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

Okip creating battlegrounds

Okip (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Continuing from the section entitled "Block Review" above, regarding Pookzta (talk · contribs): Several people (myself included) posted suggestions on his talk page to learn our policies and guidelines before requesting an unblock. However, I'd like to know is why is Okip (talk · contribs) now soapboxing on this blocked editor's talk page, claiming that "9/11 Alternative Views have been silenced on Wikpedia" [1] essentially making accusations of a censorship cabal, and then stating that he's now on an "enemies list"? Weren't we about to block Okip a few days ago for his disruptive behavior (canvassing, as I recall, wasn't it?) This is really getting too much. Is Okip here to build an encyclopedia or to soapbox, treat Wikipedia as a personal battleground, make unfounded accusations of cabalism and trying to stir up blocked editors? I am notifying Okip of this discussion right now. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He didn't violate any rules then or now. And he stated the truth. Many articles for those conspiracies have been erased, and mention of these things removed from articles. He states at the start he believes most of these theories are bullshit, but if enough people believe them, then perhaps an article should exist for them. Is there any rule violated here? Do you just want to silence someone you don't like? Dream Focus 04:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He is violating rules. WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and probably WP:CANVASS. So you feel that it's ok to go around recruiting people pushing conspiracy theories to join groups to fight for "the truth"? Nothing quite like building an army of meatpuppets out of conspiracy theorists who were blocked for pushing their conspiracies here. I'm not the one who has been the subject of multiple AN/I discussions. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Dream Focus: It isn't really about the 9/11 conspiracy issue. The substance of Okip's comments are irrelevent, its the manner in which he wanders around Wikipedia, trying to stir up drama, and to turn the place into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is the latest in a long string of such overtly disruptive incidents. Any one of these such incidents, taken in isolation, do not amount to much. The body of his work, however, shows little effort to improve the encyclopedia and lots of effort to stir the pot and watch conflict follow in his wake. --Jayron32 04:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The body of his work includes thousands of edits. He was originally called Ikip, then lost his password or something, so became Okip. Was he ever found guilty of any wrong actual wrong doing? And can someone complain about something without being accused of stirring up something?

To <>Multi‑Xfer<>, I looked up Meatpuppet and Wikipedia says "Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg puts "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," giving its supposed Wikipedia meaning as "someone you disagree with". So, he is recruiting people you disagree with, to somehow do what exactly? Find others with viewpoints like themselves to discuss things with? Dream Focus 05:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we are all well aware of IKIP/OKIP's history. He didn't lose his password, he just requested a name change. No real issue there. The issue is his constant attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, as evidenced by any of these 50+ threads at ANI. I could go on. But its all there. He's been sanctioned, short term blocked, discussed ad nauseum. Nothing has altered his disruptive behavior till this point. --Jayron32 05:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And, he's been formally warned by arbcom to stop doing exactly what he is doing now. See [2]. --Jayron32 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Aside: Ikip used to be User:Inclusionist, he requested that username change then. The Okip name came about due to a password mishap that Ikip wasn't able to correct, forcing the new account name. Just to keep the history right). --MASEM (t) 05:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Dream Focus, I won't be falling into any Monty Python-esque logic traps intended to put a carrot on me and label me a witch. Okip not only had the account Ikip, but another one called Inclusionist and I think one or two others based on the last lengthy thread I recall reading about his behavior. I'm in the right here and I've listed several pertinent policies. And now, I am off to bed. I'm sure the discussion will be more enlightening in the morning when more people have had the opportunity to see it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Travb. Hipocrite (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef

I've had enough of this. Not only the comments at User_talk:Pookzta#You_had_no_chance.2C_and_a_way_forward just poisoning the well and encouraging poor behavior that is unlikely to improve that editor's chance of returning, but I find the comments by Okip at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Multixfer vindictive and not that surprising. I'm going to sleep but I authorize any admin to unblock if they actually feel like it'll be a net improvement to the encyclopedia having him around. I don't care about his views about the encyclopedia, he's not allowed be disruptive. Period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aware that this is a sort of a block and run, and I'm awaiting the editor who will go through my history and call me a deletionist or whatever, but following my last interaction with him, take his response for what it's worth. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• While an admin can undo this, if we treat this section as an exercise in community consensus I support such a block. Ironholds (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• The comments at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Multixfer are not in themselves a valid reason to block. Editor review invites opinions.
  I can't see that the stuff at User talk:Pookzta serves any useful purpose for Wikipedia (or for either editor) but is it really that disruptive?  pablo_hablo. 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)( edited   pablo_hablo. 10:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
• Indeed. While his comments to Pookzta may be unwise - it depends on their truth, which would demand serious investigation, there is nothing wrong with his comments at the editor review, and neither is vandalism in any way. A healthy institution or encyclopedia can and should allow unjust criticism. Conversely, action against critics for criticism, which may well be unfounded, is a sign that something may be seriously wrong. Many other editors agree with Okip that hostility to newbies is a very serious problem. Tolerance is more than a virtue here, it is a necessity for a respectable intellectual work, a respectable encylopedia. A very bad block.John Z (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• But to go there three hours after the editor under review has started an ANI section about you is basic retaliation, not a genuine effort at editor review. Anyway, the edits he made at User talk:Pookzta are so over the top that they can only be described as "trying to create disruption". I am glad to reinforce his paranoia about veteran editors (luckily, according to DGG, Okip is despite his tens of thousands of edits still a relatively inexperienced editor, so his comments about veteran editors don't apply to himself), and support any length of block on him. Can I get my invitation for some "secret wiki communication" now? I feel left out... Fram (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sigh. Okip has descended into Wikipolitical activism, we have seen other users get into trouble for bad advice and advocacy on behalf of fringe POV-pushers. Bringing Thomas Basboll in is more likely to inflame rather than help, I feel. But let's not be in the business of banninating people when what they really need is a friendly hand. I don't think Okip is evil, I think there is an issue of having lost the sense of perspective. The root of the problem with Pookzta was never about the POV he advances, though fringe POV-pushing tends to be more problematic than mainstream for obvious reasons, it's about forum shopping and throwing around accusations of bad faith. That can be fixed, but not by comments like Okip's. It's all strangely reminiscent of the "Brews Cabal" where the advocates actively impeded the chances of dispassionate review. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider the comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Multixfer to be at all problematic, they are reasonable concerns stated in a calm manner at a venue where such feedback has been explicitly invited. Is there a complaint from Multixfer that references something actually evil? Guy (Help!) 12:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• An incredibly bad block. The block tool is not a toy, blocking an established editor on such a flimsy basis is terrible way for an admin to act. The comments at Multixfer's editor review are bland (particularly when compared to the bile accepted routinely at RfA). I don't agree with his view on Pookzta, but Okip defends the underdog and tries to counter what he sees as admin abuse - mature admins will see the value in a critic. I would unblock now, but I don't fancy getting dragged to ArbCom. Fences&Windows 10:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Whilst Okip is clearly - yet again - acting disruptively here, I'm not convinced that an indef block is appropriate even after the long history of issues mentioned. Whilst the comments on Mulitxfer's editor review are not in themselves disruptive, they are clearly in retaliation for the exchange linked above. The comments on Pootzka's page are more problematic. Telling a new editor that Wikipedia is one big 1984-style conspiracy and cabal where anyone with dissenting views is "removed" by a shadowy group of off-wiki-linked "veteran editors" is particularly unhelpful - linking to the 9/11 conspiracy RFAR with "they have been silencing editors like you for years" for instance. We cover 9/11 conspiracy theories in detail here in multiple articles like these and others, so to claim this is plainly incorrect. Dragging up for the nth time the fact that JzG told an editor to fuck off? Pointless (and hey, he's not the only one). Posting " I will soon be getting threatening messages on my talk page, and if I continue to help you, I will be thrown into the dispute resolution process, where these close net group of editors will throw all manner of false and trumped up accusations against me"? Pointless and assuming bad faith. Sigh - Okip really should know better by now. Whilst it would probably turn into a prolonged he-said-she-said wikilawyering TL;DR mess, I would have thought that an RfC would be the way to go here. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Pablo_X and Fences and windows, and largely with Black Kite too. I also don't agree with the assessment that this is comparable to the post-case issues that resulted from the Speed of Light arbitration. Improvement in Okip's conduct is needed, but an indef block is the wrong way to go about it. Sorry, but I strongly feel that this eventually needs to be cut down to time served. Note Okip, that you should not ignore the fact that improvement is also needed from you - and if/when you are unblocked, a wikibreak would be a good start! Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• It seems like this is now descending into performance art as Okip has now posted the extract from Blacks that refers to copyright on his talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• support when is enough enough with the inexperienced (as DGG puts it) editor Ikip/Okip/Inclusionist/travb? Wikipedia is not supposed be some radical governance experiment. It's supposed to be a free online encyclopedia. Ikip/Okip/Inclusionist/travb has long been a net negative.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Indefinite does not mean infinite. I think Okip is unbelievably disruptive, but if his energies can be harnessed into productive again, he can come back. However, all he seems interested in these days is loudly and disruptively finding ways to rally people to his inclusionist cause. AniMate 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Ricky81682 you did not give him time to respond, and also seemed to have just blocked someone you don't like. That is a severe misuse of the blocking tool. I'd like to know what uninvolved people say about this. I don't really trust the opinions of deletionist who argue with Okip and others of the Rescue squadron constantly, in large numbers of AFD discussions, trying to delete what we try to keep. Dream Focus 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • So I guess your opinion should be discounted as well. AniMate 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see the alleged vandalism. Immediate blocking without discussion. Why? Seems more of a personal disagreement. Thinks fondly of the possibility of blocking anyone that disagrees with me(Joke). Statement likes "I've had enough of this" and "Period" suggests emotional involvement in decision not a detached reasoned response. The bases of this indef block suggests possible misuse of the admin tools or at least a rushed reactionary response. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, trying to feed the martyr complexes of blocked editors, and a long history of disruptions. A net negative to the project. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  You can't have a battleground without having someone to battle with. The nature of the posts here and the titles of the section don't shed other editors in a good light. 'Okip creating battlegrounds' is an emotive title which is self defeating. It's not okip creating battlefields, as he alone cannot do that. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Nonsense. Okip's "enemies" are of his own creation and mostly in his own mind as he continues to flaunt WP:DISRUPT and other policies by engaging in problematic behavior that then results in him being taken to AN/I, ArbCom and various other venues for discussion. Nobody baited him. He makes the choice to behavie in a disruptive manner. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support a block - Honestly, enough is enough. Giving bad editors "advice" such as this doesn't do anyone any good. O/Ikip is brought before AN/I again and again for a wide variety of reasons and problems. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Block — Yet another disruptive incident. Is this alone blockable? No. There is, however, a long-term pattern to consider. There's last week's ANI thread, and the one the week before that... and there are many more. O/Ikip is, and has been, in full-battleground mode for several years. The prior canvassing thread that led to the current mentorship arrangement had only a few public bits and they weren't encouraging, as he basically is intent on minimizing the letter of that guideline while entirely ignoring the spirit of it. It's all agitprop. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• I obviously have used the wrong word when I said "inexperienced" -- what I meant was "unskilled" at the sort of controversy involved in these discussion. I think I explained this previously here, but I am not surprised at people continuing to use one of my rare erroneous wordings against me--they get so little opportunity :) That Okip engages in these controversies to the extent he does is an indication of his lack of skill, skill much less than some of the people who are accusing him. I see no sign that he will ever develop this specialized talent. (Perhaps it is a good thing, for I am not sure that the skill to engage in interpersonal fighting effective at Wikipedia is a desirable social or psychological trait.) That he engages in them right now, and goes out of his way to provoke new conflict when he is still engaged in dealing with the consequences of the old ones similarly indicates his lack of skill. Nobody can say these are wise moves, from the point of view of his own interests.

But a block for the two instances here is absurd. The first, the remark on Editor Review , was polities and appropriate. Someone who asks for a review should expect a review. What was inappropriate was removing it from the page. Te editor should have had a chance to see it, and either object to it or earn from it. The comment on 9/11 was a little hysterical, nor was it helpful to encourage a new user who seemed intent on being a spa. But it was on a user talk page, and I dont see how a comment that there was an attempt a suppressing a certain POV here worth blocking. Indeed, to block people who say thing like that, rather seems to prove them correct. Some commented above he should be blocked indefinitely for being "a net negative to the project", and some others feel that an indefinite block is justified by the overall experiences. That's an instance of Give the Dog a Bad Name, and Hang It. It's not the way orderly processes proceed.

I would very strongly oppose any block for this. Rather, I see this entire instance here as an attempt at provoking someone who has shown himself all too easily provoked. And its the same people are provoking him again. I earlier suggested a ban on mutual interaction, and I continue to think it a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than attempting to suppress criticism and blame everyone else for Okip's "conflicts" (which go back as early as 2005), it would be more productive to encourage him to stay out of such controversial areas until he gets adequate experience? Mr.Z-man 21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying repeatedly to do just that. He doesn't need experience exactly, but skill in working here and some common sense. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think he's going to do that? People are tired of his actions time and time again. He's had plenty of chances to amend his ways or stay out of areas that get him in trouble, but as that's essentially the sum of his editing scope, it's pointless to encourage other avenues in that manner. I'm in support of the block; I mean, his actions after the block[3] don't encourage me he'll respond to either a carrot or stick. He's a drain on others time, with no meaningful positives. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I should point out that editors/admins need to review "okip's" history as "Ikip" and "Inclusionist" before making claims about disruption being novel or out of character. He has been on wikipedia with a singular crusade for years now, a crusade which has permanently damaged a once great wikiproject. A block is long overdue. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "singular crusade for years...which has permanently damaged a once great wikiproject"? Speaking of melodramatic.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hardly. I wish it were so. He actually did take a reasonable and neutral wikiproject (ARS) and thoroughly politicized it and effectively eliminated its reputation as a place where editors could converge on an article that needed to be saved and save it. And he has spent the bulk of his time (what wasnt taken up by self requested blocks or non-self requested blocks) across now *four* account names (Travb, Inclusionist, Ikip and Okip) railing against what he saw as a vast deletionist campaign to ruin content and deter potential editors. I don't want to hang an albatross around his neck, but it needed to be said amidst the hang-wringing about how Okip was merely a victim of fucking circumstance. Protonk (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block. The user should be unblocked. Crusades and POVs are OK here, it is the disruptive behaviour that is a problem. The disruption was not bad. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block. No doubt, Okip has strong opinions. But he is very dedicated to the project and has only the best intentions. I have improved hundreds of articles in the past year, turning crap that was understandably nominated for deletion into good sourced articles, but would have never even tried to contribute to the project without the encouragement and spirit of a few editors including Okip. Offering advice to newer and inexperienced editors is not done nearly enough. Even if the advice is not always what others might say exactly, these newer editors rarely have anyone willing to tell them how to "open the book" to learn how rules and policies and apply and such. Though Okip will occasionally appeal to emotion more than other editors, his comments create no more of a battleground than do editors who snarkily cite to policies without explanation in a professorial fashion, and refuse to back down even when confronted with evidence that suggests a reconsideration of viewpoint is compelled. I fail to see how Okip's deleted comments, for example, at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Multixfer are vindictive. We all know that new-editor-created articles get nominated for speedy deletion at times that could be turned into a worthwhile article if someone with experience worked on it instead of immediately putting it on the chopping block. See, e.g., [4] to [5]. Okip simply shared his opinions, the project is not harmed by any demonstrable evidence i can see.--Milowent (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sadly support block. I/Okip has been extended every chance, tolerance, indulgence, and opportunity to stop antagonizing people and I have no confidence his behaviour would change. Second choice would be a ban from user talk space (except his own) and project space (except FAs and deletion discussion). Stifle (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Another great hearted and friendly editor blocked without due process. I would oppose, only an unblock would probably only delay the inevitable. The way this community is heading it soon wont have any place for the best passionate and positive people. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment People keep opposing the block based on an inclusionist vs deletionist argument and saying that Okip "speaks the truth" and does what he does because people do not offer to help new editors enough. There is no excuse for disruption (by telling someone who was blocked indefinitely that he was actually in the right and that he was only blocked becayse Wikipedia is biased against him), no excuse for all the things he's been brought here for. I'd like to see a policy based rationale for unblocking Okip, not attempts to excuse his behavior as that of someone who is "emotional". This has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with whether articles are deleted or kept, it is about trolling on talk pages. I have grave doubts that Okip even likes Wikipedia, since he seems to intent on telling everyone how awful it is here, how most veteran editors are big meanies who just love to delete anything and everything out of hand and kick "the underdog" when he's down. This is all complete bullshit. For example, I've never deleted a single article (as I'm not an administrator) and I've actually helped several newbies improve their articles. I guess I'm really secretly just a power-tripping bully who wants to beat up on people. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, did you think that his comment on your editor review was so uncalled for as his opinion that it justified a ban? I just don't see the proof that Okip is so unduly disruptive as to merit this draconian block. If you want a policy based reason, I guess that's it, I don't believe the case for an indef. ban is proven.--Milowent (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's the compendium of everything over the months (and years, apparently), not just one hasty choice on his part. Personally, I didn't really care about his bad faith edits to my editor review 2 months after it was completed, I just reverted them knowing that they were far more damaging to him than they were to me. If that were all he had done it would have been nothing. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Stifle, enough is enough. I also agree that a second choice would be a ban from other user's talk page and project space with the exceptions suggested. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I suggested this at the last okip ANI thread (on canvassing) and while there was no declared action, it clearly had support for the purposes of okip's handling of mass communication (whether within the bounds of appropriate canvassing or not). I will reiterate this suggestion again, based on the ideas mentioned above that Okip, despite a large # of edits is not an experienced editor, that mentorship seems like the best course of action here, now no longer just of his communication/canvassing, but for all his actions. Okip seems well intent when he's editing mainspace, but not in WP space, and that's where the mentorship needs to be focused on. I do believe at least one person offered to mentor Okip in the last discussion.

