, for example in the lead :

• from hotfrog.com.au a directory entry for the ACTDU
• From the SA government - only thing that is relevant is a Link to the ACTU website.
• radford.com.au which is dead and no indication in the article as to what it was meant to help with,
• surch on an IP for "ACT debating team" that times out

At the end of the article, without any indication of why they are there or what they help with :

• Accessmylibrary.com - a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• ABC Stateline Home - transcript from a ABC radio show that also does not mention the ACTDU.
• Factiva.com a dead Factiva lookup with no indication of what it was or supports.

3. I believe that User:JJJ999 may have a WP:COI, as evidenced by the fact he has hard copies of the AGM minutes here also given the copyright statement in the two photos on the page here and here indicating he created (took) them along with a comment here where he says he can get the copy write permission sent in.

4. I think the article may be Over detailed and contain "excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience".

I have posted a RfC on the talk page about the first point but as of yet have had no response (Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#RFC : Notability tag)

I have also posted on the 3RR board as User:JJJ999 and the IP's made 4 reverts on Sunday (here) to which User:JJJ999 responded here but this was archived without attention - I dispute what he has written but have decided not to engage with him at this time. I have made attempts to point out my issues on the Talk page here and here.

So I am wondering the best way to move this article forward as I am sure that as soon as I start trying to fix the above issues User:JJJ999 will start reverting again. Codf1977 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I find RfC a fairly uncertain step in dispute resolution, since you never who (if anyone) will show up. You may wish to withdraw the RfC and try one of the other methods of dispute resolution, such as WP:COIN or WP:CNB. If you are certain that there are only two of you involved, WP:3O can be a good forum to get assistance. I have generally found the volunteers who work there willing to discuss issues thoroughly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I cant be certain, but am 99% sure the three are one. This edit confirms two are one in the same and the other one looks like a WP:DUCK. Codf1977 (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Then WP:3O may be your best bet. Typically, I'd list a problem like that and wait. If you don't get a response within a couple of days, then it may be necessary to seek help elsewhere. If you do, make it clear where else you've asked and why you're asking again, so it's obvious that you're not "forum shopping" but just looking for input. Having already interacted with the article as an admin, I don't think I should myself weigh in on content issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I do not want any appearance of forum shopping so will wait a few days to see if anyone else here has any advice, and if not will go to WP:3O and make sure I cross link to here and the RfC. Codf1977 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• I had a reply earlier, and it seems to have been removed. Basically, this is forum shopping, because you haven't been able to build consensus. Go to the talk page, and complain there. Anyway, this is not copyvio, this was covered. Next time wait for consensus and don't accuse others of bad faith and editing warring that you were only recently warned about yourself.JJJ999 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT "forum shopping" which is defined as "repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like" as there was no response to either the RfC or the 3RR posts it can't be and secondly I made sure I disclosed and linked to those.

Also please refrain from making totally false claims about me being warned recently for editing warring as a way of deflecting attention away from your five bans for your edit warring (see here). - I have only been warned once in October last year here when my account was less than 2 weeks old and I had only 1 revert in 24 hours in any case - if you disagree produce the dif. Codf1977 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, this doesn't look like forum shopping to me. It might be worth leaving a note at the Australian noticeboard WP:AWNB to get more eyes on the article. The article looks clearly problematic and I agree the notability is far from clear. It should probably either go through AFD or by merged into a parent article. I don't know what the factiva link is meant to link to but searching factiva for "Australian Capital Territory Debating Union" for all dates/all regions/etc brings up zero results. Sarah 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, the more eyes that look at the atrial the better IMO. But to avoid even the smell of forum shopping and so as not to give JJJ999 yet another place to have a go at my motives I am not going to post there, but please don't let that stop anyone else. Codf1977 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'm tiring of having to respond in so many different places/forums to your concerns. I've noted on the talkpage a number of sources, including some which were just temporarily removed during a BLP claim, and which can easily be brought back (even minus the subjects names being brought back, it's obviously easy to bring back the sources themselves). You haven't responded or built consensus on my talk page merge replies, so I suggest you go do that, and stop complaining in every place/forum you can find.JJJ999 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be careful to jump to any conclusions that this User is involved in sockpuppetry. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground

User:Factsontheground has been the subject of scrutiny and controversy the last couple of days.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#User Factsontheground using his talk page as a forum and to launch personal attacks should be reopened. Factsontheground has come back from the 24hr block inciting more issues with a user page[24] in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC (as mentioned here). I understand she is frustrated. She has reason to be to some extent. There have been more allegations against her made since she has returned and of course the revisiting of past transgressions. This isn't about those though. Is her user page disruptive? Does it stir up the battlefield mentality already seen in a contentious topic area? Can it be blanked and the user asked again to stop?Cptnono (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

She imply that those who oppose her edits are rasicts (see Anti-Arabism and Wikipedia section on her user page). I think it's disruptive.--Gilisa (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, SarekOfVulcan has already warned her about using her Wikipedia page to make comments about the supposed racism of other Wikipedia users. I concur with the enforcement of WP:UP#POLEMIC. SGGH ^ping! 13:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Infact she was blocked for 24 hours recently for PA against editors (I'm among those) as well as removing two comments by two different editors (me for one) from article's talk page. Then she used her talk page in violation of WP:UPNOT [25] and her talk page was blocked as well.--Gilisa (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, have a look at the changes she made to her userpage since this discussion started. Clearly a disruption only disruptive account, and i propose we just RBI it. Seeing the recent complaints and ANI reports in such a short timespan I do not suspected that anything positive will come from user in the long run, unless behavioral changes are made. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to enforce another block if we agree it is needed. She has removed the content having noted this thread, though. Same length as before? SGGH ^ping! 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that I would like to see her blocked, but blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. If the threat of it alone was enough to encourage a better understanding then it would not be appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet given past conduct it might very well be preventative. SGGH ^ping! 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

She has also just given this to Excirial and docked some more warnings from her talk (though she has the right to remove anything from her talk if she so wishes, but I suspect her motives for doing so.) SGGH ^ping! 13:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed in two discussions I was involved today she violate several of WP guidelines regarding the use of TP and attidue toward other users. As can be seen here [26] (clear PA-but I wasn't involved directly in this issue so maybe it's not relevant) and here [27] were I asked her to stop using the talk page for soap boxing and as a forum, but she only hush me in incivil manner. The problem is that she keep seeing herself as victim (as specifically can be understood from her UP) and unwilling to take any responsability for what she do. And it continue like that for a long time with everyday bring something new. So far she was only warned time and again or was treated softly. I don't have the time needed to that and I already spent much time in issues she was involved with, but I think that her relevant history should be reviewed and finally appropriate measurements to be taken.P.s. She just blanked her page at 13:20 [28], nevertheless, she was still editing its meaning shortly before [29]--Gilisa (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this rule. Now I am. I removed the content that was bothering people. This can be marked resolved.

Secondly, on the topic of polemics, Mbz1 is using her talk page to attack myself and others. She has a picture of dogs chasing a girl subtitled "Me and the hounds"; she continually calls me and other editors "Wikihounds". Factsontheground (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As can be understood from the links given in the opening, you were specifically noticed by Cptnono that you are in violation with wikipedia guidelines -but yet until ANI was submitted you choosed not to remove it from your user page. I can't see how Mbz1 is relevant in your defence, to put it mildly. Looking into your previous edits and your correspondence with other editors, it is quite clear that you are familiar with WP gidelines including these concerning with TPs-but even if you didn't know this specific one -you was warned by Cptnono and two days ago your TP was blocked for the very same thing.--Gilisa (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Permanent Ban. This very belligerent user spends a disproportionate amount of wiki-time on drama. It's most likely not his fault, but everyone else's, but this project would be better off without all the disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. She blaned the page after people complained about it. She has just come off a block where people taunted her on her talk page, one of whom was blocked for his edits. stop the witchunting and wikidrama. Go bac to editing an encyclopedia. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support No signs of improvment for her are seen in the near future. So far she was treated way too softly. Some examples from the last 2-3 days are given here. Here you can see she stalked after user Breein1007[30] and reverted 6 of his edits in 6 different articles in less than 10 minutes. Here she did it again to Plot Spoiler[31] (5 reverts in 5 different article in less than 50 minutes). She is aware of WP:HOUN and this is a pattern. It's only the tip of the iceberg even if we refer only the last week-realy, I just don't have the time to run after her history now. --Gilisa (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)Oppose very strongly. This editor has already been treated much more harshly than other editors, for a relatively minor infringement. She has indeed been harassed and abused, including attacks on her user talk page when she was banned from replying -- attacks for which another editor has been blocked. I can understand FoG feeling aggrieved, and here sense of unequal treatment. This complaint reeks of a witchhunt, and should never have been submitted. RolandR (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Marking this as resolved as the original problem is solved by Facts blanking of their userpage. There is absolutely no way this will can be stretched to a ban. This has already turned pile-on & general airing of grievences so lets just quit with the drama now. Misarxist (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Misarxist, I fail to see where the drama is and how self blanking her screen, after ANI was submitted and after ignoring warning, solve the problem-which is, as described, much larger.--Gilisa (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreolved:Misarxist, I see no admin tag on your UP. Please leave it for an admin to come over it. That's the all meaning of this board.--Gilisa (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, put the stick down and back away from the horse. Factsontheground (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the Administrators' noticeboard. Editors without admin authority have no right to add this tag here. --Gilisa (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not true at all. An admin is just an editor with extra tools. They don't have unique authority to mark discussions resolved. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This ANI is call for admin intervention and not matter how you turn it, you had no right to put the tag. Certainly not less than an hour from case opening.--Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, plain and simple. And I didn't place the tag, someone else did. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, This is becoming rather ridiculous and vengeful. The user has deleted all the messages that were deemed inappropriate, so calling for a "permanent ban" is simply outrageous. Yazan (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully. People are being needlessly vindictive here. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no admin either, but I agree with Misarxist that talk of a permanent ban is very premature here, and that the discussion had degenerated. The initial complaint does seem to have been resolved. I'm sure there are other conduct issues to deal with, but I wonder if ANI is really the best forum to discuss them in. Factsontheground does not seem to be running amuck right at the moment, so I don't see a great need to rush to judgement. --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Avenue, premature, certainly very premature, are not the right words here. If you review her editing history you hardly can get to any other conclusion than that significan sanctions are needed.--Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{ec} *Comment The user has just come off a short block apparently just as disruptive as ever; certainly not taking it with grace. In fact, the hounding still continues with this diff [32], the personal attacks here [33], and the unwillingness to accept a verdict and learn from it here and here. I think [quite] a bit more cooling off time is required, with clear warnings about any continued harassment, and/or personal attacks on other editors and administrators. Agree that it is immature to seek a permaban at this time, but some real time off might well be appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no need to take such drastic measures yet - there is no vandalism which needs to be handled at once, so there is no direct need for measures. Just one thing: Fact, this kind of edit is known as canvassing. Best not to do it. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose Is this "Dump on Factsontheground Week"? Mbz1 gets off scot-free for her abusive behavior, and there's talk about perma-banning Factsontheground?!? People, you need to pull your heads out of your hindquarters. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

MBz was blocked just 4 days ago, so I don't know where you get this "Mbz1 gets off scot-free" disinformation from. Other users' actions are irrelevant and do not excuse this user's grossly inappropriate behavior. And it would have behooved you to at least mention that your comment was solicited by the user in question, in violation of WP:CANVASS. All in all, not a great contribution from an administrator. We have higher standard here. My Canada (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Mbz1 was blocked for one day for behavior that is at least as disruptive, and since this is the same noticeboard where her behavior was discussed, yes, it is relevant.

(2) Do you see the comment above mine? The one that says I was canvassed? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) MBz was blocked for a day 4 days ago, for another day the week before that, and once more a month earlier, by none other than you. That's 3 blocks totaling 72 hours in less than 2 months, so she's clearly not getting off scot free. You obviously know that, as you were one of the blockers, yet you still posted a falsehood ("Mbz1 gets off scot-free for her abusive behavior"). Please, at a minimum, strike out that comment. An apology would not be out of place, either. And no, the fact that other users are misbhaving, and being reported on this noticeboard (which is where all such behavior is reproted) is not relevant to the issue at hand. Open a thread about MBz1 if you think her actions arein need of admin attention.

(2) No, I didn't see it, nor would most people, unless they bothered to actually go and click on that link. And having someone else call out the actions that led to your misbehaviour does not excuse your lack of disclosure. The fact that you did not disclose you were canvassed with a request to "put in a good word", and then proceeded to do just that is really beneath contempt. I am pondering if an Admin RfC is in order. I'll collect some more deatils and perhaps pursue that route. My Canada (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If my "misbehaviour" is "really beneath contempt", please feel free to bring it up in its own section on this page or start an RfC/U. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Malik Shabazz. I keep seeing these discussions about Factsontheground pop up here and in pretty much every case, there is no real clear right and wrong. And it's starting to reek of a gangup of people who have had disputes with Factsontheground against her. I do not support a block, but would support a decision barring these various editors (Factsonthegrund, Mbz1, and the others who keep filing these reports) from interacting with each other. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Multixfer, may I please ask you to be so kind and to provide few differences to confirm that I "keep filing these reports"? And If by any chance you would not be able to find that conformation, may I please ask you to be so kind and retract your words? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this stupid fight. I did not accuse you of "filing these reports", I clarified that by specifying "others", whilst separating that portion from you with commas. I stand by my statement that everyone involved has significant culpability in this foolishness and that the community would be best served by barring them all from interacting with each other. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess it is just a normal reaction of one, who states something with no evidences, as you just did, dear Multixfer. Okay. For the record: I have not filed any single report to AN/I for any user involved in I/P conflict articles editing. And you know what, I agree to be topic-banned on I/P conflict articles indefinitely, and in effect immediately as long as factsontheground would have the same editing restrictions because it is the only way of " barring" us from interactions. My proposal is absolutely serious. Please do consider this. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as far too draconian for the alleged transgressions. Let's note that the only support comes from some of the hardened quarters of the I-P topic area battleground, re-mark this as resolved, and get back to business. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it is unwise to oblige editors by punishing another for behaviour that they are largely responsible for provoking. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support some sort of topic ban on the user, not a permaban. The community should show its displeasure at revenge-type behavior and stalking other users. The fact that those other users get provoked into responding in an uncivil manner (if that is the case) is no justification for ignoring the type of behavior illustrated above. Stellarkid (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited topic ban from I-P articles. Let's see some useful contributions from the editor in other areas of wikipedia. My Canada (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited topic ban from I-P articles per my comments below.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a permaban as things will not likely improve. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support because enough is indeed enough. Broccoli (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that all involved parties need to reconsider the way they interact with each other and their willingness to seek punitive sanctions, but user:factsontheground has not deserved to be singled out in this fashion. Unomi (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Facts has more than adequately demonstrated that she is a destructive editor.

(1) Most recently, she has served a proxy for the banner editor Orijentolog, reinserting his/her edit’s without explanation: [34], [35], [36].

(2) Constantly edit warring. This is completely unconstructive. On the page of Martin Kramer, for example, Facts wantonly violated WP:BLP over and over again: [37], [38]

(3) Lastly, as more than abundantly observed, Facts is incapable of maintaining any sort of basic civility. She constantly violates both WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith in her accusations that other editors are racist and have an agenda and even worse, that there is a some sort of conspiracy on Wikipedia to persecute self-identified pro-Palestinian editors. As noted below, she also has stalked Mbz1 out of pure spite. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Plot Spoiler. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support because enough is indeed enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban on I/P conflict articles for user:mbz1 and user:factsontheground proposal

The two users factsontheground and me were discussed at this very board quite a few times already. Our editing style creates constant disruption to others. We both were accused in personal attacks and incivility, and we both were blocked in the last week. I believe we both should be topic-banned on I/P conflict editing for at least three months for the sake of the project, for saving other editors time and for saving space at AN/I

• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose --Mbz1 you can take a break whenever you want. user:factsontheground may require a bit more of a hint. Please relax a little!  :) Stellarkid (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Stellar, I am very relaxed. I will not be upset by topic ban at all. You know why? Because I have so many different interests around wikipedia and commons that I would never be bored, on the other hand FOTG is practicaly a WP:SPA.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban on Mbz1 Support topic ban on Factsontheground: Please note that Mbz1 is not the subject of this ANI and her overall behavior don't justify topic ban. FOTG behavior on the other hand, certainly does.--Gilisa (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So you want to sacrifice a pawn for a queen? I don't think so.

Just. Stop. It.

I haven't done anything wrong. I blanked my user page. There is nothing to discuss. This issue is resolved. Factsontheground (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This "I havn't done anything wrong" you refrain on is one of the main problems.--Gilisa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• • For the attention of the community: The following are only few edits of our "queen" that were reverted in the last few days: [39];[40];[41]; [42]. If the "queen" is proxy editing for banned user user:Orijentolog, the topic ban is well over due.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for accusing Factsontheground of proxy-editing, or is that just another insult thrown at her? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I said "if". The edits I reffer to was not reverted by me, but by other editor. BTW while we are at the subject. Did factsontheground have any basis in accusing me in using socks at the article discussion page, or it was just another insult thrown at me, and where were you, when factsontheground did not even let me to remove those PA from the aricle disussion page? Any more questions?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wheelbarrow. Since you don't have any reason to assert that Factsontheground is proxy-editing, you're just engaging in more of your insults. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I don't know regarding the proxies issue but it change nothing on FOTG overall behavior, which is bvery disruptive. To remind, Mbz1 is not the subject of this ANI.--Gilisa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, I bet Shabazz knows that, but with all his fairness he brings me up everywhere he can. I was not even going comment on the thread at all, if it was not for the comment by administrator Shabazz, who as always brought me up. As a matter of fact I was rather surprised by his statement because just the other day he explained to the user [43] waht WP:NOTTHEM means. Looks like Shabazz responding to canvasing got a litlle bit confused as usual :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I love you too. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that, you've told me that already few weeks ago. Remember? I guess you do not, confusion you know...:) Malik, please stop bringing me up every time you need to deffend your friend, and I will love you too :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - this is a discussion that screams out for an admin to archive, there is nothing happening here but gutter-sniping all around. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

_{No, it doesn't--Gilisa (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}

As one of the instigators of this mess, forgive me if I don't put much stock in your opinion. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiparty block - What next

All 3 primary participants in this have variously stepped across multiple lines in our user behavior policy over the last 24 hrs. They've all had prior warnings and are all aware of the policies; as it's escalating again, I have blocked all of Gilisa, Mbz1, and Factsontheground for 12 hours to push the sniping away long enough to start a proper longer term solution serious discussion here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I am proposing the following interaction ban:

Editors User:Mbz1 and User:Gilisa are collectively and individually banned from interacting with editor User:Factsontheground, and Factsontheground is reciprocally banned from interacting with Mbz1 and Gilisa.

This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.

If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

This would be logged at the edit restrictions page if enacted by community etc.