And to reiterate: if there is consensus for mentorship but Okip refuses to accept it, then that should be considered as a warning on his actions, such that if he's at ANI again, more significant measures may have to be made. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip has a mentor. User:Jclemens had stepped up and was working with him. See here. AniMate 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the only other interaction I can see between them since Okip agreed to let Jclemens mentor him. AniMate 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Jclemens, he/she may wish to chip in here.   pablo_hablo. 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - His post on pook's page really looked like "Poisoning the well".

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree we should hear from Jclemens, who seems to me to be a person of sound judgement. The questions to be answered are: did Okip discuss this with Jclemens either before or after the event (it is not necessary for mentorship interactions to be on-wiki) and does Jclemens think that future drama of this kind can be prevented through their influence as a mentor. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• FYI, I've deleted Okip's retaliatory post to my Editor Review (which was completed and closed 2 months ago anyway), as well as his accusations from my talk page (which really only support my assertions anyway). Okip has a lot of edits and does some helpful stuff (the article rescue squadron is a very good thing), but his constant politicking and wiki-activism for his particular brand of inclusionism seems like a net negative to the project. I also find it suspicious that he would try to butter up and recruit someone who has been blocked indefinitely. Deliberately looking for conspiracy-theorist newbies who may now hold grudges against the project because their article was deleted and trying to recruit them does not strike me as beneficial whatsoever. More like trying to build an army of disaffected radicals. This is not about deletionsim vs inclusionism but WP:BATTLEGROUND. I recall the last time a group of people who wanted to push an agenda formed a group. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentor Jclemens' response

I have no special insight into this. I've been watching Okip's talk page, but as others have observed, we haven't talked in a few days, and he didn't consult me on a best way to approach such a topic. I haven't had time to review the substance of the accusations against him this time, but if Black Kite (an administrator with whom I have historically disagreed on many things) thinks it's a bad block, it's probably a safe bet that I will too. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to have time to review the specific allegations and will comment further after I've done so. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's my comments, looking in particular at three specific series edits of edits from Okip:

• Okip's posts to User talk:Pookzta Can we all be honest for a second here? Okip is, in fact, correct. There are assuredly groups of people who use N and FRINGE in a concerted effort to keep unpopular viewpoints from being described on Wikipedia. They will call it different things, like avoiding UNDUE weight, not letting wikipedia be used as a promotional vehicle for fringe theories, or something of the sort. Okip has called the same behavior censorship, either violating AGF or embodying WP:SPADE, depending on one's point of view. He expressed his honest opinion about Wikipolitics on a blocked newbie's talk page in a way that at least one took to be offensive, but I will note that I have found nothing actionably ad hominem or incivil about his post. Had I been consulted beforehand, I would have advised against this participation: once someone is blocked, as Okip himself noted, they're pretty much shot in the foot. The likelihood that Pookzta would ever become a net positive contribution to the project at this point was sufficiently low that I would not, personally, have bothered, and would have actively counseled Okip against posting something like that. When there are plenty of people looking for your head (and many of Okip's detractors have already posted here), the optimum solution is to be above reproach, not just above a technical violation.
• User talk:Multixfer Again, poor choice to even engage on the matter, but no technical violation. You'll notice that while Okip is clearly agitated, he does keep the focus on behaviors and their impact to the encyclopedia and new editors, and generally off discussing Multixfer's motivation.
• WP:Editor review/Multixfer Tacky to tag on here, especially on a de facto dead discussion, but nothing blockable here. Okip posted his honest opinion in an appropriate venue in a way that was not a personal attack. Advisable? Not a chance. Blockable? I just don't see it.

Nothing I've seen here seems to remotely border on CANVASSing, the behavior Okip has most recently been brought to ANI for and the topic on which I specifically agreed to mentor him. I really don't see how a block is justified at all, unless solely for the purpose of silencing dissent. I don't believe editors who are on notice for public declarations should then be penalized for subsequent private correspondence on an entirely different issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that Pookzta was blocked for running round asserting that the reason for deletion of his article was suppression of the WP:TRUTH, and Okip wnet along there and said that Wikipedia is infested with admins who want to suppress the WP:TRUTH. Was that likely to make things better or worse? The Multixfer comment is no big deal and should be discounted, the issue is whether his rather blatant WP:ABF on Pookzta's page is demanding of a sanction given his recent history. Arthur Rubin seemed to be engaged in rational debate with Pookzta, trying to get him to take off the Spider-Man suit as it were, and Multixfer dropped some good advice on his talk page as well. What Okip posted there was not good advice, was extremely unlikely to result in a de-escalation of things, and was also highly unlikely to get Pookzta unblocked; it was more likely to feed an existing martyr complex and result in the block never being undone. So, do you think you can fix that kind of thing? Guy (Help!) 17:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I was about to add to this but JzG says it better than I ever could. This isn't so much a violation of WP:CANVASS as it is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. There are many differing viewpoints on Wikipedia, and in the end we have policies and guidelines as a means of managing all these opinions and the bad behavior that sometimes results as a consequence. Additionally, comments like If you are going to push editors off wikipedia because they don't share your view on certain topics, don't expect kindness and thankfulness in return. are completely bogus and a deliberate sneaky attack. I was, in fact, attempting to advise and even offering to help the blocked editor write his article if he could come up with reliable sources to substantiate the claims being made. Then Okip showed up telling Pookzta that he was blocked because we were all against him and that he should contact someone from Okip's group of, no doubt, totally unbiased and objective editors. Give me a break. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Can I fix Okip? Most assuredly not. I signed up to give him good advice, not control his behavior, and I would have advised him to never start down this particular road at all. I admit that I didn't look at the other contributions to Pookzta's talk page, just Okip's. WP:BATTLEGROUND is really a pretty subjective guideline, and I try to honor it more scrupulously than Okip has done in this case. I would not be opposed to unblocking him and allowing him to defend himself, because I have no clue what prompted him to think making those statements in the manner they were phrased was a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Re the WP:TRUTH argument... go through and read his initial posts to Pookzta's talk page again. I don't think Okip is a truth'er, I think he sincerely thinks that FRINGE is applied too restrictively, and that there should be more room for articles to discuss theories that he personally doesn't hold. That seems to me as perfectly consistent with his self-admitted inclusionist bent. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of this mentorship if Okip isn't going to consult you before doing things that might be controversial? Mr.Z-man 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• In all fairness to Ikip, I don't see this as a CANVASSing issue, and can see how he might not have thought to consult me on an unrelated issue. As I said above, had I been consulted, I would have counseled against his entire line of argumentation. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Canvassing is not the problem. It's a battleground mentality. I had no care about the earlier canvassing/not canvassing dispute except for the fact that Okip couldn't respond at all without making the issue personal. I really don't care if he's right or wrong about WP:FRINGE, that's his view, but going to indefinitely blocked editors with "hey, there really are a lot of others who support you" accomplishes what? Then to follow that with an editor review on the person who reported you to ANI? Two months after it's been discussed? Does WP:HOUND mean anything? Does WP:HARASS mean anything? Should I be expecting that people go through my edits and revert them just because of my block? Okip or otherwise, is that appropriate? That's the question I ask everybody: is this the sort of conduct we want to encourage? I truly do not care about arguing inclusionism/deletionism/whatever on AFDs and policy pages and even within user space within reason (and no, I truly do not care at all about that) but randomly going after everybody is just plain disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Canvassing IS the problem on which Okip and I agreed that I would provide advice to him. I agree this isn't canvassing; thus, it's not obvious that Okip was out of line for not pre-clearing his actions with me. That's all. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I thought that mentorship was about both parts of the ArbCom caution not only canvassing. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, Okip himself clearly thought that Jclemens was his allround mentor, not just on canvassing, as evidenced by the text he put at the top of his talk page[6]. As I replied to him[7], when you have a mentor and you believe that you are making posts that will get you into trouble, discuss it with the mentor before posting. At the moment it looks like he is just using the mentorship to hide behind when things go wrong, but not to actually improve his chances of a fruitful discussion. Fram (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there

Rather than an indefinite block, might a namespace restriction be effective? Practically all the issues that Okip/Ikip etc. has been criticised for are either canvassing (i.e. usertalk pages) or in the project namespace. Might a restriction to articlespace both (a) allow him to concentrate on what he does best, i.e. cleaning up and improving articles that are in danger of deletion, and (b) prevent him from being tempted to do something else disruptive - which given this thread, most probably will end up with an indef, because the community's patience appears to be strained, to say the least. This could be tweaked a bit, i.e. he would still be allowed to comment at AfDs as this is his main raison d'etre, or he would still be allowed to edit user's talk pages who had sent him a message, etc. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that. Actually, I'd rather Okip be back without restrictions; any editor should be perfectly able to act like a reasonable human being. But has he shown an interest in coming back? A serious interest in at least acknowledging a possible problem? If this isn't more of the same battleground problems, I don't know what is. Is he going to continue? Does any of this look like an attempt to be unblocked or just more complaining about editors he doesn't like? Is any of that helpful? Yes, people can say I "baited" him into venting by blocking him but under that logic, we should unblock Willy on Wheels to keep him from venting by acting out. There's a certain level of decorum that should be expected here and I know it can be done. I don't care if someone unblocks right now but all that's going to do is encourage this mindless drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you'd let him tag all the articles he wanted for rescue, and add to them himself, but not let him participate in any AfD discussions or the ARS for the duration? Interesting. Again, still not entirely sure it's justified, but it's a novel solution and somewhat less intrusive than a block. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

alternatively, simply ban from user talk space for a few months (except his own). That's where the real problem is. If it doesn't help, the scope can be extended. I am concerned otherwise about people baiting him where he can not respond. That deals with the overall problem; drastic action based on these particular incidents is over-reaction. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Have these kinds of editing restrictions ever worked? I mean, have they ever resulted in someone not eventually being blocked anyway? I think he should remain blocked, but if he's unblocked and allowed to resume editing he should just be allowed to edit normally. This is one of those cases in which the editor will always find a loophole or some way to wikilawyer his way out of further sanctions if and when he violates his restrictions. We all have to follow the same rules, I'm just one opinion but I say leave it at that and see what happens. I guess I basically agree with Ricky, to make a long story short. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There's always a first time... though in most cases we are, indeed, usually just paying out more WP:ROPE. Per the below, a general ban on ARS canvassing on user talk is a good idea. Interested parties can watchlist the relevant page. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This proposal has been made before multiple times in relation to the use of ARS banners (not just by Ikip but by anyone) over the course of the last year (when Ikip essentially co-opted ARS for his own purposes). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip is a clearly productive user but clearly also is fanning the flames of a lot of conflicts in an unhelpful fashion. I think a ban on commenting on other individuals talk pages unless they initiate a discussion with him would work fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen much abuse from Wikipedia admins, left unchallenged and unsanctioned - I mean just so much worse than what Okip has ever been accused of - that I cannot support any sanctions against Okip. Rather, I suggest that Okip represents the original values of WP. From a "damage to the 'Pedia" point of view, there is no reason whatsoever, to implement sanctions on O/Ikip. Net contribution absolute positive, not what I could say about a number of admins Power.corrupts (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. If you have concerns you should raise them in the proper way, that does not undermine the problem with Okip's current behaviour. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Okip hasn't requested an unblock, this is all rather pointless. So far he's posted a note saying we have to discuss things with his mentor followed by a huge copyrighted block of text. If he wants to come back, he knows the process. AniMate 02:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A dignified editor like Okip might not want to post a grovelling unblock request for such a blatantly out of process block, and a non grovelling request just gives a hostile admin the chance to reject it, thus underscoring the indef. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Next Steps

OK, so Okip has been blocked for a couple of days now. I haven't tallied lately, but things are running about even between people who support the block and those who do not, with a substantial minority arguing for a partial topic ban. No one has lifted a finger either way--me for the purpose of not appearing to be a partisan or using tools to help "friends"--but there's a time for discussion, and a time for resolution. Okip not asking for an unblock shouldn't be held against him--as you can see by his current talk page, I advised him to cool it and he appears to be taking that to heart. One other issue that hasn't been brought up in this particular discussion before is WP:SPI/Okip, where it appears most likely to the SPI Clerk (NW) that someone has tried to get Okip in further trouble, as anyone can see from the IP address's contributions. What are the next steps here? Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not wait until he requests an unblock (when he's sufficiently "cool" or whatever), see what he has to say then, and then have a discussion about it? Seems the ball is very much in his court. It's not that his failure to request an unblock is being held against him, it's just that he hasn't made one. Any discussion if/when he does request one certainly won't be colored by claims that "he shouldn't be unblocked since he didn't request an unblock sooner." Instead, it will be colored by what he writes and how people respond to it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably PBMLOL again. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Some obvious troll anyway, unlikely to be Okip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo X (talk • contribs)

Unblocked

I reviewed this thread and some of the problematic contributions. Clearly Okip needs to rethink some of their editing policies but, without commenting on the initial block, I think that he/she is willing to make an attempt to work on those issues. The support/opposes seem equally divided and, with the view that it is worth the effort to keep a productive editor, um, productive, I've unblocked Okip. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You write: "I think that he/she is willing to make an attempt to work on those issues." What has the editor said lately that led you to that conclusion?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have made it clear that that is my general impression about the user and is not based on anything specific in this case. Either way, I feel it worth a shot. Blocks can always be remade but the long term damage from extended blocks is not easily undone. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming "no consensus" defaults to unblock, this seems in keeping with procedure. Hopefully Okip will stop engaging in these behaviors so we don't all have to come back here again. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• This may not have been a very prudent decision. Was this indef block issued under the auspices of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned ? Tarc (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  The block log doesn't indicate as such. –xeno^talk 19:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  The AMIB case doesn't place Ikip/Okip under an "editing restriction" so this block doesn't qualify as "arb enforcement" per se. It's still part of his history and absolutely valid to discuss it, but that means that a block doesn't necessarily need ArbCom's input to undo it. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  I'm befuddled by the log. Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked in order to relate this to A Nobody's arbcom problems. Is there now a suggestion that the two are more than just allies? Or what?—Kww(talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  I think it was just a mixup. –xeno^talk 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I assume that was a mistake on Fut. Perf's part.   pablo_hablo. 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, FP said as much when he undid his block. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Going forward

Now that Okip is unblocked, I would like to propose the following: Moving forward, Okip must thoroughly discuss ANY potentially disruptive or controversial action (not just potential canvassing) with his mentor, Jclemens, and obtain his approval BEFORE he continues with said action. Jclemens is a reasonable and thoughtful editor and this seems better to me than trying to place specific restrictions directly on Okip. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely wish that Okip had indeed done precisely that in this case, and will do my best to advise him rapidly and appropriately when asked in the future. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

With the history, I should say that this is entirely reasonable. I also think the comments above about ARSe canvassing messages should be carried forward to resolve that such messages are not acceptable by anyone; if they want to come up with a project subpage that people can transclude then fine and dandy. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ghostofnemo

Ghostofnemo (talk · contribs)'s edits and talk on Ady Gil and Peter Bethune have been unproductive and wasting other editors' time since this edit. I think it's becoming too much to tolerate for involved editors and it should be stopped. Especially the Bethune's trial is coming soon, I am worried about the future. I request Ghostofnemo's topic ban on whaling-related articles. Oda Mari (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• That edit is referenced to a BBC news report. I don't see what the problem is here; at the most this is a content dispute. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my explanation was not good enough. It is not a matter of a single content dispute. The problem is Ghostofnemo's talk on disputed issues on the article talk pages. The problems of his talk are repeating the same argument, refusing to listen other editors are saying, understanding/misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not, undue weight, link spam, etc. As for Ady Gil, please see this thread and all the following threads. As for Peter Bethune, please see all threads. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the issue is more than content, it's a larger conduct and refusal to "get it and move on" that is causing problems.--Terrillja _talk 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to see topic bans. A firm reminder that it can't continue or even a mentor if someone is up for it could work. I've tried a couple pointers but end up getting to frustrated to be of any use. Obviously not my decision and this isn't the first incident. By the way, article needs a good copy edit based on the recent expansion.Cptnono (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit war at Ady Gil was reported on 20 March on the 3RR noticeboard. When I closed that complaint I urged the use of a WP:Request for comment. I felt there was some stubbornness going on because the issue was whether a person was 'hooded' during their arrest in Japan, in a situation where he seemed to be wearing a windbreaker over his head at the moment of arrest. It appeared to me that good-faith bargaining could have produced an adequate sentence or two, which was consistent with BLP. The RfC at Talk:Ady Gil only got a few participants, but the majority was against the 'hooding' line. For the record, I don't consider the present ANI thread to be really adequate to propose a topic ban, but editors who have read this far are welcome to review Talk:Ady Gil and form their own opinion as to who should get the most blame for the large volume of frustrating discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The edits at Talk:Peter James Bethune are the current concern. Multiple editors are giving him links to guidelines and explanations regarding pictures, sourcing, weight, and other issues but he won't stop arguing. We could simply ignore it but then inappropriate material gets placed in the article.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested editor assistance regarding this situation several days ago. I've made my case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Possible_WP:Griefing_at_Peter_Bethune_article Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite unfair that I'M being accused of POV! Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please go back and weigh the contributions to the article of the editors involved in this dispute. As far as I can recall, Oda Mari and Terrijjla have not added anything, and have only deleted relevant, reliably sourced information. Cptnono's contributions have been a mix of constructive edits and thinly-veiled attempts to smear the subject of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo wrote "The fact there was a lynch mob at the pier waiting for him was not relevant?". First as an IP user [8]. Then corrected the signature.[9] I think it's a PoV to call a group of protesters a lynch mob. Oda Mari (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check out this news report: "Japanese people are waiting for you, to cut up your body" Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to reopen the "hooding" debate, I ask that you please compare the removed line and the removed reliable sources:

"When Bethune was removed from the whaling vessel in Tokyo by the Japanese Coast Guard, his head was covered with a black hood."

• Sea Shepherd activist faces jail in Japan - Lateline (Australian Broadcasting Corp.)
• Japan arrests whaling activist - BBC News
• Pete Bethune's wife shocked at arrest - TV 3 News (New Zealand)

All of these media organizations thought showing or mentioning the hood was newsworthy. But these three editors trumped them and removed the line and the references. But I'm the bad guy! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not drag on the content dispute here. Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, since I'M being accused of POV, please check out this diff. I had to add the balancing material. As it was, it was very misleading. Remember, this is a biography of a living person: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355742840&oldid=355734891 Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is less about content, the issue is that you just argue endlessly and refuse to compromise with anyone, instead running around to various noticeboards and claiming you were wronged. The POV comes up because you are so set on getting your views in that you refuse to even consider anyone else's position and instead berate them and bombard them with questions endlessly that have already been answered.--Terrillja _talk 13:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If I was getting real answers as to why apparently relevant and well-sourced material is being removed, I would be open to compromise. But I'm just getting smoke and mirrors. Oda Mari STILL has not told me why she removed the background info on whaling. Was it untrue? Was it irrelevant? Was it POV? Was it poorly sourced? Was it misleading? If so, in what way? In the discussion, I've been getting the kind of answers I listed on the talk page. "It's poorly worded." "It's unfair." "Undue weight." "Doesn't belong in the article." I'm sorry, but I sincerely disagree. It's super relevant, it's super NPOV, it's super fair, and it's super well-sourced. It's only four sentences long. It's not like I'm talking about whales being slaughtered and the pain they experience, and how wicked it is to kill the mother whales, posting pictures of bleeding whales, and so on. I'm just stating the outline of the conflict, because it's not obvious what Bethune is fighting about. People know it has something to do with whales and Japan killing whales, but most readers probably have no idea how things got to this point. And for some reason, a four sentence explanation is taboo. Why? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to refresh your memory, here is the deleted material. Why is this a problem in an article about a guy who is in prison as a result of disrupting the hunt of Japanese whalers?

"Commercial whaling was banned by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, but Japan continues to hunt whales for scientific research. The meat is then sold in shops and restaurants. Anti-whaling activist faces arrest on arrival in Japan This is allowed under IWC rules, although most IWC members oppose it. Whaling ban set to end Anti-whaling activists reject the Japanese government's claims that this whaling is legitimate scientific research. Why Japan's Whale Hunt Continues. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not drag on the content dispute here.Cptnono (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I now also support a topic ban or some sort of block based on GoN continuing to add Youtube videos in violation of WP:SELFPUB[10] and his continueing the debate on this page after being asked once not to.Cptnono (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite the other editors' objection, Ghostofnemo restored the background information. That was why I removed it. That was not the first time he didn't take "no" for an answer and he made a talk page thread unnecessarily long. That was why I brought the matter here. The issue is your behavior, Ghostofnemo. Oda Mari (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He is still at it. Can an admin address the concerns brought up by three editors here and take a look at Talk:Peter James Bethune?

I reinserted the background information after a long discussion, in which you chose not to participate. It was significantly modified from the prior version and I thought we were close enough to an agreement that I reinserted the modified version that seemed to take into account the objections of those who participated in the discussion. But then you just deleted it. Am I allowed to respond to allegations here or not? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are allowed to respond. However, you just said something completely untrue. We don't need to debate this further. We need an admin to take a look at the concerns brought up by three editors and review the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely untrue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_James_Bethune#Removal_of_material_by_Terrillja_from_.22Captain_of_Ady_Gil.22_section_disrupts_NPOV Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You just provided proof for me by the way. My input could also be seen at your reattempt on the page at Talk:Peter James Bethune#Removal of background information on whaling. I would like to assume good faith that you just made a mistake instead of just saying it and hoping the admins don't check. I can start rattling off diffs but would prefer it if an admin would just come and check it out already.Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So will an admin take a look? Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

SPA only performing same edits as another user.

Resolved

 – This is now at SPI Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: I haven't notified AC or the NT account about this ani thread because of our contentious history.

I had last summer filed a SPI against Arab Cowboy and Nefeer Tweety, the CU showed that they were unrelated. There has now been an arbitration case, it was basically several disputes involving AC/NT against me over several articles. The only thing the Nefer Tweety account was and is used for, ever since it got registered, is to carry out the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy, in edit wars or other instances when AC himself can not. I believe that If AC is not controlling NT directly, then he is controlling him indirectly, and telling him what to do.

I have here below put together some evidence to show on the behaviour alone that NT is controlled by AC. The WP Swedish/English Omar sharif picture part and specially the last part of the evidence is the most astonishing. There is no way that he didn't knew who it was.

This started at the beginning of the summer 2009:

There had been a lot of arguing between me and IP 98/Arab Cowboy for a long time over the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles. It started out over the first line of the article, He wanted it to say that she is Egyptian. An RfC was created on the Asmahan talkpage, Everything here below was posted in about 2 hours.

Arab Cowboy started talking about: "15:48, 2 July 2009, is agreed." Meaning that, that article edit is "agreed", It was not agreed, no one ever suggested that, only him, and he kept on repeating this phrase. "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further."

HelloAnnyong was a 3O mediator, here Arab Cowboy asks the 3O "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process."

HelloAnnyong responds: "It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below."

Here Arab Cowboy says "Nationality needs to be in lead"

About one hour later a newly created account named Nefer Tweety, showed up and says: "This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009. And I believe her Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead.

No one ever mentioned this: "15:48, 2 July 2009," phrase before, except Arab Cowboy.

Nefer Tweety later posts: "A suspicious start"? Why? I find it interesting to read the debates going on here about various topics. I never participated in one before, and I am not sure I will involve myself into this "edit warring". When I saw you opened RfC, and I read the options typed above, I thought of contributing by stating my opinion, and what I typed above was what I strongly supported from the very beginning. I was going to support either of the options anyway. If I had supported SD's point of view, would I have been considered SD's "socpuppet" by Arab Cowboy? What a disappointment!Nefer Tweety

Later Arab Cowboy was banned for three days. Only a few minutes after the block, Nefer Tweety immediately posted and once more declared that they were not a puppet, and did not know who AC was. Following this, an editor noted the short time period and suggested a CU lookup.

Since then, Nefer Tweety offered help to Arab Cowboy to try to help get him unblocked. Following orders from AC, Tweety then asked another admin to review the block. It is curious that Tweety had not made any posts for days until AC started his edit warring again.

If you look at the behaviour of Arab Cowboy, anything he doesn't like, he edits wars to gets his way through, In this edit I made a post that Arab Cowboys obviously wouldn't like. Having to do with Asmahans ethnicity, the whole dispute was about if she was Syrian or Egyptian, but when I posted this Arab Cowboy did not revert, in fact, he did not even say one single word about it at the talkpage, instead the day after, the newly registered Nefer Tweety account posted this

In that post, please pay attention to these sentences:

NT in the above link: "It was a statement, even if true, that was made as a boastful bluff to a "friend" and was taken out of context by SD." a while later, AC says the same thing: Nr 3."It was said by Asmahan as some sort of bluff on one occasion, not a statement of identity."

NT in the above link: "As the sources show, Asmahan had not lived in Suwayda in childhood" - AC, 1C."In fact, other sources show that Asmahan did not live in Suwayda in childhood"

NT in the above link: "Additionally, when it was time for her to choose between Syrian and Egyptian citizenships, as this source (http://ramsesthesecond.livejournal.com/32835.html) shows, she demanded a divorce a second time from Hassan and set on a road trip to Egypt to salvage her Egyptian citizenship” - AC: "I also gather from the sources that this is when the Egyptian government attempted to withdraw her citizenship on the grounds of dual nationality, and that, faced with this choice, she left Syria and returned to Egypt, married to Ahmed Salim, to reclaim her citizenship."

During past mediations, Nefer Tweety has jumped in at certain exact times when AC "needs it" to do the same edits as Arab Cowboy does. After ACs three edits going against mediation: [11][12][13] Nefer Tweety jumps in [14] and straight out lies, same as with Arab Cowoys behavior "all had been agreed in the Discussion page" and more of the exact same ACs behavior: [15] complete reverts to non agreed edits while saying "It is rude to revert someone else's work."

Doing more of ACs edits while claiming I should "stay away from editing Egyptian articles" AC: [16] [17] NT: [18] something AC have also said: (Response to Statement by CactusWriter) [19] NT: [20] [21]

On the 27th July 16:18 AC uploaded a photo [22] exactly 5 minutes later account Nefer Tweety uploads one [23]

When I started the arb case in September 2009, AC said: "This is a huge waste of resources for editors and administrators, all to serve SD's secret "Syrian" agenda. He has called people, "Jews like you..." and they have called him back, "You are a disgrace to Wikipedia, if not the human race..." He has been fooling admins for so long by his constant childish nagging. Go ahead, if you wish, and start another round of "arbitration"... You are wasting your time. (at the bottom of Statement by Arab Cowboy)[24]

Compare his comments with NTs: In February 2010 NT said in an enforcement request: "He's become too crafty at fooling the arbitrators and the system with his "borderline" violations and endless complaints that are a waste of time for all involved." [25] (Nr 1 in Additional comments by editor filing complaint)

In October 2009, at Swedish wikipedia, AC changed the Omar Sharif picture, from a new one, to an old one, he edit warred with an admin over this: [26] [27]

In February 2010, at english wikipedia, NT did the exact same move, he removed the same new picture to replace it with the very same old one that AC had done at Swedish wikipedia: [28] At this time AC was topic banned from the Omar Sharif article.

At the Omar Sharif article, AC removed sourced info based on things he claimed he had seen on TV:[29]

Several months later NT claimed to have seen the same TV show: [30]

NT carries out ACs edits at Omar Sharif: [31] [32] and has continued to do so: [33][34] [35][36][37][38]

On the 25th October, AC had not made a post at wikipedia for almost 24 hours, he makes a post at Arabic wikipedia [39] and NT who had not made a post at Wikipedia for 21 days, makes a post in the same hour at english Wikipedia: [40]

AC created a sockpuppet and used it to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction at the Coptic and Coptic Identity articles. He edit warred over this with a user named Lanternix.

At the Coptic article he for example:[41][42][43][44][45] changes the population: from 12,700,000 to 18,000,000 - 4,500,000 to 16,000,000, removes: "most scholars and international observers assume that the Christian share of Egypt's population is higher than stated by the Egyptian government." "The Copts were severely affected by Nasser's nationalization policies", ". Ignorant of the Egyptian language for the most part, the Arabs confused the Egyptian new year's celebrations..." "In modern Egyptian Arabic, the word koftes (pl. kafatsa),..." and "In the same year, father Morkos Aziz the prominent priest in Cairo declared that the number of Copts (inside Egypt) exceeds 16 million." and adds text from the "The 2009 American Pew Forum on Religion and Public" at least to three different places.

He replaces the word "invasion" with "Emancipation" in the title of the =The Arab-Muslim Invasion of Egypt= section. and removes form the text that Arabs "invaded" Egypt, he also removes "Heavy taxation was one of the reasons behind Egyptian organized resistance.." and replaces it with "granted the status of mawali. Mawalis were in turn subject to the Zakat taxation, as well as their obligation to serve in the Muslim armies." Changes "violent persecutions of caliph Al-Hakim" to "eccentricities"

He removes the "The Arabs imposed a special tax, known as Jizya, on the Christians who acquired the status of dhimmis, and all native Egyptians..." he removes the coptic flag part, He removes freecopts.net orderofmaltacolombia.org netanyahu.org/strugaginemc.html from the article and coptsunited.com freecopts.net copts.com from the see also section.

After Arab Cowboys sockpuppet edits had been in the Coptic article for 1,5 months, Lanternix comes back and reverts it, and only a few days later, the Nefer Tweety account who has previously never made one single edit there shows up and removes the strike out comments from ACs sockpuppet at the talkpage [46][47] (and also formats the comments by ACs sockpuppet) and then he reverts the entire article back almost two months back to the same version by ACs sockpuppet: [48] Not caring about edits made by 30 editors and bots, the exact same thing he did at the Asmahan article: [49]

At the Coptic identity article AC with his sockpuppet for example: [50] [51][52] changed the numbers from 15% to 20% to between 5% and 10%, he removes the U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming, Washington Institute and christianpost.com sources, added "though these claims have not been independently verified" he removes these parts: "For instance, while the Arab invaders of Egypt were accustomed to subjugation of women...." "imposed on the Egyptians by the new dictatorship." "Foreigners visiting Egypt noted that Egyptians did not possess any Arab sentiment in the first half of the 20th century." "It looked to Egypt's pre-Islamic past and argued that Egypt was part of a larger Mediterranean civilization. This ideology stressed the role of the Nile River and the Mediterranean Sea." "also known as "Pharaonism"

At the Coptic identity talkpage NT removes the strike out comments from ACs sockpuppet, (and formats ACs sockpuppets comments) [53] Also notice here that a lot of the signatures of different editors are changed. Think about this, why would they change? For example Lanternix signature consisting of Coptic scripture is changed to "?????????" everywhere and also user Seb_az86556s signature is changed everywhere. The reason for this is, this happens when someone copy's text and then sends it through for example email or msn, the scripture is then not recognized and it shows as such, and this is what I believe has happened. I believe that AC knows NT, and tells him what to do through a channel outside of Wikipedia and at instances sends him entire article texts to paste in the article for him.

NT then does the same thing to Coptic identity, ACs sockpuppet edits had been there for 1,5 months, it gets reverted, and only a few days later, the Nefer Tweety account is used to revert the edits AC had done with his sockpuppet [54] Look closely at that edit, he re adds the population numbers, "5% and 10%" he removes the "Washington Institute" and "christianpost" sources.

At the end of last summer, AC had removed a sentence not according to his personal liking, On 2 September 2009, AC said on the talkpage: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.", I recently asked Nishdiani to take a look at some corrections that I had presented with sources, I had gotten permission from the arb drafter to do that: Nr 4 in corrections:[55] Nishdiani later ads his suggestion to the article, 7 months after ACs comment at the talkpage, NT shows up and without participating at the talkpage, ads "stopped in" according to what AC had said 7 months before [56]. Nefer Tweety has done this without saying anything at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about and typed "corrections" in the edit summary, doing ACs edit. NT is continuing with the same old behavior of AC and NT which led to arbitration, anything that was talked about at the talkpage they just changed against what had been said on the talkpage. And NT is still continuing with this now.

Very Important: And this right here is by far the most astonishing "coincidence": I added a list of corrections at the Asmahan talkpage, the Nefer Tweety account went to ACs sockpuppet, pretended he didn't know who it was, and asked him if he could reply to my comments: [57] NT had before ACs sockpuppet was exposed not made any edits at any of the articles AC edited with his sockpuppet.