Clarification (requested below) - this restriction would be indefinite, until the community choses to revoke it, not fixed duration. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, that should reduce drama at source and remove any ambiguity about who's the guilty party. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with caveat. I believe these editors have been interaction banned for short periods before, and while it seemed to help cool things down, I also seem to remember one or more (minor) violations of those interaction bans. I support an interaction ban, but I'd like to see it given some teeth, and strongly enforced. ← George ^talk 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: It isn't clear what you mean by "This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other." Mutual participation is likely to lead to two editors modifying one another's contributions, isn't it? How, then, could two editors mutually edit an article and stay away from one another? Could you clarify? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If they non-constructively modify each others contributions, particularly reverting, then they're in violation and will be blocked. If the community believes that there's no chance that they could possibly be mature enough to handle avoiding that, that they'll necessarily violate it, then the topic bans (and I'd extend it to all of them - they're all at fault to some degree) should be enacted separately alongside this. I want to pose the two questions separately, not in one unified solution, as we have had luck in the past with interaction banning other editors without topic banning them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: just to clarify, are you proposing that this interaction ban be permanent? I gather so, from your comments on their talk pages, but I think it would be good to specify this above. --Avenue (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - I propose indefinite duration, until the community choses to review and revoke. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- Avenue (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- samj _in^out 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a measure to prevent disruption yet attempt to preserve those edits that are constructive to topics, such as they are. SGGH ^ping! 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Reluctant support. I think a permanent interaction ban may not be necessary. I would prefer one that is reviewed after 9 months, say (and expires if not reviewed), but something needs to be done, and this is the best solution proposed yet. -- Avenue (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Given the amount of time and energy this trio has been sucking up, this seems more than reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• What a mess this group has been generating. Support this proposal. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Unomi (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This is the second interaction ban that would be imposed on Mbz1, within the last week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Another way to look at it is that Mbz1 would be banned from interacting with two other editors, and so would Factsontheground, so they'd be even. Keeping score (however you count it) doesn't seem that helpful to me, though. --Avenue (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll make myself more plain, seeing you've misread my comment as "keeping score" (perhaps as a result of inadvertantly ignoring the last 4 words in my comment). This appears to be a recent issue with Mbz1 and perhaps had the user been more ready to take a temporary break, it might not have been necessary to impose blocks, and interaction bans (within the space of a week) on the user. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as solution most likely to gain broad consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Enough time and effort has been wasted over this silliness. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment and request for uninvolved closing admin - Protocol is that the opening admin is not supposed to close and enact community bans, however, as the proposing admin, I believe we have approximately unanimous support and this has been up for a couple of days now, so it's long enough. I would like to request that this be closed and enacted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans

Question - do we want to topic-ban any or all of these editors from the conflict area, Israeli/Palestinean topics? Proposed as a question, not a proposed edit restriction (at this time). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my comment above, I'd say yes with regards to FactsOnTheGround, yes with regards to Mbz1. I have no first hand experience with gilisa to say anything about him one way or the other. My Canada (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There was another user that I was involved with at ANI who was topic banned from the same topic, for editing on Israeli Zimbabwe relations or something like that. I'll just check its not the same person. SGGH ^ping! 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that was User:Gilabrand with whom FOTG appears to be familiar. I think I ran into Mbz when dealing with him too. Not sure if this is called connected, someone more familiar with User:Gilabrand might want to check. SGGH ^ping! 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Gilabrand is a woman, not a man. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

my bad. SGGH ^ping! 22:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose No topic ban for any of them, at present. The problem is not primarily POV editing, but edit-warring. There really is no reason to prevent any of them from contributing to articles in this area, so long as they do so within the normal rules of Wikipedia conduct. RolandR (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to a topic ban at this time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- samj _in^out 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed for now too, per RolandR. --Avenue (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support I support an indefinite topic ban on any Israel/Palestine related topics for Mbz1. I've witnessed enough over the last few weeks to know her political agenda is certainly not for the good of Wikipedia. She should stick to photography. Vexorg (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would support a topic ban for facts, but not mbz1. I admit to a bias. I believe that mbz1 is the wronged party and I don't see any "justice" in simply throwing up one's arms and saying, "Well we can't decide who's at fault so ban them all." That isn't justice, that is laziness. If you aren't willing to investigate and evaluate the facts in this case (no pun intended) then I don't think you should vote or comment here. I think the interaction ban is a good idea, and one can avoid a topic ban simply by saying whoever was at such-and-such an article first can edit it... the next one to show up can't. Stellarkid (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that is very much unclear that mbz1 is the wronged party in this, no one seems able or willing to present evidence to this effect. Unomi (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts has been stalking Mbz1 purely out of spite. See this childish attack [44] on a featured picture candidate vote. Note that this was the first time Facts commented on a featured picture and of course it doesn't even have any relation to the I-P conflict! This edit clearly shows Facts inappropriate, malicious behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's interaction ban proposal should prevent that type of conduct being a problem, hopefully. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are agreeing that the misbehavior is that of Facts, and yet you are willing to impose a topic ban on the other user (wronged party) as well? No one is presenting evidence of that because the topic is supposed to be Facts and his misbehavior. How exactly would Mbz1 have invited opposition to her photographs? Misunderstanding, my apologies. Stellarkid (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Last comment on this ANI and in my defence: Just wanted to ask Georgewilliamherbert when exactly I was officialy and specifically warnned by admin on I-P issues? The last time ANI was submitted against me, which is also the first, (excluding one I-P relatively recent wikialert case which was resolved with nothing) was about half year ago over edit warring on a totaly different and unrelated artilce. I can't see how from this ANI my name was raised to topic ban and interaction ban. What, because I made too many comments? I realy have no intend to comment on this page again-just asking for an answer. If this comment violating any policy of WP that I'm not aware of, please remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Factsonground. She has more than adequately demonstrated that she is a destructive editor and on topics related to the I-P, she is unable to maintain any pretense of neutrality or civility. At minimum, it is appropriate that she be banned from this subject. Evidence below:

(1) Most recently, she has served a proxy for the banner editor Orijentolog, reinserting his/her edit’s without explanation: [45], [46], [47].

(2) Constantly edit warring. This is completely unconstructive. On the page of Martin Kramer, for example, Facts wantonly violated WP:BLP over and over again: [48], [49]

(3) Lastly, as more than abundantly observed, Facts is incapable of maintaining any sort of basic civility. She constantly violates both WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith in her accusations that other editors are racist and have an agenda and even worse, that there is a some sort of conspiracy on Wikipedia to persecute self-identified pro-Palestinian editors. As noted below, she also has stalked Mbz1 out of pure spite. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - POV editor who uses every trick in the book to push her agenda and then sics her buddies to gang up on anyone who opposes her. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Far too much of the !voting in this discussion seems to be from POV warriors backing people on their side of the I/P debate and callign for blocks or topic bands for those on the other. "Geewhiz" for example is User:Gilabrand who not so long ago cluttered the Israeli art student scam article with anti-Palestinian propaganda. The original article had POV problems, but this does suggest that Gila is approaching anything related to Facts, the article's creator, with a battleground attitude. Rather than any precipitate action prompted by the baying and partisan crowd here, it would be better to have things done in a more considered way.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your question, the article was created by Factsontheground as a POV nightmare, and it had to be completely re-written and moved to a new name to solve the problems with it. Here's a comparison of her version with the post-AfD version:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&action=historysubmit&diff=350260171&oldid=348721554

There's almost nothing left of what she wrote. And even then Factsontheground edit-warred over it, e.g.: [50] [51] Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to convince me that there were problems with that article. I was the person who put it up for deletion in the first place. However, when one user violates her topic ban by demanding that another user be topic-banned and when there is such a strong correlation between how people !vote on the proposed bans and where they stand on the I/P debate, then this says that the issue needs to be considered in a careful manner by admins who are prepared to investigate the history thoroughly rather than by looking at who can bring most supporters to AN/I.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Agreed for the most part that there is some taking sides going on. I believe topic bans can be avoided for all three. They know they are on a thin line now. I have seen Mbz1 and Gilsa say too much when sitting back and watching would keep it a little cooler. Both neither strikes me as malicious in their intent here. And I don;t consider them the wronging parties in several of these recent disputes. Regarding Factsontheground, she has repeatedly been a handful and still has some inappropriate stuff on her talk page User talk:Factsontheground#Wikipedia is openly racist against Palestinians but some guidance from a few people chiming in on her talk page could keep her straight. Unless she really is retiring, then it doesn't matter. As someone who would like her off the project, I couldn't whole heartedly be for it without a last final really mean it this time warning. Admittedly, part of this is based on seeing two other editors getting blocked but who knows what this last day off cooling off from FotG could bring.Cptnono (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn proposal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On a personal note I've promised myself and others to stay away from unfairness of AN/I, where admins are too busy or too involved to get to the bottom of the conflict, and some regulars like to add the fuel to the fire. I should have followed WP:BAIT, but I did not. I did not initiate the thread at AN/I. As a matter of fact I have never ever initiated any thread at AN/I about any editor involved in I/P conflict editing. I was not going to comment here at all, but, when not just one, but three different users mentioned me [52]; [53]; [54] I took the bait. I guess I am too weak to ignore those kind of edits, and I need administrative help to stay away from this place please.Here's my new proposal.<bt> Ban user:Mbz1 from ever again contributing to AN/I with no exceptions.If she ever violates the ban, block her indefinitely from editing Wikipedia without further notice Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Comment "...feature notice"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose you are proposing to ban yourself from ANI to stop you from coming here? I would think this an overreaction. Firstly, Wikipedia users have the right to come to ANI to give their side when a thread is raised against them, secondly, I am sure you are capable of not coming to ANI if you really don't choose to (Wikipedia is not as important as realife - there must be an essay or policy on that somewhere!) Thirdly, I think you might be reacting without taking time to think this over. SGGH ping! 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Stop Grandstanding - Now you're really being disruptive. You're playing some kind of WP:IDINTHEARTHAT game. I never said you intiated an AN/I discussion, I said other people had and I clarified that above. You conveniently chose to not understand. Whether or not you initiated a discussion here has nothing to do with your participating in the overall disputes. You're playing up this idea that you're somehow a victim here and everyone is just attacking you and baiting you. I have not baited you and do not appreciate you trying to use me as a pawn in this game of yours. This subdiscussion should be archived, however I'll leave it to an admin because if I do it it will be unarchived and will incite more drama from certain quarters. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn I see you'd be bored without me ;) Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Strong Support - It's clear Mbz1 is not only on Wikipedia to promote a political cause but is also a serial disruptive attention seeker. For weeks now it's been 'The Mbz1 Show' - Can't people see MBz1 is playing childish games with Wikipedia here and is completely wasting the time of the administrators who have to wade through reams and reamsof this crap. No we wouldn't be 'bored' without you we'd be glad to see the back of you Vexorg (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say this is a tad extreme. I would say wikigive'emrope applies here. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of consensus

Are we getting to a consensus then? Appears to be some support for interaction ban, little for a topic ban, and I'm disregarding Mbz1's entry above as grandstanding. SGGH ^ping! 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cptnono's comment above that there seem to be sides taken here and no real(objective) looking into the problems that the user:Factsontheground has precipitated. This is not an "all sides are equally guilty" situation and I feel that a mere interaction ban does not lay blame where it ought. I believe that at least a short topic ban should be imposed on User:Factsontheground so that she feels admonished for her harassing behavior with respect to User:Mbz1 and her personal attacks on others. Such a ban is not appropriate for Mbz1 as she has mainly reacted to this provocation. An interaction ban to follow, with "ownership" (for lack of a better word) to the editor who can prove she was at the article first. Agree that the above constitutes "grandstanding" and should be ignored. Stellarkid (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The big problem you have Stellarkid is that everyone knows your unquestioning support for MBz1 and your ridiculous and tediously repetitive claim that Mbz1 is the one being picked on. And why are you asking for a topic ban as a punishment for some claim of harassment of Mbz1. That doesn't make sense and it's clear you want a topic ban on User:Factsontheground becuase her edits conflict with you and Mbz1's political crusade on Wikipedia. And Mbz1's childish grandstanding above should not be ignored. It's a significant expose of her attention seeking and disruptiveness on Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your attempt at pretending to fairness was exposed at the AfD for the article written by Mbz1. Your vote was a strong delete, and in attempting to push your POV, you claimed that Mbz1 was a sockpuppet of an anon IP. You were mistaken, and as far as I know never apologized for that "error" but instead rationalized it. You made false negative claims about someone and had to be encouraged to strike it [55]. My support for Mbz1 is not unquestioning, but your reaction here is highly predictable. Personally I would have been ashamed of making such a comment without proof of it, and would not have shown myself here, trying to insinuate motives into other people (me, for one) and continuing your negative and personal campaigning against Mbz1 and others here who not share your view. Stellarkid (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question, SGGH, yes, I think there is a consensus that the three editors should be banned from interacting with one another. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I also believe such an interaction ban would be a good tool going forwards, we have now had 3 ANI's with largely the same pool of editors involved in a matter of as many weeks. I would also suggest, time permitting, that SGGH or another uninvolved admin follows the edits of the discussed editors. Unomi (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and who is the common editor on these ANI's ?? Mbz1 Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So just to confirm at the moment that User:Mbz1 and User:Gilisa (Group 1) are banned from engaging in interaction with User:Factsontheground (Group 2). Interaction is defined as any comments of any nature on talk pages of one group by members of another group, and comments at any other Wikipedia main space by one group designed to bait/engage/disruptively discuss another the other group, the significance of which will be subjectively determined by uninvolved admin(s).

1. How long? Until it is determined by community that the threat of disruption by the lifting of the ban has disappated?
2. Are we including ANI in the list of places these users cannot do the above? I would, personally.

Agreement? SGGH ^ping! 10:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares about my opinion here, but disagree. Breein1007, Cptnono, Gilabrand ("Geewhiz") and No More Mr Nice Guy -- all users who attack and harass me constantly -- should also be included in the interaction ban, otherwise I can assure you that the drama is just going to continue. Factsontheground (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really sure you want to drag me into this? Shall I post a list of places you followed me around to and reverted my edits without even an edit summary? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand already has a topic ban that gets broken repeatedly. If people continue to harrass you and you don't respond/are unable to without violating this proposed ban, it's easier to see who to deal with (i.e., them.) And no, My Nice Guy, we don't want anyone else dragged into this. Let's sort it out here and now without going back in circles. Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Please let me know on my talk page if I need to come here and defend myself from the kind of nonsense you see below. I don't follow this page too closely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. I haven't followed you around anywhere. I have ~800 pages on my watchlist. But keep being paranoid, it's amusing. Anyway I'll just add this to my list of your unfounded personal attacks on me (1 2). Frankly, I'm surprised you have the time to attack me too, I thought you were too busy attacking Sean.Hoyland ([56], [57]) Factsontheground (talk)

I think one of the few ways we can get to the bottom of this is to get more previously uninvolved editors to contribute to the I/P area as a whole. I have very recently started doing just that and I hope that more editors will as well. Apart from that I agree with SGGH. Unomi (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's need to be some sort of temporary topic ban for Facts. This has been going on for too long and she must know that there are costs for such deleterious behavior against the Wikipedia community, as I have extensively noted above. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

SGGH, per usual practice, sanctions that don't mention a duration are indefinite (and the proposer already clarified this question); there's no consensus to deviate from that. The answer to the second question is in the specifically worded interaction ban proposal itself which is what has received support - no need to deviate from that wording either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and quickly I would mention: pre-existing "baits" on a group members' talk page should not be used as ammunition or cause to resume the debate once this is enacted. Let it flow under the bridge. SGGH ^ping! 17:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Factsonground. The diffs are telling, and we can do better without this disruption.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a consensus for an interaction ban and not a topic ban, what's the next step? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the next step might be to give factsontheground even more comprehensive lesson how to do canvasing in the right way :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't quite consensus for a topic ban on FoTG, but I wonder if there isn't an in between step between nothing and ban. Perhaps a mentor? I don't think letting this go is an option. Full disclosure: I have also had difficulties with FoTG, including her restoring edits from a banned user (despite their being clearly labeled as such). Thoughts? IronDuke 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To respond your question ID, there neither ever will be , nor do we need a consensus to topic ban any editor, who is involved in I/P conflict editing. Remember User:Gilabrand was banned by a sole administrator action, for the disrupting editing of the article that had nothing to do with I/P conflict. The only thing that is needed now is a fair, neutral administrator, who has plenty of time to go with all editors involved over factsontheground, mine and other involved editors conduct in different articles step by step. It will be a painful, time consuming process, but the project will benefit in the end. Topic ban for factsontheground is long over due. I do not mind the proposed interaction ban, but this will not solve the problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Factsonground after reviewing his recent non constructive edits. Marokwitz (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Factsonground. The diffs history on a number of her edits, plus the drawn out heated fighting at almost every page she edits (not to mention the problematic user page edits), are not conductive to growing and expanding a encyclopedia. She has been blocked several times, but nothing seems to be resolved, and in fact the "userpage" situation came about after a block for behavior had expired. In addition, the situation has become such that other editors are reluctant to edit/improve pages for fear of being drawn into a massive wikidrama. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, pals, but the consensus is that interaction bans and not topic bans are the solution here.

I'm disappointed in you, Iron Duke. We had a cordial conversation about the IP editing Munich (film) and I agreed to trust you that the IP was a sockpuppet and allow you to revert his edits, despite the fact that you didn't even tell me which editor the IP was supposedly a sockpuppet of.

In future if you are going to misrepresent my edits like this I won't take you on trust and you are going to have to go to WP:SPI and prove your suspicions about IPs just like everybody else. You can't go around reverting people just because you suspect them of something.