Of the millions of Wikipedia users, the account he contacted to reply to my posts just happened to be controlled by the same user NT has exclusively used his account to back for 8-9 months. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but two things. First, tl;dr. Second, WP:SPI. As I investigate socks myself, I'd be inclined to read.. but faced with that wall of text, I don't think I can even bring myself to do so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that SD has failed to notify both Nefer Tweety and Arab Cowboy that they are being discussed here, as required by policy. This should be remedied. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that SD has made a habit of doing this, and he is already the subject of a complaint about it here. Breein1007 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the first sentence of this thread.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with posting pages of text at once; users automatically look for the end to assess whether they have the time and patience to go through the lot. The likelihood is that most people won't, which is why editors are encouraged not to post reams of text on ANI. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a lot of text for a reason. Its about a behavioral pattern. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read it; it seems potentially quacky, based on this one side only. And it led me to fixing a serious problem at File:Mes.jpg (User:Nefer Tweety had perhaps inadvertently overwritten the original image, as a result of which the summary and licensing were completely wrong; I've restored the original image). But I don't know why it's not at SPI where the admins who typically work with such things hang out. It seems like a better forum for it. Perhaps you should relocate it there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued removal of maintenance templates while there is an ongoing discussion

On the page of City Harvest Church, per this and this, warnings 1 & 2 to Sukarnobhumibol (talk · contribs) went unheeded, he went on to calling me names. Clearly, he is being pointy and disruptive. Thoughts anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the time of the last edit. No reason for this notice. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been 5 hours ago since then, so it is a very funny move of the user. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And accusing me of this thing because of a harmless proposition is also very weird. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been caught in the middle of this disagreement. In my view a) both editors are at fault here and have engaged in name calling and b) no real damage has been done. As such, I'd suggest that they disengage from one another. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D other than to say that Sukarnobhumibol shouldn't be removing the tags. There are obvious issues with the article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, I have disengaged from Sukarnobhumibol like you told us to but this latest edit by him isn't exactly helping to improve the situation... in fact if you look at it again, he is "stalking" me! Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Sukarnobhumibol. Their conduct is getting disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

I believe a user and and an admin need to be banned from making further changes to this article due to their obvious POV pushing, uncivil behaviour, making the topic very difficult to discuss and ignoring policies. As you can see on my talk page the Admin is claiming authority over the article and non-involvement but that's clearly not the case. They have also made allegations and threats which were not supported by any policy they can cite and deliberatly distorting my position in any response. The user is clearly disruptive and biased and has a history of pro-Catholicism, edit warring and making allegations not supported by any facts. An attempt for editor assistance resulted in being stalked to that page and further accusations made against me. They weren't blocked by another admin when they should have been who seems to share that bias.

This needs urgent attention by an admin who doesn't share that bias to ensure other users can contribute to that article in an appropriate manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeannedeba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Balloonman

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

RutgerH (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds like you are pushing WP:TRUTH versus WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

How? Anyone can make any comment or accusation but I'm pretty sure around here you need to back it up with facts. RutgerH (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, Rutger, perhaps somebody should tell you about WP:CANVASS. First, you try to get a case going at Editor Assistance wherein the person who responds says, "that a one-sided complaint is, in my opinion, not justified." Then you decide to goto Wikiquette and now to Ani.

Rutger wanted to introduce keep a fringe theory in the article on Pope Benedict XVI, wherein two outspoken critics of the Catholic Church have hired a respected British Lawyer to charge the Pope with "crimes against humanity" because of the churches handling of sex abuse case. The case rests upon the notion that the Vatican is not really a nation. This position is a fringe theory that even Rutger admits won't go anywhere. He doesn't want to acknowledge that this is a fringe theory and when he took it to Editor Assitance, the person who responded said, "the whole idea is silly." Rutger fails to understand that this is a fringe theory, just because a lawyer happens to be notable does not mean that everything he takes is mainstream. Everybody, including Rutger agrees this is going to blow over. He also failed to realize that including every fringe theory in the article on the Pope would be a case of WP:Undue. At current there is no case, just a threat thereof (one to which the Prime Minister has denounced.)

I became involved with the article when I noticed an edit war occurring on the page.

When Rutger's edit was rejected, he announced that there was a questionable source that he was going to remove. The questionable source was an article written by one of the most respected journalist on the subject of the Vatican --- John L. Allen, Jr. in the National Catholic Reporter. The National Catholic Reporter is an independent magazine that covers Catholicism. It is not under any ecclesiastical oversight and has actually been condemned by the local Bishop for taking stances contrary to the official church position. Allen is one of the most respected journalist on all thing Vatican. He is the person NPR and CNN go to on the subject. What is his rationale for considering the source unreliable? His rationale is, and I quote, "the hint is in the name." In other words, because the magazine uses the word "Catholic" it is by definition, in his opinion, unreliable.

Rutger then announces, "I believe the matter appears resolved for the removal of the material." He is the only one questioning the reliability of the source (based solely on the magazine's name) and announces his intention to delete the material---despite everybody else who has weighed in disagreeing with his interpretation. I warn him that if he follows through with his unilateral decision, that he will be acting contrary to consensus and may end up being blocked.

He makes the edit anyways previously, which is then reverted by another admin ThaddeusB who concurs with my stance, "I agree with Balloonman's arguments on the reliability of the "Cathloic" sources used."

As for his claim that I'm "involved with the article." That is just laughable. Prior to my getting involved due to the recent edit war that stemmed from your fringe theory, I had ONE talk page edit in November and was involved in resolving another edit war back in June 2009---wherein part of my involvement was to ensure that criticism of the Catholic Church was not removed.

Finally, it is generally considered good form that if you are going to start a wikietiquette or ANI case that you notify the pertinent parties.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't want to introduce that theory, I edited someone else's addition of it then objected to it being labelled a fringe theory but supported it being labelled recent. You continue to misrepresent that. You didn't warn if I followed through, you warned for doing it.

I announced that as per WP:RS the use of ONLY catholic sources for such a statement wasn't appropriate and when I asked for verifiable sources none could be found. It doesn't matter how many biased editors are in an article, they're still biased.

I also don't think using humurous articles without explaining the reason or summarising the comment with yada yada is appropriate on this page. RutgerH (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And I didn't make that edit as you claimed and you're again being misleading. I made an edit citing the two policies that were relevant which was reverted by an "independent" admin who said to take it to talk which we did. I did not make any alteration after that. RutgerH (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor have I accused you of making that edit a second time. As for you making the edit in the first place, if not then my apologies. But you failed to understand that this is a wp:fringe theory and doesn't belong due to WP:Undue. Your belief that because a notable lawyer speculates on the theory makes it not fringe is wrong and we tried repeatedly to explain that to you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) PS I'm going to bed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PS, the reason why Rutger put quotation marks around "independent" admin is because he has accused User:ThaddeusB as being involved with the article. As far as I can determine, ThaddeusB made his first ever edit to the talk page/article on April 9. As for the Yada Yada---I have no clue as to what that is referring to unless it's a Seinfeld episode?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"He makes the edit anyways" RutgerH (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the time stamp it does look like your edit was made before my warning, but it was still against consensus. YOu were the only person who took the stance that the word catholic automatically disqualifies a source. I will redact my statement appropriately.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone needs to be banned from contributing to the Pope Benedict XVI article, it's RutgerH, who has generally behaved disruptive (and has received admin warnings for his disruption) and contrary to the good of Wikipedia by pushing fringe theories in the biography of a living person, and who is now also canvassing as well as stalking multiple editors when he doesn't have it his way. I second the comments by User:Balloonman above. I think it's necessary to stay calm and uphold encyclopedic standards and neutrality in one of our most high-profile biographies. Specifically, fringe theories doesn't belong in what is meant to be a concise summary of the most important facts in the biography on one of the most important living individuals. If someone had repeatedly revert-warred BLP violations and silly fringe theories into the Barack Obama article, they would have been blocked instantly. The attempt by RutgerH to unilaterally remove content because he thinks John L. Allen, Jr. (the leading expert on the Pope's life) in "unreliable" because he writes for a publication with "Catholic" in its title, is clearly disruptive, and he was of course reverted[58] by an admin. Jeannedeba (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't go so far as to say ban/block him, I think he is making his edits in good faith---albeit with tunnel vision. He fails to realize that an article on a person such as the pope cannot have every fringe theory included on the article as that would be a case of UNDUE. I don't think he understands what UNDUE and FRINGE are all about. He has not re-introduced the edit since getting the warning, if he had, then it could become more problematic. But he does like to cast dispersions on people he disagrees with. He likes to accuse people of bias and pushing bias, but the two issues he's been advocating (the inclusion of a fringe theory and notion that a source that uses the word "catholic" is by definition not-reliable) are pushing a POV. Rutger needs to:

1. Understand that there are respected reliable sources out there that include the word Catholic in them. That he cannot unilaterally declare a source as unreliable simply because it has the word "catholic" in the title especially when written by one of the premiere journalistic authorities on the subject.
2. Understand that not every thing that is pushed by a notable source deserves inclusion in the article. There are a lot more important relevant things that could go into the article than some speculative theory that some lawyer in England comes up with to try to get the Pope arrested. This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE
3. That there are notable individuals who hold fringe theories even within the fields to which they are notable. That a notion which everybody agrees won't garner much traction and is not accepted by the mainstream is a fringe theory. Thus WP:FRINGE.
4. He needs to stop accusing people of bias and POV pushing who point out the above facts.

As for the admin warning, Rutger correctly pointed out that he made his edit before getting the warning not after.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1 Yes but you're misrepresenting what I said.

2 Yes but again you're misrepresenting the facts. The person we all agree is a fringe dweller came up with the theory, he then agreed to help

3 Yes and no as per below

4 Yes and No. They're not just pointing out those facts but making wild accusations such as BLP violations such as above.

Conversely

1. You need to accept that catholic newspapers are most likely biased towards a catholic perspective and aren't suitable as the ONLY reliable source for making statements of fact of someone's activities/attitude
2. That the above user does have an bias and makes many unsubstantiated accusations such as blp violations which just aren't there
3. That non pro-catholic views aren't biased
4. That you and that user misrepresented my views and actions and crossed the line on acceptable behaviour and makes rational discussion on the topic almost impossible and certainly unbearable
5. That catholics should exercise more caution when editing material close to their heart so as not to be biased and if needed be honest and open about any potential bias

The multiple warnings I've been given which were misleading in their representation have not been for any activity but for things I didn't do or to pre-empt any activity RutgerH (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles that happen to be written by Catholics (John L. Allen, Jr.) are not any more biased than articles written by non-Catholics. Jeannedeba (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've since put a warning on Jeannedeba's talk page. RutgerH (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to your fake "personal attack warning" that you posted on my talk page after I made this comment. Also, the fact that I respond to your accusations as a consequence of you stalking me and an administrator on several pages including this one, doesn't mean I'm "stalking" you. It's the other way round. You seem to use Wikipedia as a battleground instead of contributing in a productive way. The very fact that you pursue your vendettas against two editors on this page after you didn't succeed on Wikipedia:Editor_assistance proves this. I'm not interested in playing your game anymore. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. The above user is not wikistalking me I just felt like they were. RutgerH (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is time to take off the Spider-Man suit. You are becoming disruptive. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rutger, you have levelled a number of allegations, but you have yet to back any of them up. Neither of us have at any point said that non-Catholic sources are worse (or better) than Catholic ones. We have simply pointed out that you are wrong in your assumption that the word "catholic" in the name equates to unreliable---a clear bias on your part. BLP does play a roll when you insist on putting a Fringe Theory on a page---Jeanne was justified in repeatedly removing a fringe theory from the page. The extent to which the case involves Benedict is A) he is the Pope and B) a lawyer has postulated a speculative legal theory on how he might be able to get the Pope arrested. But fails to take into account the fact that nobody else accepts his argument beyond "a fascinating kind of academic, theoretical discussion.... At this point, there's no liability at all."[59] The AP goes on to state, "there are a handful of possible legal scenarios — all of them speculative... [and arrest is] the least likely scenario."[60] Insisting that this speculative legal theory is entered into the biography of the Pope, would be a BLP violation. The fact that a reputable lawyer believes something, does not raise it out of the fringe status. Notable scholars can have fringe theories. As is, this is Fringe and UNDUE. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated a case where we have opposed a non-catholic view without legitimate reason. We have opposed a specific edit of a fringe theory that you wanted because it doesn't belong for multiple reasons. We have also opposed your biased view that a source is unreliable simply because it has the word "catholic" in the name. Please start backing up your allegations with facts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, which ought to be handled through those channels. Only if one editor's or another's conduct is seriously in violation of policies to the disruption of the project should it be here, and I don't believe that is the case. Yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Weh, I don't even think there is a need for the "yet." Unless, the yet is referring to a possible case against Rutger---which I would agree is premature at this juncture.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That was my thought ... it seems like he's going a bit over the top in insisting on inserting fringe theories.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted the clarification as the yet implied that you might be giving Rutger's complaint legs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Hope a comment from me is OK here. I'm the editor who responded at Editor Assistance saying that "a one-sided complaint is, in my opinion, not justified" and that the arrest warrant attempt is silly, so I'd like to just expand on that. To make my personal position clear, I'm not Catholic, I really don't like the current Pope very much, and I do like both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (I think they're great writers, even if I don't agree with their fierce anti-theist stances). With that said, I think the arrest thing is just a silly publicity stunt, definitely falls into the WP:Fringe category, and it really doesn't belong in a biography of the Pope - if anything were to come of it, then that might be different, but I'm pretty sure it won't. -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for further information. I can understand why admins may not want to take the time or deal with other admins but this is just disgusting as are the constant misrepresentation which are still happening of my position, reasons and actions. It's not primarily a content dispute as the user and admin have made false accusations and are constantly misrepresenting my position. They've made the talk for this subject unworkable and show a clear pattern of disruptive conduct. RutgerH (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt I should have replied earlier but I clearly state why that theory shouldn't have be included the whole way along. It's all on the talk page in black and white despite what others are saying. That is part of the constant misrepresentation by the admin (who's thrown the word bigot into the mix) and the user.

Balloonman shouldn't be commenting on this (as an admin) or other admin actions regarding that user as he's most definately involved (30 edits on the talk page) despite claiming otherwise. He's done so regarding another complaint about the user and that should be reviewed. The other users action (along with someone else) has resulted in the article being locked and they have a history of other warnings for disruptive conduct and does not hide their association with the subject. I'm not sure what other evidence is needed of disruptive conduct. RutgerH (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Er where have I commented on this (as an admin)? (yes I did point out that 3 admins disagreed with him.) Have I once used any admin power? Have I once said, *I* will use my admin powers? But yes, you have shown yourself to be a religious bigot. By your definition, a source is unreliable simply because it is Catholic. Despite being shown repeatedly that the National Catholic Reporter is independent with a respected voice and that John Allen is one of the most respected journalist on the subject of the Vatican, you discount them out of hand because they are Catholic.

As for the speculative theory, you continue to fail to understand the policies of UNDUE and FRINGE. Despite multiple people trying to explain it to you.

Both of these points (that Catholic sources can be reliable and that the "crimes against humanity" theory) have been explained to you repeatedly by numerous people. Even people who primarily want to include critical material into the article and people who have come into this discussion solely because of the various forums your have gone to seeking support for your cause. So far, I have yet to see anybody else claim that Catholic newspapers are (by definition) unreliable. So far, I have yet to see anybody else claim that the speculative legal theory being called upon to arrest the Pope for "crimes against humanity" is anything more than a Fringe Theory. So far, you stand alone.