Anyway, I invite everyone interested in topic banning me to discuss the issue on my talk page. Factsontheground (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at FOTG...Comments like that tend to offend editors, or at least put them on the defense, and are not condusive to improving articles. Interaction bans seem to only be a band aid...since there is a reason why you keep getting into heated discussions with other editors. Some sort of topic ban (temp. or perm) might provide a cool down time or at least enable other editors to contribute to articles, without being worried about being drawn into wikidrama and ending up on the "interaction ban" list. Just my two cents. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Background something which keeps being forgotten is this round of what can only be described as bullying on the part of a few contributors stems from Gilabrand/Geewhiz pointedly inserting material from a hate site into an article and being called out on that by Facts[58]. Note also in that ANI it took a little while for the rather important bit about the hate site to sink in. This is the background for Facts' comments about "racism". It would be very helpfull if other 'uninvolved' editors could recognise that Cptnono, Gilisa and Mbz1 are simply engaged in defending a very seriously problematic editor (Gilabrand/Geewhiz) by attacking the editor who called bullshit on her. Misarxist (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Factsontheground Just to preface my reasoning, I was planning on staying away from this AN/I. I have had my share of problems with Factsontheground. Even after her latest troubles and spotlight on AN/I, she continues to edit war and leave comments on talk pages with a full-out battle mentality. Take a look at her recent contributions and you'll be able to see where I'm coming from. That said, I was not planning on participating in this discussion or leaving any input. However, after seeing the few comments Factsontheground has made most recently, I can't be silent anymore. After being warned and banned, it seems that the battle mentality has only grown stronger. It's as if Factsontheground is now fighting a personal crusade here. From documenting all the comments she feels have been personal attacks at her, to documenting her compelling list of reasoning as to why Wikipedia is racist against Palestinians, and now to her newest scheme, challenging anyone who supports a topic ban to come discuss it on her talk page, where she systematically lashes out against each person who dares speak their mind. Nsaum came into this with what can be fairly described as next to no special history with Factsontheground. He gave his opinion on this matter (which he obviously has every right to do) and provided a very clear and appropriate explanation based on edit style and problematic behaviour as to why he supports a topic ban. Factsontheground's response was to put on her battle cap and attempt to trivialize Nsaum's comments. This can all be seen on her talk page. Similar comments have come in this very AN/I. The comments are often painfully condescending and just begging for added drama (ie: "Sorry, pals..." a few paragraphs above). It's hard to see how just sanctioning Factsontheground with an interaction ban with 2 other editors is going to solve anything here. If anything, it will make Mbz1's and Gilisa's lives more calm. Great. But how does that help Wikipedia? It doesn't. Something has to be done to maintain what little order we had in the IP area on Wikipedia, and Factsontheground's editing style has been wrecking that order. It has gotten to the point where editors are refraining from entering meaningful discussions on talk pages because there is too much hostility and drama. That's all I have to say. If Factsontheground feels the need to come in here and spell out word by word why my opinion should be discarded, more power to her. I just want Wikipedia to be a place where editors can collaborate positively with one another and if it takes some harsh sanctions to teach editors a lesson and give them time to grow up, so be it. Breein1007 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Very interesting analysis about civility and disruptive editing coming from someone who just 2 nights ago accused Facts and (many other editors on her talk page) of using terrorist rhetoric (and got blocked for it I might add), while she was blocked and unable to respond. If this is not a partisan, vindictive witch hunt, then what is!
• I fully support an interaction ban between these three users, but I don't see FoG deserving a blanket ban, she has demonstrated abilities to be a constructive and effective editor, and I think this is just taking the drama way too far. Yazan (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see FOTG's response to my_advice and comments on her talk page here, as referenced by Breein1007 above. I have now responded to her there with this. I am now done with this issue and conversation; and above all else, I will not be baited into joining what is fast becoming some sort of circus. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that many of the users who here have supported a topic bann on Factsontheground like Breein1007, nsaum75, Epeefleche, Geewhiz (Gilabrand) are editors who have a long history of using their accounts for pro-Israeli pushing and anti-Arab edits. Its basically the same vote from them trying to get rid of one of the few editors, Factsontheground, who actually edits P/I conflict articles in a neutral way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming a circus. If no one raises any serious objections we might as well begin the interaction ban immediately and close this thread, and then a topic ban can be discussed with the involved editors out of the way at a later time. SGGH ^ping! 10:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist SPA

Resolved

• Heaqwe (talk · contribs)

Whether or not they are a sockpuppet of Serafin, they should be blocked permanently for

• nationalist comments on their user page [59]:
  • I beleave you Germans are suprised that evrybody dislike you.
  • German character which of course is known best in Poland. This is the main reason I opose the bargan/manipulation. The bourder is on Oder and Nyse do not allow one foot step over it - it will be the same like many times before. They will keep the foot arogantly and atempt to put second at nearest occasion.
  • chauvinistic German attempts it cannot be allowed. And you help them pretending that you a Polish. 4) As you perfectly know Silesians were originally a Slavic tribe and were part as well as creators of Polish nation. I think you and Germans should be ashamed after what II WW cost Polish nation to attempt steel what historically belong to Polish heritage
  • This is propaganda of German separatists who call themself often Silesians.
  • Krasicki was a Germanized Pole – in my perception a snake.
  • Germans!!!!! Stop insolting Dzierzon as he dislike you.
• similar comments on their talk page [60]
• and contribs focussing exclusively on WP:THE TRUTH about the nationality/ethnicity of a bee keeper.

User is notified of this thread. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Content removed per WP:USER#NOT and WP:SOAP. Only question remaining is, "Is man descended from angels or apirists?" LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - yes, this user seems pretty intent on pushing some irrelevant and unsupported nationalist views, though I don't see that the actions of his German counterpart (who does much the same thing in the other direction, but has learned to be a little more subtle with his conversational style) are any better. I would like to see all those who have been using this innocent biographical article as a nationalist battleground to be compelled to stay away from it, and from similar topics.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From Heaqwe's userpage, I thought his opponent was you, but from the article's edit history, I guess "German counterpart" refers to Matthead? If you are certain about Matthead likewise "pushing some irrelevant and unsupported nationalist views", then please provide evidence, as this is a pretty strong claim to make without supporting diffs. That aside, I agree with you that prejudist POV pushers who are sophisticated enough to game the wiki-bureaucracy are a WP:PLAGUE, but that won't be solved on this board.

What can be solved here is to at least block the openly nationalist accounts. And maybe have a Serafin expert comment, since Serafin abused the article ever since, and has used similar account names earlier? Regarding the underlying ethnicity dispute, I agree that the article is in bad need for outside input, this seems to be going on ever since too, involving Serafin, the EEML and several other sanctioned users. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things, firstly, we don't block accounts for having nationalist views - we block them should their nationalist viewpoints become disruptive to the general project (but not because they offend the sensibilities of other nationalistic viewpoints), and, secondly, the issue of disputes regarding East European articles is covered by WP:DIGWUREN and other ArbCom related decisions, so these should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Finally, there appears to be an ongoing SPI case, so perhaps that should be concluded before other concerns are investigated. As far as I am concerned, I removed the soapboxing on the accounts userpage per policy; there are other avenues for dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any ongoing SPI case, just of the "suspected Serafin sock"-tag on Heaqwe's user page (and from the article's edit history, and the account's name and behaviour that makes sense, but I am not a CU). If you could link the respective SPI that would be great and render this thread moot.

I agree that in theory, nationalism alone does not make an account disruptive. In practice, the nationalists who register accounts here do so not because they want to edit funghi taxonomy. Heaqwe is an openly Polish and anti-German nationalist solely editing a German-Polish ethnicity dispute and judging the editors by nationality and not by strength of argument. That is disruptive, reasonable discussions are not possible on that basis. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no SPI going on, I filed one here. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The "soapboxing" was just a discussion between me and him (we just happened to have it on his user page rather than the talk page). A similarly unproductive attempt took place between Matthead and me at my talk page (User talk:Kotniski#no real doubt). Other than that, it's been Heaqwe and Matthead alternately making edits to push their respective lines (only Poles can be natives of Silesia vs. there were no Poles when there was no Polish state), and me and one or two others trying to curb their excesses. Last time I looked the article seemed OK (there isn't any underlying reason why it should be controversial), so maybe the problem would be solved, as Skap suggests, by having a few sensible editors with their eyes on the page.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history, it seems that the dispute goes back at least to 2007 (I did not look it up any further). You said "last time I looked the article seemed OK" - does that mean that there actually is a revision that has the consent of all involved editors (excluding Heaqwe)? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, possibly excluding Matthead as well, I'm not aware of anyone who has a problem with the current version of that page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Serafin apparently has worn out all admins, as noone seems to be willing to look after the Dzierzon article anymore. On the other hand, Polish editors often find an admin willing to block me. As for the article, it's current state and title is a shame. It is WP:UNDUE to start the intro with "was a Pole from Silesia." It's like opening a bio on Abraham Lincoln with "was an Illinoisian from Kentucky. He became a Republican politician and a distinguished president." How childish is that? Apparently, Serafin/Heaqwe, veteran edit warrior Space Cadet and Kotniski like it - no wonder, as it starts with "Pole", which is their highest priority. BTW, I've just expanded the German article with some Polish sources (mis-)quoting him in German, and with a link to a pic of the tombstone of "Johann Dzierzon", with the Polish plate added in 1966(!) pronouncing "Jan Dzierżon" an "ardent patriot and defender of Polish Silesia". P.S. did you know that in 2003, Jan Dzierzon had been a vice-voivode in Opole Voivodeship[61], until a media campaign had forced him to resign? [62] [63] The problem for the Poles was that Dzierzon represents the German minority there. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can add sourced information to improve our article, that would be great. (But not irrelevant stuff about someone 100 years later who happens to have the same name - why do you waste our time referring us to such links?) "Pole" is not the same as "Illinoisan" - it's perfectly normal, and not at all undue, to mention someone's nationality (not the same as citizenship, or the language he later came to speak and publish in) in the lead of the article. Also the lead of the article should reflect the content - and at present, the sourced content of the article make his Polishness quite clear. If you have other sources that cast doubt on that, or consider that the present sources are unreliable or misused, then let's hear. I certainly wouldn't want the lead to describe him as a Pole if he wasn't one; but we should all want it to describe him as one if he was. The problem you seem to have is that you are on the same kind of crusade as the Polish editors you continually criticize - you want everyone to be German at the slightest excuse (I note your recent attempts to expand the scope of List of Germans), to use German names and delete non-German ones, etc. Often your changes are right, since there are plenty of anti-German editors around, but that doesn't mean you can do the same in the other direction.--Kotniski (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Heaqwe has been blocked, and constructive discussion is now underway at the article talk page, so I'm marking this thread as resolved.--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names of Romanian places

I'm raising this here as it's a bit outside my area of knowledge, and to try and centralise discussion. Three editors have contacted me over the last couple of days concerning an issue with articles about places in Romania which have a different name in Hungarian.

The first contact I had was from Umumu (talk · contribs), who wrote:- Hello

I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)

Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 2. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian: Romanian_Name; Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 3. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)

There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them

Thanks in advance for your answer. Umumu (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My reply on Umumu's talk page was:-

I'd say that if the location is in Romania, the Romanian name should occur first, with the Hungarian name second (option 1). Similar to how the name of the Dutch city of Leeuwarden is treated in that article. The city is in the Netherlands, so its Dutch name is given and is the article title. It is the capital of the province of Friesland, so its name in Stadtsfries (a dialect) and West Frisian (a recognised provincial language) are also given. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian later contacted me with this message:-

Hello, i am contacting you to try to resolve a certain problem with Hungarian names in Romania. In Romania official language is Romanian therefore names of the certain towns etc should be in Romanian and then in brackets in other language names. I think that is the standard wiki policy, please, correct me if i am wrong. Now some users are trying to change this, ex [here]. Can you please help me to solve this problem? Thank you in advance. iadrian (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't reply as for much of last evening I couldn't access any Wikipedia website due to getting an "unable to contact server" message until about 21:30 UTC. This morning, Rokarudi (talk · contribs) posted another message on my talk page.:-

I can only repeat myself. Please look at the compromise reached many years ago on this subject(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc)

It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.

Please also study the recent opinion on this issue of neutral and undoubtedly impartial editors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu

Please stop wikihounding and vandalizing hundreds of articles.

Kind regards:User:Rokarudi Rokarudi 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thus it would seem that there is a dispute about the inclusion or otherwise of the Hungarian name for a place in an article about a place in Romania. This has the potential to develop into an edit war, with the inevitable results of blocks, topic bans etc. In an effort to avert this, it seems that a centralised location for a discussion would be in order. If anyone feels that there is a better location, please feel free to copy this post over to the new venue. My personal view is that if the infobox has a space for an alternative name, then that name should be added, with the necessary annotation as to the language. Both should also be mentioned in the lede, per the example of Leeuwarden that I used in my original reply to Umumu. I will notify Umumu, Iadrian and Rokarudi of this post. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We never denied the necessity of including the Hungarian names too. It would be ridiculous to ask something like that for localities with absolute Hungarian majority

We just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

All three now notified. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this matter. I never said that Hungarian names should not be present, just not in the form Rokarudi is presenting it, as we can see the changes i made on some of the articles, i am just for respecting the standard naming polocy, since in Transilvania Hungarian language has no legal status and no form of autonomy we should use the standard form EX: Satu Mare (Hungarian: ------; etc)... like explained on WP:PLACE and here iadrian (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, form 1 Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) , as standard wiki policy implies. Yes, this example is OK. iadrian (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.". My opinion is that Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name) (Umumu (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

If there is more than one foreign language (non-Romanian) name, the order should be by size of minority, so if there's a large German minority than Hungarian, then the German name should come first, and vice versa. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what we think. But it looks messy to make such lead sections:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumoasa,_Harghita (Umumu (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Yes, in this case, the Hungarian minority, the first other language names should be in Hungarian and then in German , etc.. iadrian (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, with this example here, The villages should not have Hungarian names in this form. On the page about that particular village other language names can be present (Hungarian) but not in every instance this location is mentioned, since we should use the official names only when talking about that location/village. EX:

• Bârzava/Csíkborzsova
• Făgeţel/Bükklok
• Frumoasa/Szépvíz
• Nicoleşti/Csíkszentmiklós

iadrian (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What we speak about is not a simple discussuion on proper editing, but are facing:

1) Sockpuppetry by User:Iadrian yu, User:Dicocodino and User:Umumu as sockpupets of recently blocked editor Iaaasi, 2.) Act of large-scale vandalism, deleting long established and accepted content, 3.) Challenging accepted practices confirmed by a compromise in the very delicate subject of placenaming in Transylvania.

I must remind everyone, who is not very familiar, with the topic, that in 2007 there was a long discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc

The status quo ante discussion was this:

Romanian titles, Romanian and Hungarian names in the infobox (if ≥20), Romanian names in bold and Hungarian ones (for anywhere in Transylvania, even if <20%) in italics, and also German names if applicable.

In the compromise Hungarians resigned of trying to move article titles of places with Hungarian majority to the Hungarian name, while Romanian accepted that Hungarian placenames will be bolded whenever the Hungarian population >20%.

The established format was:

Odorheiu Secuiesc or Székelyudvarhely (Romanian: Odorheiu Secuiesc, Hungarian: Székelyudvarhely, German: Oderhellen) is…

--Rokarudi 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi i ask you again to be CIVIL and respect the WP:CIV. Don`t avoid the discusson by your accusations. The discusson you are talking about is no standard naming policy and the format you personally try to implement over the official wiki policy is against the rules. iadrian (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we talk about wikipedia rules, not about individual opinions expressed by specific editors 3 years ago. We ask only to apply wiki policies, namely WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Rokarudi, if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, then WP:SPI is the place to head to. I'll remind all parties, this is the Admin's Noticeboard. You can be sure that a number of admins are keeping a weather eye on this situation and those involved. I facilitated this discussion in order that consensus could be gained on the issue, and to keep the discussion in a centralised place. Those who hold the view which does not gain consensus would do well to acknowledge the fact and let the issue lie. Edit warring over this will lead to administrative action being taken. I'm sure all involved would rather that didn't happen if at all avoidable. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is really not proving sockpuppetry. What I know is this: there was an order how to represent these particular placenames for more than 3 years, and the above mentioned editors neglected it by systematically editing more than 100 articles according to their ideas against consensus. Under changing names, they go around wiki and try to get a favourable opinion from good faith editors . When they fail to do so, they go to the next one: First, User:Dicocodino failed to get what he wanted one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, Then User:Umumu was not given the expected answer here: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexiusHoratius#Question Now, User:Iadrian yu has put up the same question here (to delete bolded alternative names). --Rokarudi 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent this question to many admins and there was no expected answer. I asked them to choose which is the most appropriate format and I got 2 answers: one is the one you listed, and the second (from User:Mjroots) was that Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) is the best format)(Umumu (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Rokarudi, I don`t understand what that has to do with official wiki rules? If we take a look at that "order" you are talking about, there is also clear that the "order" is not like you are implementing it, also we can see that it is a clear violation of the WP:PLACE and First sentence usage. Rokarudi, i ask you again to be Civil and to stop with your attempts/accusations to discredit me. You don`t see me accusing you of anything even if you are avoiding this matter to discuss until now, i hope. I don`t see a point repeating myself anymore because you are ignoring me as you ignore the WP:PLACE policy. I have explained everything in my previous posts here. Stop inventing a custom policy for Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI isn't the right place for a centralized discussion of something like this. It's for user conduct issues. If there's not clear enough consensus on the naming issue, use a content RFC. This is basically a miniature Balkan-like nationalistic dispute. And the Romanian constitution certainly isn't the final arbiter of such questions, given that some parts of Romania are basically 100% Hungarian and would be happy to break away and join Hungary, and wouldn't consider the .ro government to speak for them. Under NPOV the question might only be resolvable with a careful study and weighing of all available sources. Gdánzig anyone? ;) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

UDMR(Hungarian party) is participating every Romanian government since the fall of communism. Their official attitude toward this is only some form of cultural autonomy, and after all they represent the Hungarians in Romania (6.6% of the population of Romania or 19.6% in Transylvania verify). Don`t start with that kind of unsubstantiated statements. You are saying that Romanian constitution has no power in parts of Romania? Parts of Vojvodina are basically 100% Hungarian populated and would be happy to break away and to join Hungary, and wouldn`t consider the .rs government to speak for them, and this changes what? We have Slovakia like this city where we have the same issue like in Romania. Why should in every autonomy in Europe, in Slovakia,Vojvodina and Croatia use normal naming policy WP:PLACE and only in Romania, where there is no autonomy or legal status of the Hungarian language bee any different? The Romanian constitution is the highest law of the R.of Romania and it is respected in every part of Romania, Hungarian populated or not. Under NPOV the question is to compare similar cases around the world where there is some kind of autonomy comparing to Romania where there is a clear law and no form of autonomy. Yes, it is a miniature Balkan-like dispute , started by Hungarians, by forcing Hungarian names in Romania. All available sources states that Hungarian names have no legal use or Hungarian language no legal status, and comparing to other parts of the world, i think this problem is more than crystal clear. Gdańsk is not a good example to this problem. "Gdańsk, formerly known by its German name Danzig " ? First names in Romania or Transylvania were the Romanian names, even in that format, in this case , that example has no connection with Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

66.127.52.47 The Romanian constitution is the supreme law in legal matters and is one of the most import deciding factors regarding this dispute. I am inclined to say that the constitution has priority over the biased opinion of an anonymous editor which shows contempt for the laws of an European state like yourself. The 2002 census clearly shows the ethnic balance in Transylvania and there is not a single settlement holding a 100% Hungarian majority. The Romanian citizens which you mentioned, those who would be happy to "break away" are violating Romanian law, the same law that guarantees them equal rights with the rest of the population and surprisingly enough they seem to be absent from the Romanian political scene. Besides, from the declarations of the leaders of the Hungarian and Szekler communities in Romania, there is only talk about some form of cultural autonomy, no independence and certainly no "union" with Hungary. Your views shamelessly promote Hungarian irredentism, and are in clear violation with international and Romanian law. I suggest you stop your attacks and improve your behavior or you will be reported. Accept the political realities of the 21st century and stop speaking in the name of the Hungarian community, which, as shown above has other priorities than those stated by yourself. And lastly, the movement for autonomy will slowly fade away as it doesn't possess the necessary ingredients for its success, mainly a lack of rights for the Hungarian community in Romania, a community which in actuality enjoys quite a few political and cultural liberties and has -also mentioned by Iadrian yu- formed a part of the ruling governmental coalition in most of the last 20 years. Amon Koth (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, if anyone knows of a better venue feel free to move the discussion. Edit warring is a user conduct issue. In this case, I feel that prevention is better than cure - i.e. if we can prevent an edit war breaking out then it is better for all than admins wielding banhammers. Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is better to discuss everything, even a matter clear like this. The discussion is in the right place, centralized and public.iadrian (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, I want to say that this is an artificial conflict and we can solve the problem by ourselves (me, Iadrian and you), without the involvment of anyone else