As for my involvment, I am involved now, but prior to this I think I had one edit to the article/talk page in the past 10 months. I still don't think I've actually made any edits to the article itself in over 10 months (whereas most of your edits have been reverted by various individuals.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, I've gone and done it, I did use my admin powers on this article! A factual error was identified. The wrong name was given related to a letter Ratzinger wrote in 2001, so I fixed it here[61]. Since I said above that I hadn't used my admin powers on this article, I felt the need to come clean about this non-controversial edit to fix the name of the source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin Balloonman has now gone way over the line. I've removed the defamatory statement/personal attack but action needs to be taken. [62] RutgerH (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored it because it isn't a personal attack. But I've decided that I'm done with dealing with you. Your bias is too jaded.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the admin action well after he got involved. He's reverted my removal of the defamatory statement/personal attack so can another admin please remove it. RutgerH (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's the best you can do? I made a comment on an open 3RR complaint? Did I close the case? No, I left it open so somebody independent of the debate could do so. Did you know that non-admins can close cases? So not only did I NOT take an admin action that I could have, I didn't even take an action that non-admins could do. I made a comment. What was the comment? Informing Peter that 3RR had not been violated because the 4th edit occurred before the other party was warned---which is required before any action is taken for 3RR. I also said that "I won't close [the case] lest I be seen as involved." Very definitive example of how I am abusing my admin authority there! Wow.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It was also the threat of a blocks and 'warnings' when no actions requiring a block were performed by me as well as the claiming of an admin consensus like it's some higher authority when editing. You involved yourself as an admin in a case where you were clearly involved in the topic and offered 'the solution' but simply let another admin do the actual work. You led the horse to water. Users can be blocked for disruptive editing regardless of how many reverts and the failure to do so on two (or more?) occasions have resulted in the locking of that article. RutgerH (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

RutgerH, your edits have been described as disruptive by multiple people, and you have also received an admin warning for disruption. You are abusing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests to pursue your vendettas against multiple editors (Wikipedia:Canvassing). Yes, people can be blocked for disruptive editing, and you're the one who's disruptive. You were told by another user here to stop climbing the Reichstag, but you're just going on and on, wasting everyone's time and taking your vendettas against those who disagree with your agenda and insist on encyclopedic standards to new forums when you don't get any support. As for the (fake) 3RR complaint by Special:Contributions/Peter_Ian_Staker, I merely restored the version that had been stable for the last five years and asked him to take his proposed (frankly quite unproductive, bordering on disruptive) changes to the talk page. The 3RR report was fake because I didn't violate the 3RR policy (I only reverted it three times, and afterwards a different user restored my version, then that version was protected, which it still is), while the problem user who reported me made 4 edits/reverts, and refused to discuss his controversial edit first, as I had told him to. As you can see, Peter_Ian_Staker is the one who should be blocked in this case for his disruptive revert-warring in a high-profile biography and failure to discuss his edit despite being told so. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Ian Staker

This lass has escalated matters. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review the section on 3rr I linked. She has now escalated to BLP vios, personal attacks. Note BLP vio calling a living man nutjob. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You escalated that with the comment "But lets shant allow facts to get in the way.". That level of snarky sarcasm is guaranteed to bring a rise out of someone already angry at you. --King Öomie 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR has not been violated. Peter warned Jeanne at 17:37 and Jeannes last contested edit was at 17:36.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The claims by Peter Ian Staker are all nonsense and personal attacks by a user solely engaged in causing disruption, violating BLP, gaming the system, edit-warring and attacking other users.I have never called any named person a nutjob (I have just said a person who wants to arrest/assault etc. a leading public figure is by definition considered a nutjob, as a general statement, some time ago). User:Peter Ian Staker is trying to edit-war POV into the article on the pope and abusing fact templates, I have merely restored the text that has been stable for years. Something needs to be done to stop all the BLP violations and disruption to the pope's biography by the POV pushers. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, as I mentioned on your talk page, this section has NOT been stable for years. It was heavily disputed back in November/December. The discussion is still active on the articles current talk page---which means there has been conversation within the past 60 days.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As I showed you, the text has been the same more or less since at least 2006, possibly even longer. The edits unilaterally introduced by Peter Ian Staker are unrelated to the recent discussion, they haven't been agreed upon at all, and were not an improvement of the article, on the contrary. It seemed like his intention was to make it look like the pope joined a voluntary organisation, when he was just enrolled by the state as required by law. I encouraged him to discuss his proposed changes on the talk page, which he refused. I also have pointed out that the edits by this particular user have often been strongly POV and inappropriate and have been reverted as "unproductive" by administrators before, which is another reason why I think major edits by this user to a text that has been relatively stable should be discussed, not unilaterally enforced by that user (to be honest, I have not seen a single productive edit by that user). Jeannedeba (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I hadn't seen your response where you showed that it was in fact essentially the same. Which does add to your stance as I know that the the sentence in question was under a fair amount of discussion a few months ago.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A look at Peter Ian Staker's edits and edit summaries is interesting. Not just the abrasiveness at times, but the knowledge of this new account. Peter, do you want to make a comment about this? I was considering blocking you for edit warring but then you couldn't take part here, and the page is protected. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole area is getting to be a lot less "fringe". Search Google News for "pope scandal". It's a legitimate content issue now. --John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Er John, when we are talking about the fringe theory here, we are talking about the notion that the Vatican is not a Country (which it has been viewed as for the past 80 years) and more specifically the notion that the Associated Press called "Speculative" that Pope might be arrested for committing Crimes Against Humanity?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the United States didn't recognize the Vatican until the Reagan Administration. [63][64]. It was controversial at the time. The National Council of Churches was against it. But "Republican strategists are far more interested in the number of Roman Catholic votes they might gain in 1984." It's not really a fringe issue. It's a content issue. --John Nagle (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

John, you said "whole area is getting to be a lot less "fringe"" and then you provided a link to the papal scandals as a whole. Nobody is questioning that---that is not a fringe issue and I agree that it is a content issue and I agree with that. Or are you saying that the theory the Associated Press call speculative and "a fascinating kind of academic, theoretical discussion.... [but] At this point, there's no liability at all."[65] related to arresting the pope is not a fringe theory? If your comment is related to the former and not the later, then we are in complete agreement.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Harassment of Kimberry352 by Ahnan

As seen in [[66]], there is some conflict between Ahnan and Kimberry352. General opinion on the COI discussion show that most editors find nothing wrong at correcting Ahnan's edits, but he continues to take offense. It has come to Kimberry352's attention that Ahnan has been bringing this conflict off-wiki to another external forum where Ahnan goes to[[67]][[68]] under the nick "kojakbt_89". The level of insults being leveled at Kimberry352 is escalating and getting really sexually explicit and degrading, and Ahnan is encouraging it. His identidy can be easily verified by the very same "kojakbt_89" to rally support on the forum [[69]] with regards to another article Lim Biow Chuan, another article that User:Ahnan edits to questionable quality.

This is not the first time the user has done this. When he had a disagreement with another editor Tanlipkeehe attempted to harass that editor in real life, threatening to involve that editor's employer. [[70]].

At the rate that Ahnan is attacking any user that edits in opposition to his views on-wiki and off, he is driving other editors away from wikipedia. As he pays no heed to us "normal" editors, I hope some higher level admin can gently warn him to cease and desist in his off-wiki attacks, thanks!

PS: If the forum somehow ends up being password protected (it was not previously so) do PM me for my account password.

Zhanzhao (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:AN. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahnan attempting to drum up support for his self declared "wiki war for PAP LBC entry" actually makes him guilty of "stealth canvassing". I've dropped a note [[71]] to warn him about this. Just worried that it may escalate into a whole stream of anonymous IPs rushing in to "help" him "fight the war".DanS76 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User Ahnan has now threatened to wikihound me here [72]. Things on that Talk page have gotten rather heated and I see no reason to suspect that Ahnan would actually engage in that behavior but perhaps the threat along with the off-wiki harassment, the attempt to canvas, and his admitted agenda (borne out by his edit history), indicate that perhaps Wikipedia is not a good fit for him. SQGibbon (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And here's an example of Ahnan's agenda diff. SQGibbon (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Book Block

Resolved

 – Fred the Oyster blocked indefinitely as reincarnation of banned user WebHamster. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Following this edit and summary: [73], itself after much feedback to the user on the unacceptability of diatribes against identifiable living individuals, I have blocked Fred the Oyster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is by way of a "no, Fred, we really mean it" block so if he calms down and shows he's finally got the point then he can be unblocked without consulting me, I won't complain. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No objection here -- I've cautioned him in the past to avoid diving into personal commentary when dealing with the current situation(s). I think FTO is just a little frustrated, and I'm sure once he's had a short cooldown period all will be well. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur also; the response to the block is essentially trying to fancy-dance around the meaning of words. He was trying to wind-up Mr. Black (and perhaps others), and the suggestion that the post was wordplay is cheap. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page due to personal attacks. After the protection expires in three days, he's welcome to submit an unblock request. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the block log - I thought it was an indefinite block. Chaser has kindly knocked the protection down to 24 hours to expire at the end of the block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur, whilst his actions that led to the article Mr Black posted seem to be justified, comments like that are unacceptable and reflect really badly on Wikipedia. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Responding to a complaint by doing exactly what was complained about all over again is really not the cleverest way of proceeding. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here's an odd thing. I have an email alerting me to a comment in Another Place that Fred the Oyster is a sock of WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and when I went to WebHamster's talk page to look for background the first name I spotted was the same user who is currently debating the block on my talk page. Is that just a coincidence? Guy (Help!) 21:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have a lot of trouble believing that. While both editors could at times push the civility envelope, WebHamster did things in a much more juvenile manner and intentionally shocking manner than Fred (nude pictures on his user page, almost constant profanity, etc.). Their personalities seem very different, I'd be amazed if they were the same person. -- Atama頭 23:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW - this user seems convinced that they are related.  7  00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have trouble believing that at all. Look at Fred's earliest contributions. NW (Talk) 00:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That looks entirely plausible. SPI, anyone? Stifle (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • No need, I've blocked. The earliest contribs NW pointed out and the overlap on articles edited is extremely unlikely to be a coincidence. WebHamster is  Stale anyway so nothing would be accomplished from an SPI. Tim Song (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I'll be darned, NW's evidence convinced me. I guess that WH just learned to not be quite as blatant about things. We're definitely better off without this person. -- Atama頭 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protection and removal of edit history

In the article David Headley an IP (from Indian ISP BSNL) has been edit warring for about a month. He frequently removes sourced content. When he is reverted, he reverts back with edit summaries accusing other editors of being "muslim terrorists" and asking "the fbi to take note of terrorist activities". Can someone protect the page and erase the edit summaries.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Erasing edit summaries is seldom done except to protect privacy. To request page protection, go to WP:RFPP. (Although it's possible someone will do it from here, don't count on it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary, while clearly disruptive, isn't enough to justify removal. I don't think even this one is that bad. I'm not sure that the disruption here is enough to justify protection - while there was one incident today, the previous one was 2 weeks ago. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one more today. Now i got called " muslim terrorist" for reverting.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review/request for suggestions: IP sock of User:Vote (X) for Change

I've blocked 217.169.37.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 month as a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change for more info). I had previously blocked this IP for 2 weeks on March 30. This IP has an extensive Block Log and comes back socking as soon as the block is released. I guess my questions are: 1) is 1 month appropriate? 2) does anyone have any further suggestions? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If that IP address hasn't been used productively, and is consistently being used for disruption and block evasion, then I don't see what harm there is in a longer block. If the IP was being used by others recently then we risk losing more such contributions, but I've looked over contributions from this IP from the last couple of months (the only activity this year) and I see nothing but either blatant or borderline disruption. -- Atama頭 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll see how things go after this block expires. I agree it looks like a static IP. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another block for Gilabrand?

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) was topic-banned in March for three months (later restarted toward the end of March) from pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in accordance with the 2008 arbitration case on the Israel and Palestine. For further background, Gilabrand has been blocked three times -- on March 8 (48h), March 11 (7d), and March 26 (14d) -- for violating her ban. And now, in response to an arbitration enforcement request filed by Factomancer (talk · contribs) (formerly known as Factsontheground (talk · contribs)), Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Gilabrand for a month and restarted and extended Gilabrand's ban to last six months after the end of the block ends (i.e. so as to expire on November 13, 2010). Now, I know Gilabrand's past record is hardly endearing and, on the face of things, it seems difficult to give Gilabrand the benefit of the doubt in this latest tussle, but I urge people to look at the evidence surrounding the current case rather than [just] the previous three (which I wholeheartedly agree constitute clear violations of her ban).

The two edits which Tim Song highlighted when applying his sanctions were to the Mossad article, where Gilabrand removed a trivia section, and the Eilat article, where Gilabrand changed a section title from "Modern settlement" to "Since Israeli independence". Neither of these two articles are related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unless one were to consider any article on Israel off-limits (something, which, as I understand it, was not the intention of the ban). Other articles highlighted in the request include Neil Lazarus (an Israeli author), Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (an Israeli rabbi), and Religious Zionism (probably the article closest to the line).

But in all cases, I feel the justifications provided by Factomancer constitute nitpicking in an effort to get Gilabrand blocked, rather than a serious effort to address problems with Gilabrand's editing, which, while adequately on display previously, is not on display here. As anyone following WP:AE will no doubt attest, there has been a recent spate of overzealous, dare I say frivolous, requests regarding Israel and Palestine; since the beginning of the month, there have been nine requests (one for three users) regarding Israel-Palestine, a large number of which ended in "No action" or simply warnings. Indeed, rather than indicating an uptick in conflict on Wikipedia's Israel-Palestine pages, I see this as an indication that editors are choosing to request blocks and bans more often than they are willing to make valid attempts to resolve disputes with other editors. While I understand Zero's and Tim Song's suggestion that Gilabrand should not be "gaming the system" by seeing how far she can go, I see little evidence that that is what was done in this instance; the way I see it, she is continuing to edit in an area she enjoys editing in -- Israel -- in a manner that does not violate the stipulations of her current ban.

If people truly feel her actions in this instance were within the at-times unclear scope of her ban, a notice warning her of that would have been sufficient at this stage. The month-long block and topic ban extension seems excessive, especially when it was not after the request was given due process; only forty minutes passed between request and the block and not even Gilabrand had a chance to say anything. -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to start off by saying I fully support harsh sanctions for disruptive editing at IP related articles. I think Sandstein has been doing an excellent job and that Gilabrands previous blocks were deserved.

That said, I see several problems with this recent block:

• Only 40 minutes from report to block. There was little opportunity for anyone to weigh in.
• Gilabrand did not get a chance to explain her edits.
• Factomancer did not even edit most of those articles ([74]). She went through Gilabrand's contribs looking for things to report. This sort of behavior should not be rewarded IMO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked for 48 hours to enforce AE for the edit about Wikipedia policy only that was found useful by at least one administrator. I do not mind topic ban, but the absurdity of it implementation ought to stop!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are very likely violating your topic ban by inserting yourself in this discussion. Unomi (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I often block vandals within seconds of seeing their edits. I ask no one. I discuss with no one. ArbCom enforcement doesn't always need an endless discussion by committee, especially if, as in this case, there already was one - which resulted in a topic ban - and that ban was broken. The line in the sand was bright and clear. Breaking it led, naturally, to a block. There is nothing to see here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  None of these edits are vandalism, so what you do with vandals has zero relevance here. Unless you are saying you think TS handled Gilisa as a vandal, which would seem to be support for undoing that block. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  (ec)This is not a case of obvious vandalism., and Gilabrand with over 20,000 article edits is not a vandal. I'm not sure these edits were crossing the clear bright line in the sand as you put it, and at a minimum Gilabrand should have a chance to explain why she made them if only so she can understand what she did wrong and can avoid similar edits in the future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  It was an example. It has relevance; read the rest of my post. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  It was a very poor example, then, because it does not have relevance. The edits in question are not nearly as clear as blatant and obvious vandalism, which are the only things that might, possibly, warrant blocking within seconds, and even that's questionable. If you are doing that in other circumstances, I suspect you will not hold on to your bit very much longer. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  The point was not the nature of the blocks; it was that discussion for clear cases is not necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Bright and clear? Topic bans are almost intentionally unclear, and that is no different in this case (pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "broadly defined", whatever that means). This isn't as obvious as when someone blanks an entire page and there is no doubt the person had to know they were being unconstructive (and even then, most users get warnings), and this isn't even as obvious as some of Gilabrand's other edits that led to her previous blocks. We're talking about a series of edits to articles that may or may not, especially depending on who you ask, be within the scope of the foggy "broad" definition referenced in the ban request. I loathe your dismissive nothing-to-see-here attitude toward my appeal and your cavalier approach to sentencing someone to such a long block and ban simply because you're on the "may" side, but then again I didn't come here looking for friends. Before I pressed the "Save page" button here, I was fully aware that you and some of the usual suspects had already endorsed this block and thus of the slim chances of this appeal's success. But I still cannot stand by while the banhammer is so forcefully applied, even if it's against someone with whom I have often disagreed. -- tariqabjotu 18:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Tariq, how could I possibly make "a serious effort to address problems with Gilabrand's editing" or "make a valid attempt to resolve disputes" with her? From the moment I first encountered her and she spammed hate material into an article I had just created ([75], [76], [77], Gilabrand has been openly hostile towards me and treated me with utter contempt and incivility. She has also refused to acknowledge that she did anything wrong. There is no way I can communicate with her about anything; she always deletes my comments to her on her talk page. Here are some examples of her incivility and hostility:

• "Are you manipulating Wikipedia for your own ends" - [78]
• "This is false and hypocritical" - [79]
• "This has nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it)" - [80]
• "These did not change the political message that Factsonthground is so anxious to convey. Factsontheground is stalking and harassing me (and not only me, as you can see from the numerous administrators' pages that are taken up with his complaints and back and forth reparte, feigning innocence but gaming the system... users like Factsontheground are playing a major role in turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a forum for their personal agenda." - [81]
• "He and his friends, like Supreme Deliciousness, Ani Mejool, and a host of others, are doing all they can to scare away editors, get others blocked and insert information about Palestinian grievances in every article they possibly can, including those that have nothing to do with the subject. This is so transparent that it is almost laughable." - [82]
• "The vindictiveness and hostility is growing by the day and users like Factsontheground are playing a major role in turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a forum for their personal agenda." - [83]
• "Mr Falsifier of Facts" - [84]
• " Every trick in the book then sics her buddies" - [85]

She also has accused me of being racist with varying degrees of directness:

• "I hate to think there might be some darker purposes at work here, but this is really going over the top." - [86] -
• "If you think the three month topic ban and editing block imposed on me through baiting, harassing, stalking, hounding, stalking (and possibly racism)" - [87] -
• "You manipulate and falsify material in articles, altering quoted material and rephrasing it to suit your goals. You have added nothing constructive to this encyclopedia. You wallow in self-pity and get your kicks from hate-mongering. " - [88]

And Tariq, I did not file that AE request simply to get Gilabrand blocked. I don't enjoy any of this. But it's necessary. I've said this before but it bears repeating: A major problem with the I/P field in Wikipedia is the extremely combative and non-collegiate atmosphere that has developed. The result of this is that uninvolved editors who might otherwise provide much needed neutrality and an outsider's perspective are driven off leaving only the battle-hardened POV warriors who thrive on insulting each other. The best way to change this state of affairs is to remove the unapologetic repeat personal attackers from the topic area because they poison the debate for everyone else by lowering the accepted standards of civility. If the cost of improving the civility of the I/P topic area is banning repeat offenders, so be it. And if Gilabrand could accept what she did was wrong and agree to change her ways then it would be a different matter. But she has never done that. It's always somebody else's fault (and usually mine) that she is getting blocked or banned.