I don't see why you feel offended when Iadrian tries to insert the standard format, because the Hungarian name has the same visibility if it is in Italics or bolded

I think it is confusing and not fair to give the same proeminence to the Romanian and the Hungarian name, because the only official name is Romanian

For example in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; ; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi

Kind regards and i hope you will be cooperative (Umumu (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

This discussion is entirely unnecessary for several reasons, chief among them being the status of the Hungarian language in Romania. It is not an official language and Transylvania is not an autonomous region, therefore until the UDMR political party reach their declared goal of changing the Romanian constitution and making Hungarian a compulsory language for the Romanians living in Hungarian majority areas, the names of Romanian localities where minorities are substantial should follow the first variant: Romanian name (Minority name 1, Minority name 2 etc). This variant also respects the naming policy of Wikipedia. Amon Koth (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please find here picture gallery with bilingual placename signboards from Central-Europe:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IM3NlCcgHCA/ShDoCoMi4dI/AAAAAAAABl0/f25FN2dcECo/s400/bogr%C3%A1csmaj%C3%A1los+041.jpg (from Romania)
http://blog.poznanici.com/test/files/2009/10/c09tabla.jpg (from Serbia)
http://archiv.nyugatijelen.com/2002/2002%20november/nov.%207%20csutortok/f0511-06.jpg (edit war in real life, alternative name deleted)
http://archiv.magyarszo.com/arhiva/2005/11/19/images/52_szenttamas2.jpg /(Serbia)
http://blog.poznanici.com/test/files/2009/10/c09tabla.jpg (edit war in real life, alternative name deleted)
http://www.ketegyhaza.hu/site/images/stories/cikkek/tabla.jpg (from Hungary)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Oberwart_-_Fels%C5%91%C5%91r.JPG/250px-Oberwart_-_Fels%C5%91%C5%91r.JPG (from Austria)

From the above examples, the question arises: If the use of bilingual signboards for a specific city or village is authorized by the respective country, why should we impose restrictions on Wikipedia? By the way, I do not dispuite the right of User:Amon Koth speak out his political opinion but since he has not yet edited any single article, I would kindly advise him to practice on less controversial topics.User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, please assume good faith here. Amon Koth has as much right to contribute to this discussion as you do. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC
) Sorry, for the sarcasm. I do not mean to offense anyone. I think, with your help, we are on the good track to cool down differences with Iadrian and Umumu. Do not be afraid, it is not so serious between us. We simply like to dispute over and over again on the same topics, this is part of the game. By the way, Iaaasi (from the paralel sockpuppet case) and I were on good terms, we had a lot of good chats and joint work. He was unlucky and was blocked for 48 hours when he helped me editing Hungarian placenames. Since he is out, I have no one to discuss Daco-Romanian continuity. If Umumu likes this topic, he is welcome. Rokarudi 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wring with bilingual tablet names but we should mention that other language name on the tablets have only an informative meaning, nothing else, witch is expressed on Wikipedia in a form DefaultName (First name, Second name, etc..). iadrian (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, It is not correct that bolding alternative names is against wikipedia rules. WP:Naming Concvention (geographic names) provides that "Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system; this page is intended to help editors agree on which name of a place is to appear as the title. Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese - are not bolded because they are distinguishable from running text anyway; transliterations are normally italicised. This is the general rule that was applied to Transylvania by a great number of Hungarian and Romanian editor sin the 2007 Odorhei Secuiesc discusssion, in which 14 editors voted and many more gave an opinion.

I do not think it would be a good idea to deviate from the aforementioned status quo.User:Rokarudi --Rokarudi 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First, i saw that discusson and that was 3 years ago, i don`t know the parties involved, looks like some of the members just gave up from the discusson and left the others to make a consensus , i don`t know, and i don`t want to speculate, as this matter is clear, i gave one example this city in my previous post and made some good points that any other place use standard naming policy Standard name(Other name,Other name. etc..) and only in Romania we should make an exception since the Hungarian minority makes 19.6% of the population in the geographical region of Transylvania? We have many other examples in Europe to follow concerning this matter (Catalonia, Basque Country,Vojvodina,Slovakia, etc..) and there is no reason to use a special rule just for Romania. You mention the [this section] that states "in the case of controversial names" - " Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese" , but here we have only one alternative name, Hungarian names and there is nothing controversial in Romania about names in the region of Transilvania. And it continue "If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. It will serve neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). Local official names are often listed first, out of alphabetical order." - This section you proveded [section] does not deal with the problem we have here. I think that the General guidelines should be folowed , Foreigh Language rule and First sentence rule that clearly address to the problem we are discussing. iadrian (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In Slovenia, see Lendava, in Austria, see Oberwart. in Hungaria, see Kétegyháza or even Gdansk. And also in Romania, there have been hundreds of places intactly this way for 2-3 years until you started deleting Hungarian names. In Europe at leat, as a genaral rule, in the infobox, you always have the alternate name. As to boldfacing, there is no universal practice and guidelines are not clear-cut. Moreover, in South-Tirol you do not have this problem, as the article title itself is in German, wherever local majority is German. The Basque name is a historic or cultural name, taking into account that the majority of Basque speak Spanish as their fisrt language, so placenaming is not so relevant User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Lendava as i can see follows the standard wiki naming policy, and that is OK. Oberwart example has that form since is the cultural capital of the small ethnic Hungarian minority in Burgenland, living in the Upper Őrség or Wart microregion. The cultural center of the Hungarian minority in Romania can have that format also, since it is very significant, but that is only one location, not hundreds, but i don`t know if even that is right since in Austria Hungarian is one of the official languages. The third example you provided Kétegyháza, i don`t know if we can take it into consideration since you made changes specifically for the sake of this argument. South Tirol and Basque land are high level autonomies. And i agree with the info boxes, there should be present alternative names. iadrian (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

List of similar cases:
- In the French province Pyrénées-Orientales (Northern Catalonia), where Catalan is an official language, the format is Saint-Hippolyte (Catalan: Sant Hipòlit de la Salanca)
- in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region of Spain and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; ; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi
- in Transnitria, which is an autonomous region of Moldova, and Russian + Ukrainians = 60%, Moldovans = 30%. the Russian-Ukrainian name is presented in Italics, between parantheses: Popencu (Russian: Попенки, Popenki)
- in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where the majority is composed of indigenous Turkish Cypriots, the format is Kyrenia (Greek: Κερύνεια, Turkish: Girne) (Turkish name in Ialics, between parantheses) (Umumu (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

user:Zlykinskyja's conduct at AFD page

Misusing AFD page for personal attacks and unrelated personal "disputes" after several explanations and warnings. I think she has reached a limit that warrants a strong warning or even a short block if that is what it takes to stop the disruption. User is currently also discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts# user:Zlykinskyja. Repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages (conserning Murder of Meredith Kercher but stale right now. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I kindly tried to ask her to refrain from assuming bad faith, here, but she first shifted the topic here and, then, one minute later, she erased all, as can be seen here. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Zlykinskyja seems to be assuming bad faith in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delayed grief and is making a lot of accusations against Magnificent Clean-keeper for things like alleged "wikihounding". I raised concerns about Zlykinskyja's previous personal attacks on me in the Wikiquette discussion mentioned above. I am concerned that, in response, she seemed extremely reluctant to take responsibility for her actions and instead suggested that the remedy for the problem would be some sort of mediation. She received some good advice from independent editors, there, but does not seem to be taking note of it. However, I'm not an independent editor: I have disagreed with a lot of her edits in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and, as mentioned, have been on the receiving end of a lot her personal attacks. Bluewave (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This latest attack against me by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper comes after a few days ago when he and Salvio Giuliano agreed that they would start using "vinegar" against me after I failed to respond to their "honey". What this "honey" has actually been involves a long pattern of harassment and hostility against me by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper. He has recently engaged in trying to instigate incidents by WikiHounding me --following me to other articles. This is against Wikipedia policy. He has also made the threat to "get rough" with me. He used profanity against me, although he would know that most women would be offended by the "F" word. He refers to my comments as "B.S." or rants. Most annoyingly, he has engaged in a pattern of repeatedly deleting my work, over and over in a most unreasonable manner, trying to instigate an edit war. I feel that he should be sanctioned for harassing me and WikiHounding me. Under WikiHounding policies, it is considered harassment to follow someone to another article to interfere with another editor's enjoyment of editing. That he has certainly done to me on the Linda Carty article, and now in another manner on the new Delayed Grief article. I feel that he is trying to instigate and provoke disputes, intimidate me and bully me from participating in writing on this website. He has the support of some biased allies, including Bluewave and Salvio Giuliano, who support him in his efforts to cause difficulty for me in having my edits included on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I did report this on ANI several days ago, but the report was ignored. I hope that ANI will provide me with some assistance so that I can participate in Wikipedia without feeling intimidated by him and the allies who support such wrongful conduct. I have said that this started as a content dispute on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, but he is now trying to make it personal and extending things beyond that one article. He has made it clear for a while now that his intention is to get me banned or blocked as a form of intimidation in connection with the editing disputes on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And again, like she did at Wikiquette, she keeps on accusing me and other editors w/o any diff's to proof. What she is basically doing is making accusations to try to turn the sword against me (while doing quite the opposite at the Murder of Meredith Kercher's article). Although the latter seems somehow funny, It is not to me. I was hoping for some minor difference to her usual response but I guess I expected to much as she just replied with the same old unfounded accusations like she has it still saved in her mouse. I would like to remind everybody, that this thread that I started is about Zlykinskyja's behavior problems, not mine, and I told her on several occasions that if she has a complain against me she can file one at several available boards, including here at ANI but instead, her preference still lays in engaging in unfounded complains and incivility on her talk page (where she constantly deletes and changes headings although only the ones that doesn't suit her well) and elsewhere.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I did raise this issue at ANI a few days ago, as a comment in a complaint someone else filed against The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, but my issues apparently were overlooked. I am not someone who goes around filing complaints about people and trying to intimidate people, as he does. I have never filed an official complaint against anyone. But looking at the official ANI records, his name comes up as someone who seems to go after people a lot. Well, that isn't my style. I tried to raise the issue as a comment on ANI, but the information was overlooked, and then things with him only got worse. But I do think his conduct which is provoking my distress should be considered. If you look at the article deletion page he refers to, I was trying to raise the same issues I tried to raise previously on the ANI in the complaint that was promptly closed. His behavior is a problem, a BIG problem for me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you out. This was the "incident" that was closed rather quickly and for good reasons. If you have a complain, file it or leave it.

This was the ONLY incident I ever filed at here (and it was about you under your old user name).

I'm not aware of ANI other report I filed regarding you or any one else. Any diff's to proof me wrong? Guess not as always. So proof it or loose it.

And stop trying to make this thread about me and respond to your conduct which is in question here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• BTW. About the ANI thread you mentoned and commented on: If you jump on a wagon make sure it goes in your direction.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why does your name come up 28 times in the ANI records when I put your name in? You seem to have been in a lot of these types of disputes, even if someone else filed the complaint. Your name must be popping up a big number of times in the official records for a reason. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Put an admin's name in the search box and you'll get plenty of hits too. Can you please start making sense and respond to the thread or just stop commenting like this and waste editors time as their time is at least as valuable as yours (and they don't have a SPA-account [single-purpose account] like you) but don't complain about it as you constantly do?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[ He moved my Comment out of time sequence] So that is what you meant when you said you were going back to the "old type of editor that no one would want to see", and that you intend to "get rough" with me? You intend to very agressively go after me, swear at me, WikiHound me, post on my Talk page over and over even though I pleaded with you to leave me alone, over and over I asked you to please leave me alone. But you just won't do that. It is not acceptable conduct. As I told you, I am taking care of an extremely ill family member. I just can't put up with your horrible conduct towards me while I am under a lot of stress and have to put the care of a terminally ill person first and foremost. But you just continue on and on stalking me. I have asked you over and over and over and over to please leave me alone. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll not respond further to your accusations. Talk to my hand.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. Are you now saying that you are an administrator on Wikipedia? Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Talk page discussion in which he tried to provoke a distressed response from me by: 1) following me to a new article in which he had never been involved; 2) deleting a large number of my edits without justification; 3) then deleting more of my work without justification; 4) posting helpful hints on my Talk page without acknowledging that he had just deleted most of my work; 5) thereby prompting my distressed response to his continuing pattern of deleting my work, while he deceptively looks like he is just trying to post helpful suggestions on my Talk page; 6) then linking the incident that he intentionally schemed and provoked to a discussion page (about my supposed lack of civilty towards him) on the Wikette page, and falsely using the incident to claim continuing uncivility by me. This is just one example of the nonsense I have to put up with, and why it is unreasonable to demand that I continue to assume "good faith" when dealing with him. [64] Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comment (having had time to think carefully about why I'm contributing to this). My perception (just one person's point of view, of course) is as follows. Zlykinskyja's main interest in Wikipedia has been the Murder of Meredith Kercher and it is clear that she has passionate views about the subject. I think other editors actually respect this and have shown Z quite a lot of tolerance, though she probably wouldn't believe me. The article itself is quite controversial and Z herself has a history of making controversial and tendentious edits. A good example would be a recent case where there was some discussion, and an apparent consensus on the talk page, about a rewrite of a section of the article.[65] Although, Z did not contribute to the debate, she set about making some 20 edits to the text as soon as it was in place in the article. When her edits were reverted, she immediately started making personal attacks on the editors concerned, including labelling me as an "anti-Knox" editor.[66] So this is a good example of unwillingness to participate in creating a consensus, making controversial edits and then making personal attacks on people who disagree with Z. When I suggested that she raise her concerns on the talk page, so that they can be discussed, she responded by saying "take the material that I tried to include as my comment": in other words she tends to push the debate out of the talk page and into article space, where it turns into an edit war.[67] Magnificent Clean-keeper raised the issue of Z's conduct at the Wikiquette noticeboard. I thought that this might lead to some advice from an uninvolved editor and I raised my concerns there too. It did indeed lead to some good advice but there was a great reluctance by Z to accept that she is responsible for incivility that others find quite unpleasant. From Z's contributions to the AFD and recent edits to the Kercher article, I don't think she has taken on board the guidance that has been given. Hence, I think there is the need for someone who has the power of sanctions to examine the case. Bluewave (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave's comment discusses an incident which reflects the ongoing problems over the content of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. There has indeed been a big problem on the article in terms of having both sides of the story included, BLP respected, and NPOV achieved. This is why I had suggested mediation, but it seems that there has recently been an attempt to make things "personal" so that the conflict now looks like interpersonal disputes, when the underlying dispute has been over the content of the article. (I do not think that is the case with The Magnificent Clean-Keeper any longer though. I think he has an anger towards me that has become personal and that his intention now is to give me a very hard time and ultimately to get me banned or blocked.) In terms of the content dispute, the problem is that most of the editors edit in a consistent pattern that can be described as the "pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt" side of the story. In terms of the "other" side of the story, which can be described as "pro-Knox/anti-prosecution/pro-innocence" side, it is primarily just me. Another poster named Wikid77 sometimes edits on that side as well, but sometimes edits on the other side too. He does not seem to contribute on a regular basis any longer due to the disputes. Because it is often just me up against Bluewave, Salvio Giuliano, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and a few others on the other side of the case, I have been given a very difficult time and my work is often deleted or challenged and then deleted. But BOTH sides of the story need to be included in order for NPOV to be achieved and BLP to be respected. The defendants in the murder case are still "presumed innocent" until the judicial process is completed and their guilt or innocence finally determined, which will take a few years. In the meantime, both BLP and NPOV require that BOTH sides of the story be included--which means that information both as to their possible guilt and as to their possible innocence should be included. But most of the editors will allow only information tending to show their guilt to be included. So we have a struggle as to including both sides of the story, achieving NPOV and complying with BLP. But for Bluewave or any other editor to say that this dispute is all my fault is not truthful or sincere, since my struggles are to try to include the information which they do not want in the article--which shows the "other" side of the story. Without my lonely struggles to include the "other' side of the story, this article would read like Amanda Knox was a terrible person who sexually assaulted, stabbed, strangled, beat, stabbed and killed her roomate, when none of this has been finally determined. Knox stands innocent until proven guilty and she faces another trial in the Fall in which she could be acquitted. Large numbers of people in the U.S., including public officials and public figures, believe that she has been unjustly accused and never harmed her roommate. Until her guilt or innocence is finally determined, BOTH sides of the story, including the possibility of her innocence should be allowed in the article. It would be helpful if an administrator could help emphasize that NPOV and BLP require that these editors allow BOTH sides of the story in the article, and that they cannot reach a "consensus" to do otherwise. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not about the content of the article; it's about the way you behave towards all those who don't agree with you; that can be seen on the AFD page, but I can provide tons of diffs if needed. Please, try not to shift the topic, here. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from User:Wikid77 - I have been very busy on other articles (and fixing complex calculations in Template:Convert), but I noticed that User:Zlykinskyja has been warning people of WikiHounding activities. I did not realize, until today, that WP:Wikihounding (formerly called "wikistalking" until 27-Oct-2008) is part of WP:Harrassment and is a formal behavior problem that can quickly result in users being blocked. User:Zlykinskyja has been a part-time user, someone working on relatively few articles, and now working to improve articles on legal topics, such as the convicted Linda Carty. I think the claims of wikihounding are correct, and User:Zlykinskyja is in need of protection, at this point, at least in warning other users to not follow along, not hound, and not revert corrections to the next article being edited. Some users seem to have crossed the line, such as User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, by twice reverting major improvements/corrections to another hounded article ("Linda Carty"), perhaps at the suggestion of another user to target that article, as a form of collusion in hounding. I'm not sure that any of them knew about policy WP:Wikihounding, but User:Zlykinskyja certainly asked them to stop, multiple times, both on article talk-pages and on their user-talk pages. They can't pretend they haven't been warned. I realize evidence is needed to support my views, so I suggest the history of article "Linda Carty" (the British/American woman on death row in Texas). I finally took time to review the many improved edits made by User:Zlykinskyja, who corrected errors in that WP:BLP article (ranks #2 in Google, with 46,000 hits about Linda Carty), and then added sources, and then expanded the text. However, User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper decided to revert most of the improvements to article "Linda Carty", 2 times, and restored glaring errors, such as Linda Carty charged with "Capital Punishment" which, of course, is a punishment, not a criminal charge. Those erroneous reverts to "Linda Carty" were shocking:

• 1st revert re-adding errors (18:14, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349650340
• 2nd revert re-adding errors (19:47, 13 March 2010): diff@revision 349666236

I was shocked about anyone wanting to de-correct a WP:BLP article, anyone wanting to re-introduce errors 2x, when User:Zlykinskyja had improved the notable article about this dual-citizen (of interest to both British & American readers) and had described her fate at Mountain View Unit (women's death row), on that very real hillside midway between Houston and Dallas, Texas. Why would someone risk scrambling and hacking such an article, twice, on Wikipedia? Articles about British-American citizens on death row should not be hacked and have errors re-added. So, if perhaps User:Zlykinskyja seems a little upset, please understand the prior massive rescue to a high-profile article on Wikipedia and having to correct problems 3 times, in total, to make Wikipedia seem a better source about such an important legal issue: the execution of a British citizen when capital punishment has been banned in the UK. I advise: tell other users to stop the wikihounding, stop reverting improvements to high-profile articles, and stop submitting frivolous ANI reports about User:Zlykinskyja. The future contributions of User:Zlykinskyja are incalculable to Wikipedia, and I've worked on many thousands of articles, so I think I know whereof I speak. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wikid77. I do feel that I can contribute a lot to Wikipedia in the long run, if only those pushing their own obvious agendas on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article--to present Amanda Knox as guilty of a violent sexual assault and murder--would stop trying to block my participation with these unfair and unethical tactics. These tactics of reporting me on trumped up charges, WikiHounding, intentional provocations, making threats, repeatedly deleting my work over and over and over, are really all aimed at one thing---preventing me from adding the "other side of the story" to the Kercher murder article. The aggressiveness that has been used to try to block and intimidate me from including the "other side of the story" has indeed been shameful. And it needs to come to a stop. Amanda Knox, a young student from Seattle, Washington, is a real person, a living person who is entitled to the protections afforded by the BLP policy on Wikipedia. Yet, there are a few editors who have gone to great lengths to block me from trying to provide some control on the article in terms of defamation. I have had to remove, modify or correct a great deal of information in the article that has been false and defamatory towards her and Raffaele Sollecito and in violation of BLP policy. I have tried to add information that tends to show that she is innocent until proven guilty in a final judicial proceeding, and that no final determination of guilt has yet been made. For this effort, a huge number of hours of my time has been taken up trying to stop these same editors from removing my corrections and edits. Yet, my editing has been in compliance with BLP policy, while some other editors are working against BLP policy. Now they have gone to the next step of aggression by trying these personal attacks to get me blocked or banned. It is not a coincidence that the edits of The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Salvio Giuliano, and Bluewave and a few others of their group have been virtually ALL tending to show Amanda Knox in as negative and GUILTY a light as possible, and they object to most all my edits adopting a more tolerant view of her---and now they are trying to say these disputes occur because of my "conduct." No, the overriding "conduct" in this situation is that a clique of editors is trying many tactics to block me from participating, so that they can write up Amanda Knox in the article to look as guilty as possible, and that article will be on display for the world to read as she goes for her second trial this Fall. This whole thing, in my opinion, is morally and ethically wrong, and could end up violating the rights of Amanda Knox to be free of defamation and adverse unfounded negative pre-trial publicity, and violates many Wikipedia policies including NPOV and BLP. There should be no such thing as a criminal Trial by Wikipedia. Amanda Knox remains innocent until her judicial proceedings are concluded and her guilt or innocence is finally determined. I respectfully request that these editors be admonished to cease trying to block my participation on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, and from WikiHounding me to any other article as further intimidation against my participation. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to bring this discussion back to the subject in hand...namely Zlykinskyja's conduct...I think some of her posts above illustrate very well the points that I was trying to make earlier.