And Tariq, in future when you single me out for criticism on WP:ANI can you please let me know about it? Factomancer (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering you reported her for articles you never edited, her accusations of stalking seem to have some merit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the phrase "wikihounding" is the one that is now in vogue, and that stalking is no longer preferred.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The arbitration committee noted that topic bans also cover "any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics;". If you've been banned from editing articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and then you edit topics about religious/political figures in Israel, that seems to qualify as closely related topics. That being said, it does seem unfair to not let the editor make her case regarding why she edited the articles. Maybe an uninvolved admin should review her case and enforce/decide/clarify what is and is not acceptable under this ban. Looking at her past history I can't say that I expect much to come out of that but it would at least be in the interest of fairness. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I respect it as your view. But really? So, if you were banned from editing on World War II and closely related topics, you would believe that banned you from editing an article on a Cardinal in New York, and a Pope in Rome? That strikes me as an unusual read.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Epeefleche

• Tariqabjotu's objections are well-reasoned. And upon looking at the actual cited diffs, well-founded. I therefore support them.

For example, Tim (whom I respect, but who I think happened to get this one wrong; something we all are capable of) hung his hat on this. Going so far as to call it "a clear violation" of the topic ban. There is nothing there that relates to the I/P conflict. It relates to Israel's independence -- which, as we all know, is Israel's independence from the United Kingdom.

If someone tells me I can't cross the U.S.-Canada border without getting a ticket, it's not appropriate for them to give me a ticket for crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. And then, to make their error really clear, write on my ticket, in Spanish -- "this ticket is for your clear violation of your ban on crossing the U.S.-Canada border".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This prosecution must stop. There are some editors (Factomancer) with obvious agenda purposes that are completely devoted to destroy and hush any user that is opposed to them, while not contributing any positive value. Gilabrand did not violate her topic ban, as it was described on the block notification, and it's clear that this swift block was done without reasonable consideration. --Hmbr (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the right venue, the proper venue would be WP:AE where you can open an appeal. Unomi (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider the removal of a trivia section that contains a reference to the P/I conflict to be within the scope of the topic ban. As I said in the AE thread, if you're topic banned, stay away from the topic, and don't test its limits. Tim Song (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that those limits were obviously not clear to the user, I firmly believe that you can settle it with a warning before blocking him for such long periods. --Hmbr (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize that this is the 4th block for topic ban violations? Unomi (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by George

This is a borderline case. Gilabrand was editing articles that were related to Israel, and in some cases those same articles, or the sections he edited, could be "broadly construed" as being related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't see anything in the diffs that makes me think that a block was necessary, but it's close enough that a judgement call could go either way, so I don't fault the enforcing admin either. In general, I'm glad that administrators are taking a tougher stand on problem editors in this topic area, and encourage it, though I think Gilabrand could have been given a shorter, equally effective block as a "final warning" of sorts.

In any event, I would encourage editors to step back and think about their goals here. Wikipedia is ginormous - there are plenty of articles that need your help, articles unrelated to Israel, Palestine, or the conflict between them. If editors are dedicated to the goals of Wikipedia, they should have no problem improving articles on other topics. Look at topic bans as a vacation, an opportunity to go off and read about something you might have never known about otherwise, and help improve Wikipedia. If you're an editor only interested in editing a single, specific topic, odds are you're inherently non-neutral on that subject, but you could be a neutral, useful contributor to a topic you're less personally attached to. ← George ^talk 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Shuki Is a topic ban a punishment or a tool to prevent disruptive behaviour? Here, in 40 minute 'judge, jury, and executioner' WP court and 'me too' WP appeals court, it is evident that it has been used as a punishment. The alleged violations deserve a discussion and a topic ban in I-P broadly construed should not include all Israel-related articles unless that sanction is updated explicitly. This knee-jerk reaction does not help WP. --Shuki (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with George - this is a borderline case, and I think deciding whether to block or not is within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• I reviewed the AE report, the article edits, and the comments in this thread; and I support the enforcement as being sound. Topic bans needs to draw a bright line to stop editing from pushing the limit. In this instance the topic ban was made by an experienced admin, the blocking admin understood the issue, then saw a problem and dealt with the issue promptly. I see no reason for change the decision. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Gilabrand emailed me and asked me to review the block. I did so and formed the opinion that the block and duration are appropriate. I noted this at Gilabrand's user talk page. CIreland (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with George, PhilKnight, FloNight and CIreland. Editors violate or skirt topic bans at their own risk. After three blocks Gilabrand should have gotten the message that a topic ban does not go away when it is ignored. The block and ban extension are within administrator discretion.  Sandstein  17:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• It is extremely hard to view these edits as anything other than deliberately gaming the system and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lontech - ethnic attacks

Lontech (talk · contribs) has claimed that "This article has been created by the editor of Serbian nationality in order to offend Ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo." Since attacking editors on the basis of their ethnicity is not allowed here and he has previously been subject to sanctions under WP:ARBMAC, I would suggest further action be taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This one is not really an "attack" in and of itself, but it's certainly an AGF violation, and another contribution to the overall battleground atmosphere, something of which Lontech has quite some history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not the end. Here he asks for groundless privilege removal with words "its not a good idea to advance editors with Serbian nationality". Also, sockpuppet investigation against him was opened. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lontech). --Tadija^taking 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First if you check my block log you can see that most of my blocks have come from this admin - now editor I think that is personal revenge after my complaint at arbcom regarding topic ban violations of kosovo.

The nationality disclosure of the editors is essential in understanding the conflicts that have these editor among them. serbian-albanian conflicts or greek-albanian etc in wikipedia you can find hundreds of thousands of pages where editors cite nationality of other editors.

Regarding ips tadija. no one in wikipedia hasnt taken seriously your nomination because theres no need to be a network specialist to trace/verify those ip.-- LONTECH  Talk  20:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of "personal revenge" is groundless, as nothing happened that I'd need to take revenge for, even if I were so inclined. That comment says more about Lontech's participation here than mine.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki032990

Resolved: blocked for violating 3RR

User:Wiki032990 is trying to keep the article Napoleon Crossing the Alps in Spanish. He was reverted twice by me and once by another user. I tried to explain on his talk page and he responded on mine, but it seems he ignored my last response and reverted the article to the Spanish version again. Svick (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his page about ownership of articles, especially considering what he wrote on Svick's talk page. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If he reverts to Spanish again, he will have violated 3RR as well. Why on earth doesn't he just cite the Spanish Wikipedia version.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Two things: 1) It looks like you forgot to notify the other editor about this discussion, and 2) The same edits were also made by them as 98.208.168.126 (talk). —DoRD (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to do that. My mistake. Svick (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

<<ec>>This would probably be better discussed at WP:AN3, but I laid on a 3RR warning, and suggested that ES.Wikipedia would be a better place to edit in Spanish. They're close to breaking 3RR if they have not already. Dlohcierekim 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped. This comment is intriguing. I invited them to the discussion here. Dlohcierekim 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I'd already issued a final warning to 98.208.168.126, and since Wiki032990 himself exceeded 3RR after that, and since it was all vandalism anyway, I've blocked both the account and the IP for 24 hours.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He's returned as 98.238.85.154 (talk · contribs), making the same edit. I've blocked that IP for 72 hours.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Weird. Dlohcierekim 22:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot editing as IP

It appears some person or thing has eaten ClueBot′s cookies, see Special:Contributions/128.174.251.49. One might consider blocking IP-nonymous edits from that address, and/or advising the operator to append &assert=bot to his or her urls. ―AoV² 21:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's now against bot policy for bots to edit from ip accounts, so I'll leave Cobi a message about this, better not to block the ip address at this point, it'll do more harm than good. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be caused by a security fix to the mediawiki module that bots log in with. A lot of other bots also got broken and need(ed) code patches. See: bugzilla:23076. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --- someone has already left a code patch at user_talk:ClueBot. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The following will prevent editing as an IP, next time it breaks (by telling the server to reject the edit if the client does not have the stated access level):

			$params = Array(
				'action' => 'edit',
+				'assert' => 'bot',				
				'format' => 'php',
				'title' => $page,
				'text' => $data,
				'token' => $this->getedittoken(),
				'summary' => $summary,
				($minor?'minor':'notminor') => '1',
				($bot?'bot':'notbot') => '1'
			);

Unflagged bots and out-of-browser experience interfaces should use &assert=user. ―AoV² 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked several times before and I just blocked it earlier. Then I see this. something lame from CBW 07:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gemini1962

Resolved

 – Not quite sure what that was about... —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gemini1962 (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia talk:Contact us#Edit request from Gemini1962, 14 April 2010, take a look please--Jac16888^Talk 02:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Permalink since it has been reverted ("not an edit request and not appropriate for Wikipedia; please use whatever proper channels are appropriate"). —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That permalink isn't going to work anymore either, because I have deleted the page and restored it without those edits. There was personal and potentially libelous material included and I thought it best to remove it from public view. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Validbanks 34

Alright, I think it's time to ban User:Validbanks 34. He has gone too far. Today he made a ton of ridiculous reverts using several sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Validbanks 34). He has been doing disruptive editing since September of last year. What do you all think? ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ban. Anyone who has any questions can look at my talkpage history.--Terrillja _talk 03:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Today's actions are completely inexcusable. Email bombing, trolling, and disruptive editing are not constructive in building an encyclopedia. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the saga unfold, but shouldn't we wait for the checkuser results, or is it so blatant as to warrant an immediate ban? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 04:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If I undertand things correctly, isn't an indefinite block kind of a defacto ban? This thread seems rather redundant. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Extremely blatant socking, combined with bombing my email using special:emailuser is too much. The contribs are identical and to be honest this is more procedural than anything as the edits are likely to be reverted on sight already due to their harassing nature.--Terrillja _talk 04:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

He's indef blocked, and has been since September. Socks can be dealt with via SPI or just as WP:DUCK. Not quite sure what a ban would do, other than generate a !vote here. GedUK  14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Extreme behaviour of User:DIREKTOR

After having gived too much time following the WP:AGF, I think now is time to report to you all that I have been going trough in a discussion, and a serie of incidents with this user. Basically, it goes all around a discussion we are having on Talk:Draža Mihailović page, and some other related talk pages.

• 1 - This user clearly monopolizes a series of articles he edits. Admin No such user remembered him of WP:OWN regarding this article [89] , but it seems useless. I am also saying this because after a block that he receved for edit warring on the article, he reverted the article a series of times, as here [90], despite having been both of us advised by admin TomStar81, here [91] to edit the article civily. I supose that means not edit-warring, but he after it even get blocked once more on the article because of it. Resumingly, he reverted the article 20 times since February 13 as seen here [92], [93], and that is only since my first intervention, but from what I see, he has been acting that way for long time now.
• 2 - Since we begin a discussion, he directed to me the following expressions on the Talk:Draža Mihailović: Lack of knolledge/info (7times), Nonsence (5 times), Horrible/faulty grammar (5 times), Me having no idea whatsoever (3 times), childish (2 times), Lying (2 times), Me being nationalist (2 times), unnencyclopedic (2 times), Absurd (2 times), Stupid (1 time), Clumsy (1 time), Silly (1 time), Ridiculous (2 times), Slauderous (1 time), My opinion irrelevant (1 time), me joking (1 time), Missinformed (1 time), Utterly (1 time). Since I confronted him with this, and asked him to avoid the use this kind of expressions, he used again, when refering to me or my comments, the expression Nonsence (2 times), Silly (1 time), when responding to a yet one provocation, he provoke me by saying that "You do not seem to know muc about this war. I keep advising you to learn more on this subject before engaging in these complex discussions" (clear disrespect) [94], or this case, clearly liying when confronted again with his unpoliteness [95], by this exemple you can also see some other unhealthy behaviour, like his constant presentation as some "community", beside the constant unseriousness. This is one of the other great recent exemples [96]. He just called my comment "typical extremely stubborn opposition"! And what is with this language "deal with it!" Are we on the street? Here, he ironically accuses me of speaking about "weather" [97] (because I don´t agree with him?). Here, after a long analisis of the sources, he just calls my arguments "touths and opinions" [98] clearly wishing to poison a normal debate I was having with User:Nuujinn. This was just one more of racial insults directed towards me [99] just because I challenged him to accep+t mediation, that btw, he refuses to, showing extreme bad will. These are some others: [100]. You can also see his following comments at the end of that discussion [101]. Ouragious!
• 3 - Other incidents occured here [102] where I am accused of many ugly things, and, in the recent past, here [103] where he clearly provoked me by calling my quite neutral and logical comment " stupid forum-like discussions where people voice how they "feel" on the issue, as its a pretty abstract subject (plus, this way we'll avoid the obvious danger of this discussion getting clogged by utter nonsense" .
• 4 - Also, once he reported me here, after saying that he didn´t noteced me because I had told him not to adress me in my talk page (trouth), he afterwords had no problems in intentionally provoking me in my talk page while I was blocked, and clearly lied saying that he didn´t knew about me not wanting to post me there (he had said he knew when reprting me). You can see all the provocative attitude he had: [104] How lower can someone be, when trolling with somebody blocked because he exagerated and provoked me before.

This last exemple clearly shows something that has been a constant on Direktor´s side: constant arrogance, agressivity, trolling and provocation towards contrary opinions, besides a constant manipulation of eachothers words and sources making impossible to debate. He also constantly presents himself as some kind of WP authority. I have been editing here for a couple of years now, and I have participated in a great number of discussions in a number of different issues. I know that not all of them are allways pleasent (despite most that I participated really had been), but until this discussion with Direktor I have never experienced anything so unpleasent and "low" here on WP. He also treats all other users that he disagrees with, in same way. Please do something to avoid this kind of behavior here. Thanking in advance, Filip.

P.S.:The worste situation is that after all discussion, a wish to finish with this has come, so a mediation has been asked [105], and he just unviabilized it by not signing, and showing very bad faith in not wanting to say why. FkpCascais (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait long enough and you can compile a list of "unpleasant-sounding" words this long for any Wikipedian - the important thing is its all directed at "content, not the contributor". Be careful when reading this, its full of manipulative doubletalk ("he directed to me the following expressions") and outright lies (I never called the man "stupid", for example :). This user was never insulted in any way, but gets offended when someone criticizes the (poor) quality of his edits.

To any admin willing to take action on this: beware that this is not the first time a carefully written block attempt was directed against me as a way of winning a dispute. I challenge anyone willing to actually take action on this to find an actual insult/WP:NPA violation. Finally, its a "counter-report" User:FkpCascais is trying to avoid me reporting him for ethnic insults and obscenities similar to the ones' he got blocked for a while back.