• It appears that Z thinks she is on a mission to insert a particular point of view into the Meredith Kercher article: she says, for example, In terms [of editing] ... the ... "pro-Knox/anti-prosecution/pro-innocence" side, it is primarily just me.
• She assumes bad faith on the part of most other editors: most of the editors edit in a consistent pattern that can be described as the "pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt" side of the story.
• Whenever incivility is mentioned, she cites content disputes as the cause. This suggests that, based on her belief in the bad faith of other editors, she thinks she is justified in being uncivil.
• She assumes consensus will go against her and doesn't accept the need to engage in the consensus process [policies] require that these editors allow BOTH sides of the story in the article, and that they cannot reach a "consensus" to do otherwise.

All these things are driving other editors to despair. Bluewave (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% educated on this discussion, but Zlykinskyja, as far as your arguments, I think you might want to read WP:TLDR. Erpert (let's talk about it) 11:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary: this editor has been assuming bad faith on the part of other users ever since she started editing the MoMK article — a few examples out of many here she immediately assumes censorship, after her edit was reverted; "Now this is really disgusting. Someone, likely FormerIP, has gone and had this article locked so that only certain people can edit the article. That is truly disgusting. The locking of this article was NOT due to any vandalism. It was due to an attempt to block alternative viewpoints. This is the most extreme form of censorship."; claims of defamation; "The bullying and rudeness going on with this article has to stop."; claims of "Conspiring to Obstruct another Editor"; "The rules for this article are more: 1)if it makes Knox look good, it must be deleted; 2)if it makes Knox look bad, it stays."; "But wouldn't something like that be best to do all off-line so the Knox-haters can't trash it?"; "The anti-Knox editors should not be deleting, censoring and blocking contributions by pro-defense editors"; "Efforts by Anti-Knox Editors to Restrict Participation By Pro-defense Editors"; "They have the "consensus" and it does not include US. "They have the "consensus" and it does not include US."; "I guess rather than mediation, Magnificent Clean-Keeper would rather fight. It is all such a waste of time."; do I have to continue? BTW, sorry, if I have been verbose, here ;) — was blocked for sockpuppeting and legally threatened the admin who had blocked her [68], after wikilawyering. She thinks that all those who don't agree with her are wrong, trying to censor her or wikihounding her. The episode of alleged wikihounding took place a week or so ago, but she was lamenting our censorship way before then; she is apparently confusing the correct succession of events.

Here she clarifies her "agenda". Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that in response to my sincere statement on the extended content dispute over the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, the same editors who have been part of the improper effort to obstruct my efforts to participate to present the "other side of the story" in the article are now throwing the kitchen sink at me. This is part of their continuing effort to divert attention from the major problem with the article--their own efforts to allow only one side of the story in violation of the fundamental policies of NPOV and BLP. It will take me a while to do the proper research to respond to these additional accusations: I am still trying to learn how to do diffs, but will try to collect some to provide further information. I intend to return to provide a response as soon as I can reasonably do so, given illness in the family and other real world obligations. Thank you for your patience. I will just reply briefly now that there is nothing that I have ever said or done that excuses the WikiHounding that has occurred. WikiHounding is a form of harassment under Wikipedia policy, and trying to cast the person who was subjected to it as the wrongdoer can never be justified. It is not improper to object to WikiHounding, it is the effort to engage in WikiHounding that is wrongful. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So, now I am one of the baddies? It's not what you wrote three days ago "Salvio has not harassed me by repeatedly deleting my work on the Kercher article." Anyway, for me, this stops here. I will try to avoid you in the future and all will be well, hopefully. Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. She said that I'm the leader of the so called anti Knox crowd so I'm the vampire who bit every one and therefore I must be held responsible for everything ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated this discussion which had been archived (I hope I've done it right). The issue has not been resolved and I think the recent lack of activity was because Zlykinskyja asked for additional time to respond to the allegations. Bluewave (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I left a message on Zlykinskyja's talk page suggesting that she gives us an update on her response, as she asked for more time. I noted that she had made over 50 edits to Wikipedia since her last one here (and has made a lot more since then) and I hoped that this meant she had also had some time to work on her response. However, she didn't respond or reply to my message. I'm reluctant to enquire further, because it will probably be interpreted as wikihounding. Can someone independent please check what's going on? Otherwise this thread will keep disappearing into the archives. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: I believe you are well aware that I have been tied up as of late--first there have been continuing efforts by The Magnificent Clean-keeper to block me from going forward with my new proposed article on Delayed Grief, despite my complaints here that that effort is connected with WikiHounding in retaliation for the content dispute on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Second, your group or a member of your group has filed a new complaint against me at the NPOV Notice Board on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. That new complaint is at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Merdith_Kercher

I think that the new complaint at the NPOV Notice Board demonstrates what I have been saying all along--that there is huge underlying content dispute on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article which is the fundamental problem that needs to be resolved. I have noticed that on the NPOV Notice Board they say that large NPOV issues within an article should go to Mediation or a Request for Comment. I totally agree, and am now going forward with my own filing seeking help along those formal lines today on the basis that the participants on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article need formal guidance on how to comply with NPOV and BLP in such a complex and contentious story involving major international controversy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who has read this far down the thread, without losing the will to live: as a matter of fact I do have a group, but it's the kind that plays music and is not notable enough to feature here. I don't have "a group" on Wikipedia and I resent the allegation that I do. There is indeed a posting on the NPOV Notice Board relating to some further controversial editing that Zlykinskyja did on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, yesterday. However, I disagree that someone has "filed a new complaint against [Zlykinskyja]". It looks to me like they have filed a request for help with the content and it is only Zlykinskyja who is trying to make it personal. Bluewave (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, please stop assuming bad faith on my part. I have tried very hard to try to focus on the content dispute despite the many personal attacks against me on this thread and in other places, which is what Wikipedia policy emphasizes. According to Wikipedia policy, the focus should be on the content, not on the editors. I could have responded here with many examples of instances of how I have been treated very badly by the members of the group of editors involved in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article who post with an opposing point of view to my view concerning the murder. I chose instead to comply with Wikipedia policy of putting primary focus on the content and trying to avoid the focus on the personal. That is what I will continue to focus on as I bring the Murder of Meredith Kercher article forward today for formal Dispute Resolution. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who has read this far down the thread, without losing the will to live ROTFL. And, by the way, the request filed to get help sorting the POV issue out was not and is not against you personally. And please stop trying to shift the topic, here: it has nothing to do with any content disputes, but with the way you behave towards other editors. I really do hope some admin steps in and takes it over from here... You can call me Salvio (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: I could make an issue here of the very upsetting way that you behave towards me, but I have not done that. I have tried to focus on the main issue, which is constructing a well written article about a still unsolved murder mystery that complies with BLP and NPOV, despite all the controversy in three countries surrounding the Amanda Knox trial and case. To say that the controversy in the article is all due to me is disingenuous to say the least. The finger could be pointed at you and others as well. But the main issue, the content dispute, is well demonstrated by the NPOV dispute now underway at this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Merdith_Kercher It is the complex issue of how to handle the content in an article about a murder mystery that is not yet solved that needs to be addressed, and that I am working on now and expect to have a Mediation request filed by today. You can continue to do just what the Wikipedia policy says not to do---make the dispute about the editor--but the real unresolved issues about BLP and NPOV and the content will still impose turmoil in the article, and very much need to be resolved. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/Licensing Issues

User:Ramnareshyadav1982 consistently uploads images lacking appropriate licensing information or questionable claims of fair use as well as the addition (and re-addition after warnings) of copyrighted text to webpages. Most recently re-uploaded a file that was just deleted this morning for lack of license. They appear to not understand that we simply cannot accept copyrighted material. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he claims to be the owner of the material. Should be direct him to WP:OTRS so he can release said material from copyright and placed under a free license? –MuZemike 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to what he needs to do have been repeatedly included on his talk page with all of the copyright violation and fair use rationale templates. I can put a new hand-typed one on if you think it would help. I just haven't already because I doubt it would be any different than the notices he's already gotten. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Consider reporting the user to WP:AIV if the disruption continues. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Done and blocked for yet another issue since your warning, I'll just take similar concerns to WP:AIV in the first place next time. Somehow I forgot that repeated copyright issues counted as vandalism. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

could another admin double check the logic of my edits to User talk:Secisek

I think I'm right in thinking that changing your username is not the same thing as retiring, since you are still here and the edits are now attributed to a new username, and it's deceptive to pretend otherwise. Also, they are somehow still logging under the old username. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree with everything you did. If they wanted a clean break then they should retire the old name and start a new account. If they just wanted a name change then they should move the user/talk pages (which is what they did). They can't have it both ways. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got it correct, Beeblebrox. Accounts don't retire, editors do. If the person behind the account is still editing then they aren't retired, and tags indicating such are misleading. With a rename, the old account should redirect to the new one. Anything else is terribly confusing. Let's say that someone sees an old comment made by Secisek on an article talk page and wants to ask a question about it, if they click their user talk page link and see "retired" then they've hit an unnecessary dead end. If they are instead redirected to the new account, then they know who to ask. Another problem is the user page, which continues to declare the editor retired. It seems like the editor wants to cut ties between the old name and new name, which is wrong for any number of reasons, for one the policy for alternate accounts. -- Atama頭 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART specifically allows for cutting ties, but that's just not what they did and it's a little too late for it now (at least without retiring both old accounts and making yet another one). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that my old user name has lead to off-site harassment and Wikipedia editor(s) were sending text messages to my business cell phone about edit disputes. I am not trying to "run" from my past account, just the user name. I even moved my talk archives to my new page. If it is not possible to retain my history, while removing my association from my old account, I'll just walk away from both the old account and the new one and set up a sock puppet. When I first brought this up over a year ago, my talk page was deleted without question. Why I cannot have the link broken between the two accounts now is unclear, esp. since I had the history moved by request. Let me know if this can be done, because if it can't I am either going to set up a sock puppet, or just edit from an IP going forward. It should not be this hard to avoid off-site stalking. Once more, if this cannot be done, I am just going to have to set up a new account, start from scratch, and exercise my WP:VANISH. --Secisek (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This type of issue should be taken into account in username-change and new-start situations. Unless there has been significant violation of the alternate-accounts policy, or there is some attempt to mislead the community, I don't think linking editors to prior accounts or usernames is necessary where this type of problem has been alleged. Of course if there has been significantly abusive sockpuppetry or the like then the best means of addressing the situation may be very different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Before today Secisek had not actually made any of this clear. Also, since their edits will be attributed to the new username, anyone previously familiar would probably figure out that it was the same user anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rick Schmidlin

Despite the efforts of three other editors, anon IP User:199.175.219.1, who is apparently the subject of the article Rick Schmidlin, continues to make disruptive edits that violate multiple Wikipedia policies, despite multiple warnings on this section of the IP talk page. He will not enter discussion at Talk:Rick Schmidlin, and appears to be obstinately attempting to use Wikipedia to post a resume article, even after multiple warnings that disruptive behavior could lead to a ban. Thank you for any help. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I considered it vandalism as the user removed tags after 4th warning. I reported the user, and the IP has been blocked. Regards, PDCook (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I do believe the IP is really trying to make the article better but is just completely lost about how to do it Wikipedia style. A few other editors have taken notice and I've set up a sandbox to work through it. We have all tried to communicate with the IP via the edit summaries, the article talk page, and the IP talk page but obviously to no avail. Still, I do not think his (assuming it is Rick Schmidlin as claimed in one of his edits) efforts are in bad faith. That said, we do need a break from his constant reverting as this will give us some time to rewrite the article. Even though it'll probably be pretty stubtastic it will be well-sourced for the information it does have (see sandbox). In other words I don't think the IP needs a year-long block as I'd like to think that once the new version is finished he'll be able to contribute in a useful manner. SQGibbon (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it not just be best to userfy this "article" until it's fixed, because at the moment it's just an unsourced BLP. Black Kite 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Userfy where? Not to an IP's area. Woogee (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What about moving it to the incubator? -- Atama頭 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a new version up now. It's a stub but a well-sourced one. SQGibbon (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week. Black Kite 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to write up a report on the spreading disruption and insulting behavior of User:FkpCascais. Regardless of the fact that he thinks himself the very image of neutrality (as indeed, most Balkans nationalist accounts do), this user is undoubtedly in the middle of a campaign to promote Serbian nationalist POV. I say "POV" because his position and his edits are obviously contrary to truly numerous university sources, while he of course, has yet to present a single source for his disruptive editing. In addition, his behavior towards me has just reached a stage at which I feel it needs to be reported to you guys. Not that I am holding this against him in some way, but his English skills, and thus the quality of his edits, are also noticeably sub par.

• On Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, User:FkpCascais has repeatedly removed half a dozen university sources along with the information they supported in spite of warnings and discussion. [69][70][71] When inquired as to the reason for this vandalism, the only answer was that he personally disapproved of one of the authors (a professor of history at Stanford) on the grounds that the person is of Croatian ancestry [72] (also conveniently forgetting that this is only one of the sources). I am Croatian as well, and taking into account his hostile behavior towards me, I can't help but feel this user has a problem with Croats. Balkans ethnic hatred.

• On the Draža Mihailović article, the user repeatedly entered numerous badly written alterations, and then proceeded to edit-war in order to keep them in. He was successful. I won't go into the details, suffices to say that he edited contrary to a great many references in the article. He wrote-up the ethnic ancestry of any scholar who's origins he did not approve of, implying their bias along national lines for no other perceivable reason. He inserted the word "communist" at every conceivable opportunity, and most interestingly, he actually altered the text of quoted documents because he felt it needed "clarifying". All in plainly bad English. [73]

• On the Chetniks article, he engaged in an edit war to rearrange the alphabetically sorted "See also" section the way he felt was more appropriate, and kept removing a template linking to the article.[74] The number of articles affected by the disruption is bound to rise.

As for his behavior: 1) He stated that I am "shitting out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". [75] This was because I was doing my best to explain WP:V to him and he, in his words, perceived my tone to be too "paternal". 2) He continuously insinuates that I am mentally ill, referring to my "complexes" [76][77] (he is probably unaware of the irony in that my medical training has an emphasis on psychiatry :). 3) Most recently, he insulted my origins by calling me an imbecile and instructing me to "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village...". [78] This of course, is the brief account. I am leaving out all the less obvious insults ("ridiculous", "stupid", etc.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In future, please notify the user involved that you have opened this thread. I have done it for you this time. SGGH ^ping! 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, the user instructed me not to address him. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, this is fairly obvious even in the minefield that is EE politics. [79] and [80] are exceedingly obvious, without even going into the attacks on other editors. Black Kite 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, in the words of Eye Serene, the User "edit-warred, removed sourced material because he did not like what it says, and made personal attacks against another editor". This is not the first time that FkpCascais engaged in disruptive editing on Eastern European articles: he was reported and warned by LessHeard vanU [81]. His primary interest on Wikipedia, by his own words, is football, which is also where he is productive. I am involved in this dispute, I know, but I'll still go ahead and recommend that the user be simply topic-banned on Balkans-related articles. The week-long block, while likely deterring the user from further personal attacks, is very, very unlikely to solve the issue of disruptive editing in the long term, as the user still does not try to hide his contemptuous attitude towards discussion and compromise. [82] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Grant.Alpaugh

This user's block was upheld by consensus here last year. They are asking now to be unblocked. They have admitted to disruptively editing before the block, and to block evasion afterword, it doesn't look like they've caused any issues since early October of last year. Since they were essentially banned by a discussion here I am bringing their request here. I'll also be notifying previously involved admins. Below is the the full text of their unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Roughly a year ago a number of disputes began on articles relating to the 2009 Major League Soccer season. Before, during, and after those arguments I behaved in a way that I deeply, completely, and utterly regret. Looking back at my attitude going into those discussions, I clearly took an ownership attitude over most of the MLS and American soccer articles. In the cold light of day, I can see that now. While I regret that attitude, it honestly stemmed from my deeep passion for the sport in the United States, which had been an asset to the encyclopedia in years previous, when I had been a productive member of this community. That being said, I do recognize that it was inappropriate, and I really am sorry. If given the opportunity, I promise to be more humble and to work in a more constructive way with others. During those discussions, I took on an unnecessarily aggressive, demeaning, and most importantly unwelcoming attitude toward both newers members to the community and established members who had recently taken an interest in MLS and American soccer. Again, I deeply regret those actions. I wish more than anything that I could go back and unsay some of the things that I said, or at the very least the way that I said those things. If given the opportunity, the first thing I wish to do is apologize to each of the members who I offended and made feel unwelcome in this project. Finally, after being banned from editing the encyclopedia, I engaged in utterly indefensible behavior to attempt to evade my ban. This behavior was disruptive to the encyclopedia, and I can only apologize and ask forgiveness with the promise that it would never happen again if this community sees it fit to reinvite me into the fold. While I can honestly say that the initial suspicion of sock puppetry was really my brother and I both engaging in the discussion from our home in Dayton, we were at the very least guilty of meatpuppetry, since we did not make it clear who we were from the beginning. Again, I can only apologize for this behavior, ask for forgiveness, and attempt to prove that I can be a valuable member of this community once more. I am so very sorry and ashamed of the things that I did over the last year, and I ask to be given another chance to rejoin the encyclopedia.

I would support his unblock request as he seems sincere that he has learned his lesson. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if we unblock him and he continues his old ways? Kingjeff (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We reblock him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Would that reblock be an indefinite block as it is now? The only way I could say unblock him is if we put in stipulations stating that his current indefinite block would come into effect after lets say 2 or 3 blockable incidents or maybe reinstate that indefinite block immediately after the first blockable incident happens. Kingjeff (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look at the user's contribs and unblock request, and I'd cautiously support an unblock, provided that the user abides by a double-strength good behaviour commitment; on the first sign of trouble, they're indef blocked again, permanently this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC).
• While his last sock incident (that I know of) was actually only 6 months ago, I would support giving Grant another chance. If there is concern that not enough time has passed or that he may revert back to his bad behavior, I'd suggest unblocking him with a 0RR probationary period or something along those lines. I'm willing to forgive the disruption and frustration he caused myself and other editors and I encourage the administrators to do the same. I agree that if his contributions become unproductive or problematic as they were before, he should be swiftly banned again. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with SkotyWA. Unblock and limit him to 0RR or 1RR, and if disruption/edit warring/sock puppetry become an issue again, re-ban. ← George ^talk 06:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

copied from his talk page Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)*Thank you for even considering my request. I realize that you all have no reason to believe me, but I ask you to trust that in the six months to a year since my last serious activity on this project (other than reading it of course) has really changed my attitudes toward it. I used to be, for lack of a better word addicted, to Wikipedia. That is no longer the case. While I still use the encyclopedia multiple times a day, I no longer feel the compulsive need to fix everything that I percieve to be improper. Unless something is factually incorrect, I now realize that the correct way to deal with something is to discuss it with other editors. Anyway, thank you again for even considering my request. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I say given him another chance, with the provision that nobody is going to completely forget the past, and I'd expect tolerance to be thin in the future if he starts the improper behavior again. -- Atama頭 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would also agree on another chance based on his replies at User talk:Grant.Alpaugh#Unblock. something lame from CBW 02:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Another chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for community input on User:GoRight

On January 7th, I made a conditional proposal[83] for GoRight's unblock after a lengthy WP:RFU request. He had previously been blocked by 2/0 for multiple breaches of policy which culminated in a de facto community ban.[84] I took responsibility for acting as an uninvolved third party to monitor GoRight's edits and provide guidance where necessary.

Presently, I'm less than happy with GoRight's progress in overcoming the behaviors which led to his indefinite block. Specifically, I'm seeing incidence of disruption,[85] harassment,[86][87][88][89] wikilawyering,[90] and failure to assume good faith.[91][92]

At this point, I would like to bring the issue for community review and input. Whenever I have blocked or unblocked in the past, my criteria has always come down to a certain formula: Does this editor's positive contributions outweigh his negative ones? I believe that everyone deserves second chances, and that's exactly why I offered to unblock GoRight after his RFU. However, at this point I'm having a very hard time justifying his continued presence. His helpful edits since the time of his unblock do not outweigh the additional time and effort that his less than helpful edits have posed on other editors. I would much rather see a change of editing patterns than another community ban, but at this time I feel that greater input is needed as that that dysfunctional editing pattern seems to be escalating rather than improving. Trusilver 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what I am expected to say here. I believe that all of my edits are defensible in that there is a story behind them but if the community agrees with Trusilver's assessment of them then the best course of action is to block or ban me. I will respond to direct questions otherwise this is all I really have to say. I appreciate Trusilver's assistance in the past and I accept that he is acting in the best interest of the community. --GoRight (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

History shows a recurrent pattern: (1) GoRight gets blocked; (2) GoRight promises to do better and gets unblocked; (3) GoRight behaves quite well for a while; (4) GoRight gradually lapses back to his former provocations, bad-faith assumptions, etc; (5) eventually GoRight crosses the line; return to (1). We are now in phase (4). Whether GoRight continues to steps (5)->(1) is up to him, though my understanding is that the terms of his unblock allow others to short-circuit the loop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of GoRight's edits are in talk and project space - this month alone disrupting existing disputes and filing frivolous ones, ignoring arbitrators, encouraging problematic editors, spraying talk pages with distracting requests, making thinly veiled threats, proposing sanctions against other editors, telling people to mind their own business while refusing to do so himself, ridiculing and annoying people, atrocious wikilawyering, etc. Those that aren't tend to be minor reverts of vandalism (and warnings for same). Indeed I've just scanned his contributions all the way back to the start of the year (over 1,500 edits) and was unable to find even a single substantive edit in main space.

While I would support restoring the community ban, I would equally support an MYOB sanction as suggested by TenOfAllTrades, likely modeled after Abd's editing restriction. This would be his third and final opportunity to prove himself by taking the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. -- samj _in^out 02:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just kind of stumbled across this discussion and checked a few things and want to make a statement. The pattern that Short Brigade points out is fact and in my estimation will probably continue. but I like the suggestion of Samj, and I would make sure GoRight understands this is his LAST option. I suggest the the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. Just an outsiders thought. Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with comments from Mlpearc. There's a lot of work that could use the help of editors like GoRight. Would GoRight be interested in working on non-admin maintenance tasks? What about creating requested articles or helping cleanup articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is a possibility for sure. Do you have some pointers to the types of things you mean by "non-admin maintenance tasks"? Creating requested articles may also be an option, but where does one go to find such requests? --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requested articles exists, but perhaps a more important task that needs doing would be [93]. If you worked on those articles (I probably should be taking my own advice), I am sure that the community would be very grateful. NW (Talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is tons of copy editing to do at Guild of Copy Editors; if you have good English skillz this is a place where wikignomes can thrive. Any help would be appreciated. Diannaa ^TALK 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Something also that I've been doing a little of, and not even scratching the surface, is checking school-related articles. These have a much higher than usual tendency for vandalism, and that vandalism very often gets by the recent change patrollers. Trusilver 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can help source Category:Unreferenced_BLPs, clean spam and cruft from Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. Hell, there is a lot of stuff at Category:Wikipedia_maintenance. Another option is commenting at deletion discussions, you can pick the one you like more: WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:IFD or WP:DRV. Or just visit articles at random until you find one that a) you like the subject and b) it's underdeveloped; you can then expand it at will. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support (with equal preference) site ban or SamJ's proposal to impose a similar Abd restriction on GoRight. Only a few hours before commenting here, GoRight demonstrated that he already knew what a wikignome is and was tendentiously arguing that his contributions have been improving the project when by contrast, many incidents and existing sanctions suggest otherwise. If this was an editor who genuinely doesn't know what wikignome is, I'd be piling on the advice/guidance above, without any support for an involuntary restriction. But the very meaning of "final warning" or "unblock conditions" appears to be becoming meaningless. I cannot ignore what Short Brigade Harvester Boris has described, or the diffs in SamJ's comment, or the fact that this situation is not improving with mere voluntary measures and advice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal for GoRight to consider The main problem seems to be that you have a very strong urge to get involved in subjects on which you have a very strong opinion (e.g. climate change) which you feel isn't covered neutrally on Wikipedia. But you have to understand that the way things are covered is almost always consistent with community consensus, and changing that is not an option. A better way to do something with your ideas in these matters is to write up an essay in general terms in which you explain what in your opinion is not going well on Wikipedia and then discuss that essay. Such activities are not disruptive. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree on Essay with Count Iblis ... working on essays is a productive path for GoRight to adopt. I proposed in the past that GoRight submit an essay to 2over0 as an unblock condition with demonstrated content production. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been intentionally mostly avoiding GoRight's edits after they were unblocked - why give myself the headache when the wonder of the wiki model is that we all provide checks on each other? The diffs above (and a little digging to be sure that the context is clear) indicate that they have not taken to heart the lengthy unblock discussions, past sanctions and formal and informal warnings, and advice from numerous editors. I am glad that other editors were willing to undertake this experiment, as I think GoRight genuinely cares about this project; I maintain that even editors with few edits to the mainspace can be very productive in generating quality articles. In the absence of a dramatic improvement in their approach to editing, however, I support a new indefinite block. Mandating that they go edit areas where they have not experienced conflict (viz. completely new areas of the project) could be a solution, but please please word the sanction extraordinarily carefully and clearly. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked, indeed urged, GoRight to avoid involvement in climate change articles during the early unblock period, but he has devoted most of his efforts to that field. Had I known that GoRight would also want to involve himself in the Abd fuss, I would also have counseled against that.

But GoRight is so clearly an intelligent and often insightful contributor that I cannot help but think that his skills would be wasted on wikignome work. He has some King Charles' heads, and he needs help with them. Some kind of behavioral ban would work well here, I'm sure.

2over0's original framework incorporated the following suggested limitations [94]

1. Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive.
2. Topic ban from climate change related articles for six months. This is not the maximum allowed under the community probation, but rather the minimum I see as likely to be useful to the project. I am sensitive to the concerns of systematic bias you raise in your most recent email, but this does not extend to a tolerance for disruption.
3. Some form of ban from all disputes and noticeboard threads in which you are not a named party or otherwise clearly and directly involved, with the possible the exceptions of ArbCom and RFC/U. This is also easily open to conflicting interpretations, and I would want additional input before settling on clear wording that carries the same meaning both to the two of us and to people unfamiliar with the background to the restriction. I also consider it important not to restrict legitimate pursuit of dispute resolution.

I thought 2over0 had hit the nail on the head at that point, and it's a matter for some regret to me that he had not the time to follow through. Perhaps we should reconsider this rather than going for something more draconian. --TS 20:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was less an issue of time than that I decided with some regret that if I had not by the point I gave up after three weeks of intense discussion been able to communicate to GoRight why and how their editing had been detrimental to the project, then I would not be able to. I freely admit that I am not the most socially ept editor in the bin, but neither am I alone in being able to convince GoRight to change their approach. If the community can fashion a workable system under which this project can continue to benefit from their contributions without suffering the all to common negatives, I would support that unreservedly. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support Tony's proposal above, and also suggest that some sort of Chinese wall be erected between him and Abd as they appear to feed each others' worst instincts. I just found this blog from GoRight, with an attendant troll from Thegoodlocust. I change my view: let him hang. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I read it. Is it really that bad? I'm convinced we should embrace our critics, not ban them. I must say, I don't like how GoRight uses the term "pro-AGW". Nobody is "pro" AGW. Can we please use accurate terms? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    *sigh* My off-wiki activities are not germane here. The "About" page on the site tells you all you need to know. I am unaware of any policy that I am violating by running an off-wiki blog, but if such a policy exists please bring it to my attention so that I can take appropriate corrective action. Another user, much more prominent that myself, similarly runs a blog as well where he likewise comments on the comings and goings here, amongst other things. His blog has been discussed many times and the result is always that there is no problem with him doing so.

    @Viriditas : To be specific, the blog is NOT critical of Wikipedia in general but the Climate Change pages and the editing environment there specifically, that is to the extent that it actually is "critical". Regarding "pro-AGW" do you have some alternative that you feel would be more appropriate. --GoRight (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    • I agree that GoRight's blog postings should not be used to sanction him on-wiki, regardless of how constructive or unconstructive those postings may be. If we go that direction there are many so-called "respected admins and content contributors" who could be held to account for far worse postings in other venues. As for "pro-AGW," think about what that literally means: if anything, it is GoRight and like-minded editors who are "pro-AGW." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Off-wiki actions should be held accountable on-wiki. If we loose "respected" admins and content contributors, so be it. -Atmoz (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Right, while we have little or no control of what happens off-wiki I see no problem with taking it into consideration when discussing on-wiki activities. While the discussion appears fairly benign, Guy obviously takes offense and it's hard to see how commentating on a running dispute via a one-way channel could be anything but disruptive (imagine if everyone was doing this). -- samj _in^out 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Is it "that bad"? Depends on how you define "that bad". It's the usual conspiracy theory bullshit, it further stirs already muddy waters and as a result of reading around his writing off-wiki I now believe that his aim ere is to see his POV better represented, rather than to collaborate. Where he says his off-wiki activities are not relevant to Wikipedia, this is the precise opposite of what he's arguing in the case of the disruptive IP at AN. Obviously I find him tiresome, persistent and frustratingly tenacious in advocating what seems to me to be a politically motivated campaign to reduce the emphasis on the scientific consensus behind global warming, he's also given spectacularly bad advice to Abd who has quite enough problems of his own to be going on with, and he piles into any dispute where he perceives that science might be winning, the difference the blog post makes is that it persuades me that he's here for advocacy not out of genuine concern for the project. We have no shortage of tenacious advocates who cause a lot less friction than GoRight. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect 2over0's and Trusilver's opinions that the attempted rehabilitation has failed. At this point the most appropriate action might seem to be indefinite block (a de facto ban) with user talk rights, so as to permit the continuation of good faith discussion of GoRight's editing rights.

As GoRight has indicated that he doesn't welcome my input. I would also respect that and would not participate in discussion on his talk page unless invited by him.

I do not endorse Guy's opinion of GoRight's blog posting. Although I do not agree with it I do not think it betrays Wikipedia's principles. There are some websites that are well known troll-friendly venues, and I've been unstinting in my criticism of such activity both on and off Wikipedia, but I think GoRight's intent is altogether more wholesome. --TS 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not an admin, nor uninvolved, but I support a total ban of GoRight. He's a troll. He has always been a troll. He always will be a troll Has never once contributed anything positive to Wikipedia, except when he thinks he's going to get banned. Then he'll do some menial task until the shitstorm blows over, and then he'll continue on with the trolling. Repeat ad nauseam. -Atmoz (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Didn't GoRight have something to do with the recent CRU rename? Whether you agree with the rename or not, his participation in the original discussion could be perceived as positive. I think he deserves a strongly worded "last chance" with a line drawn in the sand. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    You are thinking of this. The final discussion was unrelated but generally consistent with it. --GoRight (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    • while (1 > 0); last_chance (GoRight); end Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • while (2 + 2 = 5); climate_change_articles; end Alex Harvey (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix

The user has been inserting poorly source material into Al-Muizz Lideenillah. The user has since been canvasing other editors to support the material in question, see [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105] (all of these users self-identify as Copts). The user also urges another user blocked for socking to come back as another username, see [106]. Could somebody do something about this user? nableezy - 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the reporting user is trying to retaliate for having been reported for edit waring and reverting referenced material 8 times on the same article here. To my knowledge, none of what I have done is against any Wikipedia policy. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not why I filed this report, in fact if an admin properly reviews your 3RR complaint you should be blocked for repeated violations of WP:BLP. I was glad you filed that report. nableezy - 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm happy you're glad I filed the report. We shall see who is in violation according to the admins. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 02:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to start a thread about Lanternix myself. I find it very disturbing that he is encouraging a blocked editor to evade his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking him/her to evade the block. My understanding, and I was told this before, is that if a user is blocked indefinitely - as is the case here - then he/she can come back with a new username as long as they no longer repeat the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place. It's not like an indefinite block is a block for life! What if the person took the time to rethink their actions? I would appreciate an admin's comment on this. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that what you did? nableezy - 03:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I did. All I told him was Please come back with another username. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been extremely helpful! Why is that such a big deal? Is there a Wikipedia rule against this? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asking if you came back from an indefinitely blocked account as this username. nableezy - 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ask that, and why is that of any concern to you? Not that it's any of your business, but the answer is no. And the question is completely out of line. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "Is there a Wikipedia rule against this?"; a person is is blocked indefinitely for socking, and you encouraged him to, um...make another sock. In what alternate reality is there not a rule against this? Tarc (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wikipedia rules state that a user who is blocked indefinitely can never come back to edit on Wikipedia as a different user until the day of their death? I'm sorry, but is that what you're calling common sense??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While I sympathize with Copts always being in the minority against Arabs, said user was blocked just a few days ago. The "fresh-start"-thingie you're referring to won't fly after such a short time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I did not look at the date of when that user was blocked. Second of all, it's never too early for someone to rethink his/her actions and start all over again with a different attitude. And thanks for sympathizing with the Copts. We need it. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain this in simple language, Lanternix. When a user is blocked, the person is blocked, not just the Username. Using a new Username to evade a block is called sockpuppetry. See WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK for more information. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik, thank you for trying to explain this to me. But please bear with me and answer my 2 following questions:

1. Is a Wikipedia user who has been blocked indefinitely never allowed to come back to edit on Wikipedia in the future using a different username?
2. In case the answer to question number 1 is negative, is there any rule on Wikipedia that prohibits other users from encouraging a permanently blocked user from coming back to edit? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1. A blocked user may ask to be unblocked. A user should not come back using a new Username unless she/he has been unblocked.
2. There's no rule against encouraging a blocked user to appeal her/his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, so in light of what you said:

1. What if the user's appeal to be unblocked has been denied? Is the user who has been blocked indefinitely never allowed to come back to edit on Wikipedia in the future using a different username?
2. Technically I did not do anything wrong by encouraging the user to come back. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. If a user's unblock request is turned down, she/he can wait a while and make a new request (or find a new hobby and give up Wikipedia). You may not have realized it, but you encouraged Toothie3 to violate Wikipedia policy and create a sockpuppet to evade his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not encourage anybody to create a sockpuppet. I only encouraged the user to come back and not give up editing on Wikipedia because their contributions have been invaluable. There's no rule against encouraging a user to come back and not to give up! At least I'm not aware of any. I will hereby repeat what I said earlier: "My understanding, and I was told this before, is that if a user is blocked indefinitely - as is the case here - then he/she can come back with a new username as long as they no longer repeat the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place. It's not like an indefinite block is a block for life! What if the person took the time to rethink their actions?" --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix, whoever told you that "...if a user is blocked indefinitely - as is the case here - then he/she can come back with a new username as long as they no longer repeat the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place." was incorrect. You may encourage an indefinitely blocked user to return but not under a new name. They should be encouraged to follow the appeals outline at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking. If the appeal is denied and they then create a new user name they will be blocked for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. As far as I can see this has been explained to you clearly more than once. If you still do not understand then please ask me on my talk page rather than repeating it again here. Encouraging an indefinitely blocked user to return again under a new user name will more than likely lead to your being blocked. something lame from CBW 07:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If what you're saying is true, then I apologize for having made this suggestion to the blocked user. I was not aware that this is the Wikipedia policy. Blocking me for having made a suggestion like this in good faith seems a little extreme to me. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the last sentence was badly written. I should have said "If you were to post another message that encourages an indefinitely blocked user to return under a new name, it is more than likely you would be blocked." I was not intending to suggest that you be blocked for doing it the first time. something lame from CBW 08:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out something.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

I don't see anything inherently wrong with coming back under a new name and not repeating the behavior that got you blocked. To suggest that it is wrong is illogical. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly if one is doing that to avoid scrutiny (and not disclosing said previous account(s)), that would indeed be an example of using multiple accounts in a misleading way. –MuZemike 14:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't we have sort of a tacit understanding that if a blocked user returns under a new account and behaves well, there's really no way to figure out that they're a blocked editor? While maybe there's a beans argument to be made against what Laternix said, is it really beneficial to try to hide from others what everyone who's been here a while knows? Buddy431 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, openness is a good thing I suppose, but there's a difference between someone quietly coming along and behaving impeccably and people turning a blind eye to whether it might be a user who was banned a while ago returning, and someone - User:Lanternix on this occasion - soliciting an editor who's very recently been banned for socking to come back with a new username within days in order to back them up in their efforts to insert contentious material onto pages here, surely? Also note that, following his own short block, Lanternix is now talking about strengthening "our lobby" and bantering with another editor on their talkpage who is describing another editor - User:Nableezy - as "Muhammad or whatever". None of this seems to have much to do with writing an encyclopedia. N-HH talk/edits 19:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Persistent BLP vandalism on Lil' Mo

Over the past few days, there has been a concerted effort to insert BLP vandalism into Lil' Mo. On 24 March there were a large number of IP addresses inserting nonsense; the users were reverted and I sprotected the article for a day, but unfortunately it seems that as soon as the sprotect expired the vandalism started up again. This time, I have blocked the main account (User:Realiytking (talk · contribs)) who was doing a fair chunk of the vandalism. Based on the fact that there a variety of different ISPs evident in the IP addresses used, I'd say that there are multiple vandals at work here, (probably kids from an internet forum or IRC room with nothing better to do, I'd say, based on the content of the edits) For this reason, I'm not all that confident that an autoblock will do much, but at the same time that the article seems relatively stable for now, so I'm hesitant to actually block.