All this is so out-of-context it boils down to little or nothing, except an attempt to win the discussion by blocking the opposition with cleverly-worded fake reports. I am perhaps "less-than-completely" civil, but I am very, very careful never to insult other Wikipedians. User:FkpCascais, on the other hand, described my posts as me "shitting out my words", and has most recently commented once again that Croats are unfit to be used alongside proper sources. He was already blocked for this sort of insluting behavior, yet he apparently gets offended when someone comments on his claims as "nonsense", "silly", or "utterly"(?), or calls him "misinformed"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It was exactly because of his sort of provocations that I did wrong and said to him "you´re shitting out words" and I was blocked for that (and for reverting). But the constant accusation of being nationalist and disliking Croats is just untrouth and very offensive to ME. I am just challenging a source written by a "Croatian resercher" (meaning Croatian, as "local for Yugoslavia" related articles, thus not completelly neutral) and asking for more neutral sources. But Admins, I don´t have the 1% of experience reporting here as he does, but I really wish all his behaviour on the refered pages is confirmed. And btw, I was just counting the words he directed directly towards me, not counting the other ones he used "indirectly" or to others in the same discussions. Please confirm it all. Btw, I even contribute to Croatian football realted articles, and get along quite well with other Croatian wikipedians. Btw, I don´t get bad with nobody, just oposite to direktor, that seems to be a usual reported editor here. FkpCascais (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(comment from a formerly involved editor) The incident board is ill-equipped to handle situations like this. It's complex and involves complex nationalist feelings on both sides. Having worked with DIREKTOR on articles in the past, I will agree that he can get passionate at times but I can't recall ever seeing his correspondence devolve into flagrant personal attacks. Looking over the diffs you provided, I see nothing actionable. There's simply nothing flagrant enough for an administrator to take action on, and frankly this looks to me like you are trying to use this board to win a content dispute. It's hard not to notice that you do not have a perfect grasp of English. DIREKTOR, I would ask you to take that into consideration. Sometimes it is harder to make yourself understood when you are typing a language that is not your native tongue. However, FkpCascais, this is the English Wikipedia and a certain level of competency is required. Because you just left the phrase "Horrible/faulty grammar" above without any context, I can't really make a judgment call about it. I will say that I had a hard time understanding some of what you wrote here, and I would be highly alarmed if you were editing in article space with the English skills you have displayed here. Perhaps it is better to stick to talk pages until you improve, or find another with better English skills to work with you on any changes on your user talk page. Going back to my original point, WP:AN/I isn't the right forum for something like this. I would suggest filing a user request for comment, and this is advice for both of you. Another venue might be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, and that might draw some administrators who are used to dealing with these types of matters. A word of advice: if you post there, make your case concisely and don't argue back and forth. No one wants to step into the middle of a fight and remember you're going their for help, not to continue the conflict. AniMate 06:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for not having switched my grammar correction programm on, but I didn´t understood that it was my English that it was going to be on debate here. I just wanted to make this report quickly and understandable. I already created quite a big number of articles here, and you are the second person in a million that complains about my grammar (its not perfect, I know, but I can´t discuss on a talk page? or complain about another user?). Also, if you think that my goal is to win a dispute here, well you obviously did had quite a lot of trouble with understanding my English. Thank you for your time and advice anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(comment from a formerly involved editor) a bad faith ANI that should be dismissed. Advice has been given to both parties as to how to take this editorial conflict further. Polargeo (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird and disruptive edits by IP

IP 222.64.216.207 is dropping some pretty weird wikilinks and comments all over the place, and they don't like me, which makes me sad. Anyway, it's past my bedtime and I'm at (or past) 3 Rs on Wikitravel, for instance. There's more to this than meets the eye: please see my remarks at User_talk:Gnangarra#Weird_IP_edits, the talk page of an admin who blocked one of the IP incarnations of this editor. Sorry for this sloppy job, but I have to go. I'll notify the editor of this thread and then leave this for all y'all to figure out. Happy editing. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Notified editor, here. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See also: WP:AN3#User:222.64.216.207 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: ) and WP:RFPP request. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have no idea of WP:MOS - apart from wanting to make a WP:POINT - best example of the range of IP numbers used so far is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikitravel&action=history SatuSuro 08:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now operating at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/222.67.202.174 SatuSuro 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FreddyPickle

FreddyPickle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 98.239.186.1 (talk)

FreddyPickle was warned not to revert an addition on the American Idol page. He was also told here. I believe the above IP's edit is FreddyPickle, going back to his ways. Frankly, I don't know what to do; he continues to ignore consensus and common sense. I don't know if this is the right venue, but it seems most appropriate, since it is a nice little grouping of many issues. He even decides to post a similar edit using the same link, including yet another personal attack for my enjoyment. Something needs to be done, because he is just not getting it. –Turian (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FreddyPickle and his possible IP sock might just be hopelessly clueless, but look more likely to be trolling. Plus, the name he/they are trying to insert is not backed by the cited Washington Post article cited. I left a note on the talk page but have better things to do than try to edit the article. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The edits of 98.239.186.1 have not continued since 10 April. I have left him a warning. He is presumably the same person as FreddyPickle. If either one of them resumes the war at American Idol, a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if it continues I will report it directly to you Ed. –Turian (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Iotamikadoshi

I am concerned by the behaviour of User:Iotamikadoshi towards other editors, notably User:Ian.thomson as here. This latest incident may have started with an inappropriate warning from User:Celestialwarden11 to Iotamikadoshi but this does not seem to excuse the lack of wikiquette or the threats and intimidation--Charles (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

I did not make any direct reply to the above-linked comment because I thought Ian's reply handled it sufficiently, so I didn't feel it prudent to add fuel to the fire. I did reply at User talk:Celestialwarden11 for a couple of reasons: I felt that user had not replied in a way sufficient to show they'd shrugged it off, I felt there was a situation there that would continue to escalate, and I thought that Celestialwarden11 could also use the constructive guidance back toward improving the encyclopedia.

I share your concern about the conduct of Iotamikadoshi (talk · contribs), and I suggest monitoring on a go-forward basis. The conduct of Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk · contribs) may also need monitored, though I don't think his conduct on the same user talk pages has not been anywhere as problematic in this regard. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC) amended 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am Iotamikadoshi, the one you are accusing. I realize that I have acted harshly, and spoke in haste. I am sorry; I was gone for a long time, and I personally do not appreciate a stranger giving me such a strong warning when I returned to Wikipedia. Please, can this issue not be dropped? I promise that no more contact with Ian Thomson or Celestialwarden11 shall be had if my one request is granted, and I offer my apologies here. Surely, no user is beyond redemption. Please, though, do not be prejudiced towards those with different religions. Again, I will no longer send messages to these users, provided that they no longer continue to harass me. Thank you all, Iotamikadoshi (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The guiding principle here is to assume good faith. Since Iotamikadoshi sees what the issue was with his conduct here, apologizes to those who took offence, and wishes to move forward, I'm willing to move on as well with no further consideration of the matter. (See the amendments to my earlier comment as well.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee departments

User Revws (talk · contribs) has created or edited a number of stubs on departments of University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and appears to feel he ownes and could well have a WP:COI.

I feel that the pages are nothing short of adverts for non-notable sections of a uni, he won't let the pages be tagged with any article issues. In order to WP:PRESERVE the information I have created a page for all the departments University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee List of Colleges and Schools, and for those that were just stubs I redirect them to the list page and moved ALL the content - he is now reverting "as vandalism" all my edits.

He has said that if I feel that they are non-notable - I should nominate them for delete, which I do not what to do. I see no reason why these stub pages should be preserved when all the information about them can be put in a single simple page.

Please can an admin look this as he is clearly not up for reason. Codf1977 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, I can see NO reason for this edit at all. Codf1977 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a failure to notify the user about this conversation. Perhaps you missed that big orange box?Toddst1 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. Revws (talk · contribs) tried a semi-polite discussion on Codf1977 (talk · contribs)'s talk page but I guess Cod didn't like the answer. I don't see any need for admin involvement. Toddst1 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor removed it. [106] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I should have caught that. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if something is up with edit conflict checking but you've accidentally removed comments twice in this thread (check the history or I will provide diffs if you want). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

and as if to make the point he is now reverting other editors changes with out edit sum see this one. Codf1977 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be a problem here. Perhaps I need more coffee. Toddst1 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

our normal practice is pretty clear: we do not make such articles except for world-famous departments, but redirect into the article for the next higher division. PI do not see what he is doing wrong, for he is indeed making articles for those higher divisions, the constituent schools or colleges. We do make such articles for major universities. He may need some help in editing, but he is not spamming articles. (Personally, I think i could justify a broader policy for departments, but this is one where so far we've been pretty consistent. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued harassment and patronisation.

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

---

Resolved

 – There is no issue here... again. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As my last attempt to have this matter dealt with fell through, certain users have taken it upon them to carry on the behaviour that brought me here in the first place. They feel that it is acceptable to patronise me about my actions on my talkpage. If this matter had actually been dealt with the first time, then I would not be here again. Lefty101 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Move along. Let it go. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The first thing you need to understand it that discussing your edits on your talk page does not equal harassment. Your continuing to refer to it as harassment could be considered a personal attack on your part.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually see those comments as sincere, and good advice. And I agree with what Drmies and Toddst1 said, overall you did a fine job of handling that editor's vandalism but made a couple of errors. It's a shame that you're assuming bad faith here. -- Atama頭 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's never an issue when I have a problem. Good day. Lefty101 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because you haven't got a problem yet. Keep up like this, however , and you're likely to find yourself in one. Cut it out, already. HalfShadow 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lest this be seen as kicking a user when they're down, but Lefty101 has just removed the edits on his talk page (acceptable) as 'vandalism' (prolly not that AGF'y). [107] Syrthiss (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, Lefty101 needs to lay off the false harassment and vandalism charges. —DoRD (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say. Lefty101 (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Haven't reviewed Lefty's edits today, but yesterday, I was left with some impressions-- 1) he's trying to help by reverting vandalism, 2) if he makes a mistake, he is not inclined to accept criticism, 3) he has a sharp tongue and uses it freely. Anyone who disagrees with Lefty is harassing him. Been doing this a while, And I fear that Lefty will reject anything that says, "you could have done that better, and you are overly critical. We are approaching the time we hold an RFC on Lefty's behavior. Dlohcierekim 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We're not wasting an RfC on this. Either he learns how shit works around here, or we show him the door. The rest of us know what the problem is; there's no need to define it further. Tan | 39 17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that we have a live one on our hands. —DoRD (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That was a personal attack. Lefty101 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Lefty101 does not appear to be a troll, just reacts very sharply to criticism. If EVERYONE would let the matter drop, that would probably be an end of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC w/archiving) Concur. Everyone would do well to remember to assume good faith.

Lefty - if you cannot take constructive criticism and feedback regarding your actions on Wikipedia, you need to stop doing the things which are getting you feedback. This isn't just an encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's an encyclopedia created and maintained by a cooperative community. You have to participate in that community in good faith.

DRD and others - when an editor is extra-sensitive to criticism and abuse, that is an entirely different issue than them trolling to disrupt. Please do not insult those editors by conflating them with active intentional disrupters. Oversensitivity is a problem, and some people are not able to fit in with the community culture and standards here and eventually leave, but insulting them is the absolute worst possible response and is unacceptable. Please do not do that again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I retract my observation and apologize to any editors I have offended. No offense was intended. —DoRD (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Theeee horse is a corpse, of course of course... HalfShadow 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Elen Dlohcierekim 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

To Boing! said Zebedee: Continued

Resolved

 – IP blocked for ongoing disruption. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

I see old one is deleted, I will start a new one. I still don't know the real name of the guy who edits Myanmar articles, but I don't like his edit at Vietnam Television article as he wants to test Tw3435 of moving to Very Terrible Video, which I'm 101% 200% 999,999,999,999% sure that it doesn't exist. And then I revert it, and I edit Magyar Televízió article with my stupidity and makes you large revert. And I plan that next week after it's unprotected, I will revert back and provide more references, but I said that making references about test cards or clocks or idents are pointless and stupid and no one make it except on YouTube, which is most reliable for these. Also you can add as much schedule from Archive.org by putting www.mtv.hu, but don't add the schedules before 2000 as the website was not the real MTV's website, it was the test from other TV stations in Hungary. And I see it stayed for almost a year without removing or big reverts. And I see there is only one reference, if only one, why don't delete the article if you need references? I think that you are just trying to discredit me.--180.180.5.26 (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I forgot to tell you that click TV-Musor to see the program schedule.--180.180.5.26 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible continued incivility

Concerns dispute over 1953 Iranian coup d'état article and editor Kurdo777

I complained about (what I thought might be) incivility at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts a while ago here and later here

Latest problem is here
"BoogaLouie is falsifying sources, attributing his own WP:OR-and-WP:POV-based conclusions to Ervand Abrahamian, the cited source. This is a serious breach of Wikipedia code of conduct and core polices, and what makes it even worse is the fact that he has a history of making false attributions on other articles too. [108]"

... which sound pretty serious except I keep asking him where the WP:OR-and-WP:POV are
here Kurdo if the proposed section is "WP:CHERRY/ half-truths/synthesized/POV-ridden," where are the non-cherry-picked sources? The "balanced set of information" that overwhelms my alleged unrepresentative fact picking? You have accused me repeatedly of WP:CHERRY picking, synthesizing and POV. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? --

and here PS: Kurdo I am going to keep asking you, what is the evidence that I have written a "synthesized/POV-ridden proposed section that is a violation of WP:COATRACK"????

....and get no reply.

(One non-etiquette note: Contrary to what Kurdo777 says, if you check my edits you will find I am NOT out to make Mosaddeq (the PM overthrown in coup) look bad or the CIA look good. but the article needs balance (found in almost ANY book that deals with the coup) a without it will look sloppy and inaccurate, and wikipedia will that much worse.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

MatMat1999

Resolved

 – Blocked

This is a bit complex for AIV, but pretty clear-cut. MadMat1999 began his editing career by edit-warring copyright violations into Defeated, and creating copyright-violating images such as File:Anastacia Defeated Text.jpg. He then proceeded to begin creating articles such as A jniopbyojxstuhb;yuenuhyxbunpdrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and LUNgffkdstttttttttttttttu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since then, he as been repeated inserting scans of back covers of CDs (a pretty clear WP:NFCC violation, as not even the tenuous "identification" argument can apply to a back cover). Final warning for the NFCC violation is here, repetition is here.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week - the previous block and list of warnings are clear. I've deleted all the back covers of CDs as F7 as they can never be used, and also the remaining uploads that weren't being used properly in articles as F5. Some of them were terrible quality anyway; he either needs a new scanner or he's been eating his lunch off the current one. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Kite, block rationale and length are spot on. This should be taken as a last warning by this user. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Long term sock puppet and ducker.

User:Brexx is a long term WP:SOCK. He/she has an extensive history of creating accounts dating back to January 22, 2009 which to date includes about 58 reports of sock puppetry. He/she has also been involved in WP:DUCK. Today there is another report pending. The archived reports can be acccesed at: Brexx Archive. Now whilst i recognise that User:Kww is doing an excellent job of keeping an eye on the editing patterns of Brexx and managing to regularly identify suspect socks i'm asking whether its time to see further action. I am only raising the issue because the last two sock puppets left messages on my talk page (one tried to start an edit war [109] whilst the other attempted to disguise himself as a new user [110]. The diffs shown in the various cases at the Brexx Archive also show on occassiont that Brexx has at times spoken very rudely/harshly to editors and had been involved in edit warring. Is there not a long term solution that we can now persue? Also i did not leave an {{ANI}} notice for Brexx as i wasn't sure it was allowed with his/her account being banned.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I wish there was more to be done. The problem is that blocking the range that Brexx uses has collateral effects throughout the entire UAE, so people are obviously very disinclined to do so. That means the question on any given day is not whether Brexx is editing, the question is only how he is editing. He has a large sock drawer (Lucas tkof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for example is a 3-year old account that got blocked last week).