If people could add the article their watchlists or otherwise keep an eye on it that'd be great. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

If I didn't know better, I would say that was a coordinated attack by 4chan, but I don't see anything really to indicate that it's them. Is this a popular subject recently or something? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• They definitely went to town on this BLP. You missed some: [107]. I've Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xeno^talk 05:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, bummer. Not knowing the topic, it was difficult to tell in places where the article stopped and the vandalism begun. Thanks for the eagle eyes! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC).

Unwanted comments on my user talk page

Unresolved

 – Generally if one asks you not to post to their user talk page any other longer, you should respect their wish. As for the article in question, there is an ongoing discussion at the appropriate venue, Talk:John J. Pershing#Disputed nickname. –xeno^talk 13:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mk5384 is posting negative, uncivil, and unwanted comments on my user talk page [108], [109], [110]. This after I asked to user (twice) to desist [111], [112]. A similar situation developed on the talk page of User:Off2riorob [113]. I asked the user to desist this activity on the user's own talk page as well [114], the notice was promptly removed. -OberRanks (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor warned -- ball's in their court now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The ball's in my court? OK! OberRanks posted a response to my post; then threatened to delete anything else that I put there. So, he gets the last word, and I am not permitted a rebuttal? Furthermore, isn't he in violation of policy by posting a comment about me here, and not notifying me? This user has a habit of running to administrators when he dosen't get his way to the letter, which can be seen in the John Pershing discussion. He is having a temper tantrum because he was refused the right to be the final authority on that article. If you look at my history on Wikipedia, you will see that I have a track record of civility and compromise. That, however, does not mean that I will be anyone's doormat! Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Any administrator may review my contributions on the John Pershing discussion, I have nothing to hide. The discussion at the JP article is unrelated to uncivil talk page notes on my own user page. -OberRanks (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, here he is. He just has to get the last word. He claims he wants to be left alone, and then comes here to stir the pot. Please take note, as an administrator, that OberRanks has now granted you permission to review the Pershing article.Mk5384 (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this edit will be of particular interest, given M5384's statements that I am having a temper tantrum regarding material in the John Pershing article. As far as the track record of "civility and compromise", the user's talk page has two warnings of edit wars as well as the recent thread regarding inappropriate posting to other's talk pages. There was also a recent 3rr warning as well [115] which the user removed without comment [116]. I think the pattern is clear. -OberRanks (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, you don't really have a leg to stand on. I'd advise backing down. Jtrainor (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 began in January and his 7th edit was to try to slip "N*gger Jack" into Pershing's list of nicknames. Lately he's made it a crusade, for reasons unknown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons unknown? OK; I'll assume good faith. It was his name.Mk5384 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. In any case, your latest reversion in this edit war is here,[117] and provides no justification for adding it back. Posting that justification here doesn't count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK; this has just gotten silly. No it wasn't? Despite 62 sources listed there, you're actually going to defend yourself with the comment, "No, it wasn't"?Mk5384 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a common nickname. "Black Jack" was. Hence the footnotes explaining its origin... and the article text explaining its origin. To push the N-word into the infobox is unjustifiable and incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be resolved on the talk page. Admins have no special competence here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree. As to the original issue brought here - typically if one asks you to stop posting to their talk page, you should respect their wish. Any outstanding issues can be taken up in article talk, ANI, or other relevant venues. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. –xeno^talk 13:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Except for the crusading user's potential for escalating the edit war. That's the admin attention that may be needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if there is ongoing edit warring, note it here or WP:AN3. –xeno^talk 13:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, whether he's crusading or you're censoring is not a dispute that AN/I should be handling. Please work it out with him. There may be a middle ground if the nickname exists per RS but is not common, like a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no censorship in the article. That's a false claim by the crusader. We'll see if Mk5384 backs off or accelerates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears there's another edit war brewing, Fully protected, please continue discussion on talk page. –xeno^talk 13:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Also, although Mk5384 has not (yet) violated 3RR technically, he reverted 5 times in 39 hours. And if he reverts again right away, that will be 6 in about 41 hours, which would probably put him in violation, so I'm guessing he'll wait until a total of 48 or more hours has passed from his first revert. (Moot) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would remind everyone involved that WP:3RR#Is not an entitlement. –xeno^talk 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

Resolved

User informed of policy and appears to be discussing. SGGH ^ping! 12:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to look into a case of what appears to be blatant advertising of a website. The spammer in question, User:Keithwatt, continually adds a link and promotional text to the article Wireless Set No. 19, as seen here. While I consider this beyond obvious, I would appreciate another opinion/set of eyes since I'm now involved and thus consider it inappropriate to take action wrt this editor. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Final warning added, obvious promotion with no attempt to communicate or acknowledge the problem. If you are not comfortable dealing with it (which is fine) either flag up here or WP:AIV if he/she does it again and one of us misses it. SGGH ^ping! 10:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact someone has blocked him. SGGH ^ping! 10:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He's spaming - edit waring - and ignoring all attempts to warn or discuss. No brainer. The account has no other uses, so blocked indef. He can be unblocked if he starts to talk to us.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, once I've entered into opposition against another editor, I will not in any situation (save for particularly vicious stuff) use the mop and bucket. Thanks SGGH for your second opinion, and to Scott MacDonald's third. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now unblocked since he's started talking. Someone might like to go and help him understand things a bit.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone seems to have engaged him. I know it is confusing but you have to take some responsibility for understanding things I believe. But if he is pointed in the right direction policy wise, things should be fine. I'm marking as resolved. SGGH ^ping! 12:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite abuses of policy and talkpage guidelines

Too many editors with too many over-reactions. The underlying issue for this thread has been resolved, so it's time to close down the sideshow.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ryan is a ARBCOM member. He has shown a trend of moving or reformating other's comments. I find it extremely ironic that he assuming powers not granted to him, as a matter of fact it is quite against policy to refactor or format others comments unless obvious vandalism. [[118]] like this is a great example of a post that is definitely not vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not an ArbCom member, I'm an ArbCom clerk. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Lol. Tan | 39 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) To be clear: he is an arbitration committee clerk. And WP:TPG has other guidelines over-and-over obvious vandalism, though I make no comment as to whether the removal linked in the diff above is appropriate. –xenotalk 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The post you've linked to was an editor trying to call another editor homophobic without a single bit of evidence to back it up. It was an egregious personal attack - easily removable. Your shenanigans with templated warnings to regualar editors[119][120] is an issue. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) To Quote wp:dttr... "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. The editor using the template may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not themselves consider the template use rude. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template. " Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC) You're certainly not saving time here. Quit templating the regulars. Seriously, cut that shit out. Tan | 39 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Seriously, there is a provision for those who disagree. Ryan is free to try and get hat changed but as is I do have the authority wiythin policy to do this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) With the greatest respect, you're cruising right towards a block at this stage. If I see you template another editor inappropriately, you'll be having an enforced break. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Can you show me a policy that specifically disallows this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Well, if you were templating people for correct reasons, it would be rude, but not disallowed per se. Templating people for inappropriate reasons moves it from being rude into Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I believe it to be a correct action. You reverted a discussion that was not your own and was not obvious vandalism. You then make threats outside policy. As I have explicit allowance under policy, which you concede, why not trying to ask someone to not template you? I would also point you to the other essay WP:DTR the only thing that is specifically disallowed is refactoring talkpage comments that are not obvious vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Stop templating the regulars. Period. This isn't the first time this has been a problem. Ryan P and I are far from friends, but he's right. Do it again, and further disruption will be prevented via a block. Tan | 39 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Again, without commenting on the present case, TPG allows for more than removal of mere vandalism. –xenotalk 15:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: [...] Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. @taN AND rYAN. So we're making up policies now? I have specific allowance under that policy to do this. You can't show me specifically where it says I can't. Stop making threats outside of policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC) To quote from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (the guideline for talk page comments); "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:.... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." When I was removing the post on Jimbo's talk, it was because a user called another editor homophobic, an egregious personal attack. When I was refactoring your comments on the ArbCom motions page, I was doing so because they were filled with personal attacks. Both of these are permitted reasons to remove posts, yet you have insisted on templating me 4 times, which is disruptive editing, hence why if you do something similar again, you'll be getting a block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC) And I still maintain it was innapropriate, that motion was and is nonsense. It's political posturing nothing more. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Well we'll leave it at that then. I'm slightly embarrassed to say this, but this is one of those cases where I'm right and you're completely wrong. Now, either take the advice given to you above, or end up blocked very shortly. That is the last I have to say on the matter. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not embarrassed at all to say you're wrong and I'm right. Stop the posturing. I have confidence that while not all of my arguments are calm and analytical they are correct. When they are not I will apoligize but it's hard to assume good faith to a admin that likes to threaten first and engage later. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Templating someone warning him that he will be blocked as a vandal for removing a personal attack is obviously going to piss him off, isn't it? As a result, the time you were trying to save through it is now being spent in brewing a category 5 hurricane in a teacup. Now would be a good time for everyone to cool down. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Look, issuing barely-applicable templates and threatening to block for the same thing are both wrong for much the same reason. Templates and blocks both have their place, but are almost never the correct initial course of action when dealing with other good faith users. HiaB, please take the extra 2 minutes to type something out; it is less likely to escalate the problem, is more likely to be heeded, and won't make you look so unreasonable (the wording of the templates wasn't really applicable). RP and Tan, please don't jump straight to threats of blocking for (really) minor issues of "disruption"; an occasional inappropriate template can be insulting, but it isn't block-worthy. I'm still naive enough to think we could, occasionally, treat each other as grownups instead of communicating primarily with templates and blocks. <!-- Template:uw-rodneyking1 --> --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As I pointed out above, this wasn't the first time it happened. Thus, I didn't "jump straight to threats"; I threatened the block when the problem became persistent. If you want to coddle disruptive editors, that's your prerogative; I think I've made it clear in the past that I don't. Tan | 39 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC) OK, "jump way too quickly to threats". I see we disagree, but IMHO blocking generally good faith editors for minor annoyances almost always makes things worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Floquen unfortunately this is a situation that I may have caused myself. I am not the calmest of editors. I do try to do things in good faith but I do blow my stack and this is related to a long term dispute with some of the ARB practices. By doing this I gained the appellation of being undesirable. I've seen you around and would hate for you to get drug down to that crowd too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As the party who theoretically should care most about that particular comment, I had a nice chat (no, really - WP:AGF works]] with the poster. They apologized, the misunderstanding was cleared up, Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo was mentioned ... why is there anything else to do here? Can we please close this thread under WP:DRAMA? I do not see how the present focus of this discussion really gets us a better encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comment, 2/0. Since it's pretty clear that the whole incident was a wildly-overzealous escalation of dispute resolution based on a complete misunderstanding, apparently identifiable to everyone except the topic poster at Jimbo's talkpage, Ryan's actions were (AGF) trying to help the situation by removing some of the hyperbole. I'd close this thread myself, but I'd rather not have a follow-up thread on that potential perceived abuse of policy and/or talkpage guidelines. Hell in a Bucket, perhaps you wouldn't mind closing the thread to cool all of this down? — Scientizzle 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from CobaltBlueTony H in a B may hold differing views, but his delivery method can cross the WP:CIVIL line, which results in his being blocked. If he has a point, he needs to mend fences and kiss boo-boos before anyone will accept the validity of his arguments. For instance, the example he started with above is a snapshot into a long and arduous process of people continually bringing up the same issues to Jimbo Wales over and over again, never satisfied with his response. H in a B and the Brews crew are also never satisfied with legitimate responses to their legitimate arguments, and so they persist in griefing the community in a bizarre hope that we'll get sick of them and let them have their way, even though it violates what the community wants. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Actually that worked. I think I may still have the forwarded email from Jimbo saying he was concerned over the handling of that case. He specifically asked for a review, anything we did was hugely successful Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Nevertheless, blanking of comments of the sort I described is common practice, to prevent needless disruption. (How Mr. Wales receives it is on him.) The point is that, if you intend to fix ArbCom, such as it is, you've really got to clean up your act. This nonsense here doesn't really help. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Actually other then this Arb action I enjoy friendly relations with Administrators. My main issue on Wiki other then occasionally blowing my stack is that I didn't ignore the wrongs in the arbitration format. It has indeed taken away from me, but I do believe in right action not only on my part but the admin and arbcom too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC) When it's your word against theirs, choose yours carefully. If you keep your cool, they have nothing actionable against you. That's what I've been saying all along. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The funny thing is that I did keep my words cool, hence using a template with the diffs. This resulted in a threat of a block. If it means using templates so I don't berate them it's much better then geting blocked for personal attacks.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Your use of these templates, bordering on inappropriate (and often falling into the wrong side of it) is both disruptive (because -- and you knew this already -- it's considered rude) and serves only to irritate (intentionally?) a person with whom you disagree (another example of griefing). It's like telling a cop he's double-parked. It ain't gonna end well. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Userpage issue

Nothing more to see here. –xenotalk 03:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Threats against the personal safety of an editor? Ash (talk · contribs) has placed the following on their userpage (emphasis mine): After a particularly nasty personal attack against me I have put a halt to any other significant work on Wikipedia as my security must take a priority. The objective of those minority of Wikipedia Review members involved is to censor Wikipedia, in this case by ensuring that editors will fear sustained personal attacks if they contribute to LGBT sexuality topics. Their approach works. Interested parties that wish to discuss or can advise as to next steps, please contact me by email. Related background can be found on this draft RFC/U. It would be an unlikely co-incidence that the serious personal attack against me started shortly after this document was created. I am the editor named in the linked draft RFC/U and I believe that most readers would therefore assume that I am connected both to the unspecified "particularly nasty personal attack" and the unspecified threat to Ash's "security". The fact that this section is enclosed in hidden comments reading "<!--Delicious carbuncle-->" and "<!--/Delicious carbuncle-->" should remove any doubt that I am being deliberately and specifically targeted by these remarks. This comes after a series of increasingly inflammatory personal attacks from Ash on their user page and elsewhere. My direct requests to admins to deal with these comments have either resulted in strangely inappropriate comments or no response at all. I have encouraged Ash and associated parties to file the oft-threatened RFC/U so that their concerns can be addressed and their accusations can be put to rest. I am tired of trying to deal with these baseless accusations and I do not believe that it should be acceptable for any Wikipedia editor to allege that another editor has put their physical safety in jeopardy. Can someone please deal with this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Personal safety is, and always will be, a priority that Wikipedia takes for all editors. I cannot really see where Ash has gotten the impression that his personal safety is at risk. He stated, 'The objective of those minority of Wikipedia Review members involved is to censor Wikipedia, in this case by ensuring that editors will fear sustained personal attacks if they contribute to LGBT sexuality topics. Their approach works.' Which is contradicting where he stated that his personal safety is at risk. I feel that, as he is making allegations, unsolicited allegations at that against an editor, he should be blocked. He's requesting information via email (Interested parties that wish to discuss or can advise as to next steps, please contact me by email.) which could possibly mean that he's going to pursue legal action. It seems that he's either under a cloud of delusion or he's legitimately concerned and we should put those concerns to rest. DustiSPEAK!! 16:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC) (ec) My comments do not relate to legal action, this is a notice to explain why I have halted my contributions. There are outstanding requests for Oversight so I am unable to comment on these matters in this forum. I note I am being mis-quoted. There is a difference between my security and my personal safety. Ash (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but it seems to revolve around some dispute in Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films over the identification of the real names of porno actors. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) People who really think they're in danger call the police. People seeking to gain the upper hand in disputes with claims they're in danger write all about it on wikipedia. It's a time-honored technique that would be funny if it didn't actually work from time to time (note the appeal for "concerned admins" to contact and coordinate with him off line so he can get back to the important business of porn marketing).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) You don't know that Ash hasn't involved the authorities, correct? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Ah, i think i've figured out the source of Ash's hysteria (his latest paranoid update about needing to communicate by email because "i have reason to believe this page is being monitored by members of the wikipedia review" tipped me off). It appears someone at Wikipedia Review figured out Ash's identity (or thinks he figured out Ash's identity). Ash imagines someone at Wikipedia can do something about this. Sadly for Ash, no one here can. Sadly for Wikipedia, that means the never-ending stream of "grabby award" sourced porn blps will soon resume. Sigh. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) If there's an RFC/U already halfway constructed, I suggest it be finished up and filed and this conversation can be taken up there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC) For months now I have been encouraging Ash (and Benjiboi before that) to file an RFC/U rather than make unsubstantiated accusations against me. Ash has started one but has delayed filing it for spurious reasons - first, because of an open ANI thread about Ash's misuse of citations and WQA thread raised by a trolling IP (both of which are now closed), and now because Ash's "basic safety comes first. The RFC/U will be delayed until these issues of safety are sorted out". In the meantime, Ash seems to believe that they are at liberty to make whatever unsubstantiated accusations they care to. Can someone please deal with these very serious personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC) If you think I'm trolling you, follow the proper DR process, instead of continuing to harass my fair edits. You have not participated in the truce that was offered to you, nor to the WQA that remains open. You've been asked by several third-parties to refrain from calling me a troll, yet you continue. You've indicated you're not interested in participating in any RFC/U's about your behavior, and any ANI's you've participated in have been closed against your favor...yet you continue to harass Ash to set a timelimit on filing an RFC/U which has been in preparation in barely under 2 weeks. Sounds quite a bit like Ash is not "paranoid", as Bali ultimate states, nor that the accusations are unsubstantiated. If you want these issues to pass, I'll remind you for the fifth time in 10 days that there is a Dispute Resolution process here on Wikipedia, and you should probably participate in that process. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Has this alleged serious personal attack been oversighted, or is there a link to it? Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) If you're referring to the attacks on me, see above. I do not know what personal attack Ash refers to in their note. I presume that the requests for oversight Ash referred to earlier in this thread involve their own contributions in which they identify themselves and/or link to their previous accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Suggest that either the parties fish or cut bait, or that the thread be closed. We can't do anything with allegations like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC) It just goes to show the dangers inherent in coming betwixt a queen and his wanking material! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) ^not appropriate. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Let's try to get the basic facts down here, as the dramafest spins out of control: Ash used his real name, on-project, some time ago, and later associated his real name with his user ID (probably without realizing what he had done). A Wikipedia Review editor recently described some COI editing Ash had done, unrelated to the current dramafest, and identified WP editor "Ash" by his real name. Several Wikipedia Review editors, commenting on the ongoing combat between Ash and DC or on the COI edits, made further comments relating to Ash's real-world activities, included the (purported) identification of his real-world spouse. One WPR editor noticed that Ash had even uploaded a photo of himself to Wikipedia (since deleted). Ash has been ridiculed repeatedly in WPR comments. Ash's greatly overblown reaction to this situation, and his pattern of innuendo associating his contraries in editing disputed with unsavory behavior, make it hard to take his complaints in good faith. He was treated roughly at WPR, but that in no way justifies his general uncivil treatment of Wikipedia editors who also post at WPR, without regard to their involvement (mostly noninvolvement) in WPR discussions of his editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Those are some serious allegations and hardly a NPOV summary. Diffs for all of those "facts", please? A place where those facts have been presented for DR, please? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I am certainly not going to post diffs showing how Ash "outed" himself on Wikipedia; presumably those are among the items for which he has requested oversight, nor am I going to post WPR links evidencing or alleging his real-world identity. The rest, as I'm sure you're aware, is covered in this recently archived thread [121], to which you posted several times. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As I have been reverted twice now, I am formally requesting that an admin or another editor endorse my request and Wehwalt's request that this be taken elsewhere, either RFC/U or ArbComm as this is not the appropriate place. DustiSPEAK!! 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Isn't ANI the place to report violations of WP:NPA? How is this not a personal attack? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, by two different editors who disagree with you. Let the conversation run its course, such as it is. That strikes me as particularly worthwhile since the RFC that is allegedly imminent appears to rely rather heavily on old AN/I reports. The reason why this matter was brought here is because carbuncle alleges it is a rather insidious and serious sort of personal attack. Ash denies this but, nevertheless, it's the sort of complex situation that WQA and other of those venues are useless for. In as much as carbuncle might get a positive response to his good faith concern, this is the best venue.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) With all due respect to your opinion, Delicious carbuncle would indeed and absolutely get the most positive response if s/he would participate willingly in the dispute resolution processes already presented, rather than continuing questionable editing behavior while ignoring most basic WikiPrinciples, including ALL of the 5P's. Dc's lack of willingness to participate thus far does not exactly endear any other editors to believe s/he might participate in the future. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) IMO Ash needs to (rhetorically) either shit or get off the pot; you can't just leave vague accusation against other editors littered across the project. Finish the RfC/U or delete it. Make your case at an ArbCom, or drop the matter. Innuendo gets tiring after awhile. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The statement on User:Ash permanent link is totally unacceptable and should be highly refactored or deleted. The first sentence claims a "particularly disturbing personal attack" and the second refers to the "past conduct" of DC. Whether intended or not, the two sentences imply that DC has participated in an extreme attack. It is not acceptable for such a claim to be made on any page other than one where a formal complaint is actually lodged, with evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I have already put the draft RFC/U up for speedy deletion, it has only been left as blank at the request of Delicious carbuncle. The original notice that Delicious carbuncle raised this ANI about was re-written several times since this ANI was raised in order to address any complaint and now makes absolutely no mention of him/her or Wikipedia Review. I have also deleted all content and history from my User page so that none of it could be interpreted as a personal attack. If I could withdraw my 23,000 contributions from the last three and a half years from Wikipedia then I would have done so today. I believe that the outing information in this thread breaches the policy on these matters and it constitutes a personal attack of a homophobic nature whether that is the intent of those posting this information or not. I strongly object to it being left in this discussion. The fact that the reposting of outing information from Wikipedia Review on this ANI is apparently acceptable to administrators here has convinced me that it is foolish to pursue any complaint about any member of Wikipedia Review or the behaviour of Delicious carbuncle as attempted further speculative personal information could cause harm to me and those linked to me on Wikipedia Review whether the information is correct or not. If the intention here was to gag me from mentioning these matters then the abuse is more than enough to convince me it is not worth pursuing. As stated since Thursday on my user page and user talk page I have halted any contributions to any LGBT related articles for these reasons. Ash (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Ash, if you're really done editing here, you can always invoke the right to vannish. AniMate 02:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Ash, thank you for removing the references to me from your user and talk page header. That was my objective here, not causing you to leave or prevent you from editing Wikipedia. I have no objection to this thread being closed and archived if it will get your personal details out of public view faster. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird, possibly programmatic set of socks editing Roderic Noble

This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Since the beginning of this month, five separate accounts have been editing the page on Roderic Noble, a relatively obscure British actor that I'm watching only because I tagged it for reference issues when it was first created. All five of the accounts have no edits aside from those performed on this page. Three of them have very similar names. They don't interleave edits; eventually one account stops, and another picks up later, so it's not an effort to make undoing their edits more difficult. I initially suspected they are all socks, though possibly unintentional socks (the edits are mostly benign, if unsourced), and warned them on their talk pages. On looking at the page history closer though, the edits appear to be of unusually uniform timing. Today's edits by one of the accounts were done every half hour from 8 AM to 10 AM, on the half hour plus 9 to 11 seconds (clock discrepancy?). Previous edits aren't quite so regular, but they're usually 9 to 12 seconds after a minute evenly divisible by five, as if they were updating the page on a schedule. While some of the edits seem like the sort of thing a basic natural language processor could do (switching around synonyms, reordering sentences, etc.) they also add paragraphs of information, so they must be pulling data from somewhere. I have no idea what is going on, and while mostly harmless, it seems *very* suspicious. Can someone with more experience at this please investigate? I removed the unsourced content on the page (which basically meant restubbifying it), but this is too weird to just drop. Not sure if notification on their talk pages is needed since I'm not mentioning them directly, and this is a quasi-sockpuppet scenario. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty suspicious sounding. I'll start a SPI just so we can be sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No edit summaries is a good giveaway. Before we potentially scare him away, can we get him to cite his "work?" I'm also hesitant to start as he could have forgotten all the passwords. If anything, the creator of the article would be the sockmaster as there are similarities to between it and the newer users. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He posted a note on my talk page: "I have recently interviewed Roderic. I'm just putting up some of the details on Wikipedia for the benefit of the readers of your online Encyclopedia. Could you let me finish? I would be very grateful." So best case scenario this is just WP:OR plus possibly unintentional violations of the WP:SOCK rules. The edit patterns are *really* suspicious though. I didn't include the article originator as a suspect if only because that account has edited quite a few pages (though I suppose it could be the sockmaster, creating single-purpose socks for use on specific pages). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked him if he was related to the accounts. I also saw what he said, and that backs up the style of how he wrote it. I'm sure he will freak when he sees that mass revision though, so I'll revert his edits and assume that he will cite it. If not, we just remove it. The second thing is a bit creepy though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Second thing? Clarify? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole editing on a second that ends with a 0 or 5. For some reason, autism or superstition crosses my mind when I think of why an editor would edit then. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Even with a nasty case of OCD, I'm having a hard time seeing how someone would manage to edit so exactly that the discrepancy (a matter of three seconds for all but the very first edits by the very first sock on March 1st) would be expected from the vicissitudes of internet and Wikipedia DB latency. There's OCD, and then there is *perfect* timing, down to the second, when clicking submit. Although I do note that even his responses on my talk page are on minutes divisible by five, though only one of them was in the "9-12 after the minute" range. Clearly the OCD relaxes on my talk page, but not enough to stop the "divisible by five" requirement? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline violated by the timing of edits so severe that it justifies speculation about various psychoses or neuroses the editor might have? Nothing really suggests a "productive editing bot." The only real issue seems to be possible socks doing harmless or beneficial edits. I suppose this could have the questionable effect of making an article look more popular among editors than it really is, but that is not even a basis for keeping an article in a hypothetical AFD. If a productive editor creates and improves articles, he/she should be discouraged from socking and encouraged to edit under one identity, but encouraged in the contributions to the encyclopedia. I will not speculate here at this time about who I think the root editing account is, but if I'm correct the overall pattern of contributions across various articles and encyclopedias looks ok. Edison (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe there is a policy against running unregistered bots on Wikipedia. That said, I'm not asking for the editor to be blocked; I mostly wanted to check if anything like this has come up before, if it is perhaps indicative of some form of abuse. That's why I said investigate, not block. The editor(s) in question should adhere to the policy on alternate accounts, but like I said, I suspect this is a violation born of ignorance with no malicious intent. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, here are two hypotheses:

1. Somebody is trying out a new tool that allows Wikipedia editing on one's own copy of an article, and regular synchronisation with the server. The person started with update intervals of 5 minutes, but changed this to 30 minutes later for some reason. The times in between without edits are because in the 5 minutes (or 30 minutes) preceding them the person's personal copy didn't change. The software has been programmed so intelligently that if the edit only changes a single section, it puts the section in the edit summary. But that's the only kind of edit summary it can produce so far.
2. We are being trolled. Somebody thinks it's extremely funny to pretend they are a computer and then just watch how we react. See also: Turing Test.

In both cases it would be best not to overreact in any way. Hans Adler 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any feelings about the sanity or motivations of the editors with the clockwork timing of edits, WP:BLP says "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research." A claimed interview cannot justify keeping the biographical details added to the article, and I question IMDB as a "reliable source"for biographical information about persons who have had no published biographical information elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#IMDB, again. In a breaching experiment, from malice, from general hoaxing or simple carelessness with facts, false information can be posted there and then used as a "reference" to post the same false information in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is innocuous, puffery, or defamatory. This could be yet another "breaching experiment" and the article must be kept stubbed until reliable sources are provided for the information. Repeated adding of the information without references should lead to blocking. Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments above, and per WP:BLP and WP:NOR, I have again stubbed the article,back to the stub earlier today by ShadowRangerRIT since the expansion was based on a "personal interview" of the subject by one of the suspected sockpuppets with the odd editing pattern. Edison (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible self-outing, trolling, Idk

Resolved

 – Reverted, revisions deleted. –MuZemike 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

[122] Can't tell if its trolling or what, but I felt it should be brought here. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Altough I feel that it is vital that the human rights act is followed 100% at all times, wikipeida is not myspace. Revert edit. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it was possible to out yourself... Clearly they've posted their information willingly... Whether or not they know this isn't the right place to post it is questionable. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It must be. However, it is simply a edit that needs to be reverted. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edits by User:Never give in

Never give in (talk · contribs) is making a large number of edits today, after not having edited since January, which result in the articles he's editing looking just like they did prior to his beginning his edits. I've asked for an explanation. Woogee (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed commas being removed on some of the edits, which to my eyes, made the text slightly less grammatical. (It removed a pause where a pause makes the text more readable). Example I suggest backing out all of this user's edits and blocking further editing, until an explanation is provided. Wildbear (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well its been a few hours since they last edited so I think a better idea than blocking would be to see if they restart the same behaviour or respond to the comments left on their talk page. something lame from CBW 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories

Resolved

 – Both deleted by User:Jac16888. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the categories Category:10 year olds on Wikipedia and Category:Minors on Wikipedia, as they are in violation of WP:CHILD. There doesn't seem to be a speedy deletion category that they fall under. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this, but there was no way in hell I was letting those stay--Jac16888^Talk 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Remove Brett Salisbury from deletion. He was on wikipedia for 3 years. Thank you

Hi, My name is Jill Monroe. I have taken my research and also going to copy and paste the material I have done and post it here. Also if you simply go to Brett Salisbury in google search. then go to archives. There are over 9800 articles on this Gentleman. He also had a book ranked 6th in the country right now. that in and of itself should remove him. He started at quarterback in the Pac 10 at the university of oregon. Just being a starting quarterback at a division 1 school like Oregon where he started against UCLA should also qualify him. When you list people like Kevin Craft for instance who is a quarterback at UCLA on here, how can Salisbury have ever been deleted in the first place? Please explain that. Here is the page. Thank you. I am new to this so I hope Im doing this right. Jill Monroe 04:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Jill Monroe

[ content truncated ]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury - August 2008: 'This person is non-notable. The sporting achievements are minor, the modeling claims are questionable, and the opening claim of being a nutritionist is unsubstantiated other than by an, as yet, unpublished book (also subject to an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transform_diet). Poltair (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.45.36.159 (talk)

• The book ranked 6th in the country right now is not quite correct. It's 6th in January of the self-published books via iUniverse - a somewhat less grand claim. [123] --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This person's userpage, should be deleted as well, as a recreation of deleted material. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Resolved

 – account blocked and local police given relevant information - Alison ^❤ 08:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A suicide threat has been posted by Bclrocks10 (talk · contribs) here, but I'm having a hard time believing it. He self identifies as a child from Tampa, Florida. I know that all suicide threats should be handled as serious threats. Can somebody local to Florida please contact the appropriate authorities?

The editor has other editorial issues that may have resulted in him being discussed at WP:ANI, but for now, let's just deal with the threat. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It reads like routine drama, but policy (WP:SUICIDE) is to take it seriously. Block user, use template {{Suicide response}}, lock user and talk pages, checkuser, notify authorities, contact Wikimedia foundation staff, mark this as done here. --John Nagle (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, tagged, CU alerted to narrow location. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser data is available if needs be. Ask them to contact me. I'm also suppressing the contents of their userpage and the suicide message itself as it contains clear personal information on a minor . Once again, anyone who needs this information can contact either myself or any other oversighter. If nobody's contact the authorities yet, just let me know and I'll do it - Alison ^❤ 07:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok - contacted. We're done here. Just remember that 99.99% of these are not serious but we can't really make a call on something like this. All we can do is report it and move on - Alison ^❤ 08:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Racist vandalism

I've just blocked 115.132.107.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours for racist vandalism to the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix article. Yesterday I issued a uw-van4im to 115.134.109.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for the same thing. I suspect that these edits (changing "Lewis Hamilton" to "Black Baboon") are being done by the same person. This needs an eye keeping on. I don't know enough about rangeblocks to form an opinion on whether or not such a block would work. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The range is too large, it stretches over more than 250000 ips. decltype (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Might this be a candidate for an abuse filter ("edits from the given IP range including the words "black baboon")? (unfortunately I don't know enough about abuse filters to say whether I'm asking an inane question). Tonywalton ^Talk 12:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me, though I don't know if it's plausible either. :) Alternatively, what about semi-protection to the article? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Behavior of Yugiohmike2001

Lately, Yugiohmike2001's constant reverting has became a major issue. He was even blocked on the 21st for his editing. However, even after constant attempts by myself and other editors to get him in provide an edit summary or revert less, he continues to just ignore everyone. I'm not going to provide diffs, since there are so many, so I will ask that you look at his contributions. I think that if does not comply, he should either be blocked for a long time period (six months) or permanently topic banned from anything pertaining to wrestling. His edits have become a major problem that I know no one else feels like cleaning up. –Turian (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Notified. –Turian (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Will an administrator actually look at this so I don't have to dig it out of the archives? –Turian (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of Behavior of User:Mk5384

(copied in part from previous thread regarding unwanted comments on my user page -OberRanks (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

As the original poster of the dispute, there have been no further postings on my talk page, so that matter is resolved. The issue at the John Pershing article is under debate and a vote is in progress to determine the need for a nickname containing a racial slur in the infobox. Its an interesting debate and we are making good progress. Mk5384 has not been too disruptive there, as far as I can tell, and is welcome to continue to post opinions in the debate. I will advise all concerned, though, that there is a pattern to Mk5384 which might need an administrator to take a close look at. Basically, if someone disagrees with Mk5384, the user will post a notice to the talk page stating why he is right and they are wrong. If the user continues to disagree, the user will escalate the posts into more aggressive language. If the posts are removed or the user is asked to stop, then actual personal attacks will begin to be posted. Here is an example of a string of recent edits where Mk5384 left notes on users who either warned him he was violating policy or asked him to desist from bad practices: [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129]. The "mother of all attack edits" was where Mk5384 made a statement on my talk page that I was lying about serving in the United States military [130] - not only a very serious charge but also a personal attack to call another user a liar without cause. On top of this, we have a string of statements that I have been removing sourced material from the John Pershing article when in fact I restored disputed material in order to have a consensus vote and, in fact, removed nothing [131]. A few things should happen here, I feel: an administrator should alert Mk5384 that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. You cannot hound and h arras other users on thier talk page if they disagree with you or point out you perhaps broke a policy like NPOV, CIV, or NPA. Second, it should be made clear that this is not a witch hunt and that Mk5384 is welcome to continue editing and participating in article discussions. Third, all concerned should state there are no bad feelings and that if this behavior stops, there will be no grudges or anything like that. -OberRanks (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is an ongoing issue, it is best taken up at WP:RFCU where community opinion and advice for Mk5384 can be solicited in a structured venue. –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tendency to go after anyone who crosses him in some way, as pointed out by OberRanks, certainly bears watching. He also states on his user page that he's a newbie, so maybe he hasn't got things all figured out yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a neutral admin stating to Mk5384 that the behavior is in fact unacceptable will go a long way. If it continues after that, then, yes, a RFC/User Conduct should be initiated. -OberRanks (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 has helpfully provided me with a first-hand example of the behaviour you highlight [132]. –xeno^talk 14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest a posting at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but what you have there is pretty much a smoking gun. As I said, an admin talking strongly to the user to desist the behavior is what is needed, I feel, perhaps also with a block (I hate to say it). -OberRanks (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A block? Mon Dieu!! Whatever will I do if I can't edit Wikipedia? I'll have nothing to fill my time, except white supremecist meetings, and my thrice daily ritual of masturbating to my over-size blow-up of General Pershing in black face and assless chaps. I've already told you, now that it has been proven that Wikipedia is, in fact, censored, I have no interest in participating. You can rewrite history and enjoy your whitewashed, vanilla versions to your hearts content. Block or no block, I won't be here.Mk5384 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the extremely crass nature of the above post, especially the subtle suggestion that users involved with the Pershing article are masturbating as well as the blatant racial remark about "black face", I do formally request that an administrator block Mk5384 for uncivil edits and disruptive editing. Mk5384 has posted angry, uncivil talk page remarks against no less than five users, including a very neutral an unbiased admin who simply blocked the John Pershing article to prevent an edit war. We have have angry remarks with racial and sexual overtones. A block is more than warranted I feel at this point. -OberRanks (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)