The only solution I can think of is to disable account creation across his range for a couple of months. The truly anonymous edits are easily detected (and most of his targets are semi-protected, anyway). We could potentially exhaust his supply of socks. I'm not sure I like the side effect of basically blocking UAE account creation, but I am sure that I don't like the current situation.—Kww(talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that the problem has actually been ongoing since March 2008: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Brexx uses a range of IPs and from some of my previous editing experiences he appears to use public as well as private IP addresses. Whilst i accept that blocking the UAE would not be preferred i also dont like the current situation. I mean there are times when i've unknowingly removed Brexx edits without knowning and almost engaged in WP:3R (i probably did some occassions) at the same time as knowing that the edits i was reverting were completely nonsense. and now Brexx appears to have began lacing my talk page with comments. I am slightly concerned in that i wouldnt want to get blocked/banned for reverting edits which later turned out to be Brexx anyway and also i don't want to get trapped in the middle of Brexx reports because he's left comments on my page etc.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Person seems to edit the same general class of articles across the sampling of SPI archive reports that I glanced at. Maybe an edit filter can be applied to block that IP range from those articles or categories, or some of the edit patterns can be added to Cluebot. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about that for the purely anonymous edits. That actually wouldn't be too difficult if we could live with a smattering of false positives (in the IP range, article contains "single", "album", "film", "Lohan", "Paris Hilton", "Rihanna", "Jay-Z", or "Ugly Betty" would get 90% of the anonymous edits). Main problem is that the edit filter cannot see the IP address that a registered user is using.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We have few options for sockpuppets. We can play "whack-a-mole" and block individual accounts and IPs as they appear, which has practically zero collateral damage but doesn't do anything to prevent future disruption (unless the sockmaster gives up) and is a lot of work for editors. We can block an IP range, but if the range used by the editor is too wide (as in this instance) then it's not worth it (why should a large number of good editors get restricted because of one disruptive person). We can semi-protect the articles that the person edits, but aside from the problem of blocking legitimate edits from new or anonymous editors, if the person is editing a large number of articles that's unfeasible. The last option is an edit filter, but that only works if they are pretty consistent and specific with their additions (like a person who is repeatedly adding the same diatribe on multiple pages), otherwise there are too many false positives. So "whack-a-mole" is probably all we can do. -- Atama頭 21:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit filter is a good idea. It could just be applied to any editor not auotoconfirmed making certain types of edits if the pattern is regular enough. It wouldn't catch any autoconfirmed socks he has in reserve, but at least the accounts can be indef'd on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't any fixed pattern to his edits. He's basically a really bad editor, with poor choices of content, no capability of distinguishing a good source from a bad one, and an obsession with musical artists that get heavily covered in tabloids (think Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Lady GaGa, Rihanna). He has his tells (or I couldn't spot him easily), but it has more to do with his choice of topics, edits to user talk pages and the rhythm of multiple edits to a single article than it has to do with a recognizable phrases that the edit filter could catch. You edit Lindsay Lohan articles pretty heavily: try to think of a filter that would have recognized Anywhere But Home (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think the edit filter could only work by effectively blocking anonymous editing of music and celebrity articles from the UAE. I would find that acceptable collateral damage myself, but I've been the lead whack-a-mole player with Brexx for a long time, so I may be getting bitter.

Currently, my strategy is simple: I scan 86.96.0.0/16's anonymous edits a few times a day to pick up anonymous edits, look for socks. I revert all edits, report to SPI, and request 3-month semiprotection on every article he edits. The last part is new, and seems to be working. At least he's having to work harder, and his efforts to persuade other editors to edit semi-protected articles are beyond obvious, because his style on talk pages is readily recognizable.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the breadth of the problem, User:Kww/Brexxcomplete is a list of all articles edited by Brexx socks.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are doing as good as can be expected in the situation. Blocking the whole UAE range would just result in the sock coming through in a new range anyway. I'm not aware of any other options without a complete rethink the sock situation. User:SunCreator(talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

86.96.240.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for a week as a test. NW (Talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kww, are you sure the edit filter can't see logged in IP addresses? It seems like a reasonable thing for it to do. The filter does recognize an ip_in_range option (not mentioned in the documentation but apparent in the code), but it's not immediately obvious whether it only applies to logged-out users. You deserve our kudos for all the work you're doing managing this issue, but if one lousy troll is able to create so much ongoing hassle, we need better tools. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from user:Slrubenstein

User:Slrubenstein has been involved in the race and intelligence article for quite a while, and was pretty civil in his behavior there before the past week, but has rather suddenly began making personal attacks against other users. I attempted to warn him about this behavior here; however he’s ignored my warning and continued to engage in the same behavior. The majority of his personal attacks have been directed at user:Mikemikev, but he’s made several against me also.

[111] (Directed at Mikemikev) “Scientists disagree all the time - it is the whole point of science. But they can do so while respecting one another's contributions to science. That you are not capable of this just shows your ignorance of science (or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”

[112] (Directed at Mikemikev) “This is utter and total @#!*% that simply demonstrates Mikemikev's attempt - conscious or reckless - to destroy this article […] All mikemikev is doing is pushing his own POV even if it makes us the laughing stock of the literate world.”

[113] (Directed at Mikemikev) “The version that I left, after deleting Mike's vandalism, was not "my" version. It was the version we arrived at through mediation, and which David Kane wrote, before mediation ended and Mike came here to sneak back in his ignorant POV.”

[114] (Directed at both me and Mikemikev) “Now, I DO understand regression to the mean, and I DO understand basic population genetics, and I know that what Mikemikev and Captain Occam have written is SO wrong, that they simply do not know what they are talking about. Do you see the problem? When I do not understand something, I do not edit on it. Yet here are two editors who clearly do not understand something, yet they think that they can explain it to others via our encyclopedia. I think that is dishonest, disingenuous, @#!*% that in a small way makes our encyclopedia an embarassment, the kind of website college professors tell their students not to visit. Do you see my problem now? Because I know these guys are writing encyclopedia content on things they do not understand, I cannot assume good faith on their behalf. I just cannot. They are charlatans. And if this is how I feel about them, I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article, you know how important AGF is.”

[115] (Directed at Mikemikev) “Your trolling, you are just trying to get me to waste my time by repeating what I wrote yesterday, and what was written during mediation, in the hiopes that I will get tired of your trolling and go away.”

[116] (Directed at me) “You know little about science, yet come to this article just to push your racist point of view. Fortunately, there are many other editors who will put science above your racist ideology.”

[117] (Directed at me) “Captain Occam's standard seems to be: any view that does not agree with mine is bad. Well, so what else is new?”

I’m reluctant to recommend a block for Slrubenstein, because he has contributed to this article in a positive way over the past several months, but recently there has been a major change in his behavior. As I’ve reported here, his main activity there lately has been edit warring (also after being warned about this); it ultimately resulted in page protection rather than a block because a few other users were edit warring there also.

As far as how this should be dealt with is concerned, I think Slrubenstein’s most important comment is the fourth one that I quoted (with regard to me and Mikemikev): “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article”. I’m not making personal attacks against anyone there, and I’ve only reverted the article once during the past two days, so in this case I don’t think Slrubenstein’s inability to interact with me and Mikemikev in a constructive way is my own fault. If by his own admission he is unable to do this, and he is the one who’s edit warring and making personal attacks as a result, I think something needs to be done about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that temperatures have tended to run high in this article. Some of this is diffused in the very long talk page, which has saved the article from many reverts. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about temperatures running high, but I think most of us who are debating about this article have managed to avoid making personal attacks against other users involved in it. I also don’t think there’s any evidence of Slrubenstein’s behavior having calmed down; his most recent personal attack that I quoted is his most recent contribution. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is an admin and has been a user in good standing since 2001, there are very few active users on Wikipedia who have a longer or more respected history. You've been here for under two years, much of it intermittent, and the race and intelligence article has been a focus of yours almost from the outset. I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein. I suggest you find a way of working productively with him before you get blocked yet again for edit warring on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t a discussion about general level of contributions to Wikipedia or my own past conflicts with users unrelated to this report, it’s a discussion about the specific user conduct within the past week that I’ve brought up here. A user’s history of contributions does not excuse them from having to follow rules such as WP:NPA. In accordance with the rules of this noticeboard, can this discussion please remain focused on its actual topic, instead of straying to unrelated accusations and side-discussions within the discussion? Thanks.

Incidentally, if there is somewhere other than AN/I where I should be posting in order to report disruptive behavior from an administrator, I would appreciate knowing what it is. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be better to base your position on an examination of the circumstances of the event, Guy, rather than on the reputations of the users involved. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:24, 15 Apr 2010 (UTC)

*Wow. I have respect for Slrubenstein. But Guy/JzG, I think your comment is way off-base, though you may well have given voice to a misapprehension that plagues other sysops as well. The mop does not by any means entitle Slrubenstein to better treatment than Occam is entitled to. Frankly -- it is precisely the opposite. The admin rules, and the bases upon which actions can be taken against admins, makes it quite clear that sysops have greater, not lesser, obligations than do non-sysop editors. Furthermore, as the oft-quoted don't bite the newbies guideline suggests, it is the newer editors -- not the more experienced ones -- who we should take extra care with. Your "Slrubenstein is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or judgement [sic] of the project's mores, I'll be backing Slrubenstein" sends a terrible message. I'm hoping that was accidental, and will be redacted. It's IMHO contrary to some very important wiki guidelines, and is precisely what non-sysops say on a regular basis when they see sysops covering each others' backs in questionable circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Guy's rationale is not productive or appropriate. Maurreen (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) While I can see tempers becoming elevated, I don't see anything which would qualify as a personal attack. I think some of the comments are coming close to being incivil, however. Perhaps everyone involved needs to take a day off and cool down before coming back to the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In context, the very minimal testiness is actually a sign of great restraint on the part of Slrubenstein whose judgement I trust quite substantially. The article topic is of immense interest, which means it is of immense possibility for head-butting. Nothing to act upon, to be sure. Collect (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus here is that these quotes from Slrubenstein aren't incivil enough to warrant action, I'll accept that. However, I would still like it if someone could do something about Mathsci's attempt below to hijack this thread into a complaint about me, and in the process evade the requirement of notifying me on my userpage the way he would have to do if he were posting a thread about this issue normally. As I pointed out in my comment there, this is the third time he's done this in an AN/I thread in the past month. If you look at the two prior threads where this happened, you'll see that his conduct in both of them was fairly disruptive, particularly in terms of his series of personal attacks against Ludwigs2. But nothing's ever been done to prevent him from continuing to repeat this same behavior in multiple AN/I threads. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's wikiquette in that usertalk could use improvement, but an ANI thread with allusions to a block proposal is a bit much. Captain Occam seems a little too eager to provoke drama by bringing it here. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for something more along the lines of a warning from another admin that if he feels he’s unable to work collaboratively with other users on this article, it would be better for him to leave the article alone for a little while until he feels differently about this. I’m well aware that over the past several months, Slrubenstein’s contributions to this article have been more positive than negative, so I think I agree that a block would be excessive. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal of "a warning from another admin" implicitly implies you want a threat of sanctions. If you just want someone to suggest Slrubenstein try to dial it back and/or take a break, anyone can do that, not just admins. I thought of leaving Slrubenstein a note but decided that it's enough if he looks over this thread and takes in the issue. The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves. Given Mathsci's report, without knowing more, I'd say that presumption is not necessarily a done deal. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

“The suggestion that Slrubenstein is having trouble working collaboratively seems to carry a presumption that the edits he's objecting to constitute meaningful collaboration themselves.”

My saying that was intended only as a paraphrase of Slrubenstein’s own comment about me and Mikemikev: “I cannot interact with them or work with them on the same article.” To me, his saying that sounds like an expression of unwillingness to work collaboratively, but perhaps I should have been clearer what I was referring to. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• A quick note on the actual issue. Of the above diffs, much of the language was not IMHO inappropriately uncivil. The only language that gave me pause was: a) "or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”; and b) "They are charlatans". And even those two, in the broad scheme of things, and under the circumstances, might not trouble me. Without delving deeply, I'm unsure. At the same time, sysops especially are supposed to model good behavior for everyone else. If Slrubenstein were to make an appearance here, and say he apologizes if his colleague was offended, and didn't intend to offend him, I would be happy to consider this case closed -- and I hope that Captain would agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say calling someone's actions "trolling", unless it is demonstrable, a personal attack. Doing so out of disagreements with another's viewpoint would certainly cross the line of exemplary behaviour expected of an Admin. I'm sorry, but I agree that JzG's back-scratching is pretty lamentable too. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Request of community topic ban for Captain Occam for attempted tag teaming

• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• History of the race and intelligence controversy

My editing history is in mainstream articles in the arts and science. I order to restore some order to Race and intelligence, I wrote History of the race and intelligence controversy based on impeccable secondary sources in the history of psychology. I used all mainstream historical accounts available and looked carefully for these. The article is neutral and accurately represents the sources, academic experts on the history of psychology.

There are a number of POV-pushers active on Race and intelligence. The most extreme of these is Captain Occam, a WP:SPA who seems determined that wikipedia should unduly represent a minoritarian point of view. I don't have any particular point of view myself and tried to write the history from history books that gave lengthy historical accounts of research into race and intelligence. There are a fair number of other supporters of the minoritatian point of view active on the R&I page. When I wrote my neutral history, as best I could, simply summarising and shortening the sources, I was not selective - no cherry-picking, etc. Just what the sources said, no extra commentary by me.

However now Captain Occam has decided that he doesn't like the article and has posted messages on the user talk pages of some of these other editors as well as Ludwigs2. These editors have appeared at the talk page of the article and some at the entry I wrote on the NPOV noticeboard. They have not said anything cogent so far. They want to rewrite the history using primary sources and have even suggested bizarre conspiracy theories concerning Marxist historians, environmental historians, but all just their own peculiar point of view. They seem to be suggesting that a large number historians of psychology, in particular all those that have written on the topic, are biased and misrepresenting events. They write this as a simple matter of fact without the slightest attempt to justify themselves. No book reviews confirm this eccentric point of view, so this kind of argument seems just to have made in order to be disruptive and waste time.

Captain Occam has orchestrated an onslaught onto a neutral and well-written article. He has been WP:TAG TEAMing, leaving messages for multiple like-minded editors to message-bomb the talk page. They have not produced any cogent arguments, just vague trolling comments, quite unlike any criticism I have seen of any other article I've written - and I have written a wide range of mainstream articles. Varoon Arya and Captain Occam have even discussed tiring me out. That is of course one of the main objectives of civil POV-pushing.

The disruption is apparent on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy where I've supplied diffs of Occam's messages to other users requsting support on the article talk page. This seems to be a deliberate attempt to bully/tire out/confuse a normal experienced editor. Captain Occam seems to be doing something similar above to another user. I therefore suggest that Captain Occam be given an indefinite community ban on all wikipedia articles and their talk pages related to race. Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "Seems to be", as expressed twice in the last paragraph, is not good enough. Suggest a RFC/U, if you feel it appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some of the diffs. [118],[119], [120], [121], [122] As I say, I have a lot of experience editing and creating articles on wikipedia and the laws of probability do not suggest that I would at any stage create a non-neutral, improperly sourced article in the light of all my other contributions. Most of the history section of Europe for example was comprehensively rejigged by User:Hemlock Martinis and me a while back using multiple sources. Captain Occam - as Guy says above - is a dedicated POV-pusher and single purpose account who seems intent on spreading disruption. These diffs seem like an attempt to sabotage a quite normal article; I'm not quite sure what his precise objection is except WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in his edits. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

Mathsci, this is the third time in the past month that you've evaded the second requirement for posting here by ignoring the first requirement, and piggybacking one of your complaints about a user on top of an unrelated thread here. The previous two times are here and here. Could an admin please do something to keep this thread on-topic? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, it is fundamental to Wikipedia dispute resolution that people who initiate DR actions (like you did here at ANI) automatically make their own conduct part of the subject, which means they can end up on the receiving end of sanctions. And yes, the header you quote advises people to work grievances out in userspace before bringing them to ANI. However, since you've already brought the matter here, centralization to this thread is appropriate per WP:DRAMA#Responding to drama, so Mathsci's weighing in on it here is fine.

Wehwalt: Mathsci does present some diffs (that at least establish canvassing) at the talkpage he cited, but if he is serious about a ban discussion, it would help if he incorporated the diffs directly into his report. I can't bring myself to pay attention to the R&I battle even though some very good editors are involved, so I don't have any particular views about past editor conduct in it. In general, though, it's better to dispose of clear-cut problems at ANI, and reserve more tedious processes like RFCU for cases complex enough to need it. So if Mathsci is claiming this case is clear-cut, it could help if he presents some more documentation here in the hope of getting the problem resolved more efficiently. (Captain Occam is of course entitled to do the same, although it looks to me like he's already given his best shot). Given how long the conflict has been active, though, it's probably headed towards RFCU and/or arbitration. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with what Mathsci is doing here is that my report had nothing to do with him, or with the article in which he’s complaining about my conduct. (He’s complaining about my conduct in history of the race and intelligence controversy, while my report was about Slrubenstein’s conduct in race and intelligence.) If you look at either of the two linked AN/I threads that Mathsci turned into complaints about Ludwigs2, in those cases Mathsci’s complaints had even less relevance to the original topics of the thread. In one of these two cases, the user Hans Alder closed the thread with a comment explaining the problem with what Mathsci was doing: “This page has a notice above that says: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The present thread has been hijacked by a user who is ignoring the first sentence, and by piggybacking on an almost completely unrelated thread is also circumventing the second sentence.” As can be seen in this edit, Mathsci responded by reverting Hans Alder’s closure of the thread.

As far as WP:CANVASS is concerned, I left comments on the userpages of three users, which I think falls within the limits of what’s considered a “friendly notice”. My comment for Varoon Arya did not mention either Mathsci or the history of the race and intelligence controversy article, but was only to let him know that mediation for Race and intelligence was now over and that he might want to pay attention to how things have changed in that article. My comment for DJ referred specifically to the history article, but was neutrally worded. In both his case and VA’s, my criterion for contacting them was that they hadn’t been very active lately, and I wanted to make sure they were aware of the recent developments that had occurred with these articles. The only one of my comments that I could see Mathsci reasonably taking issue with is my one directed at Ludwigs2, but I think it’s important to bear in mind that Ludwig was our mediator for the race and intelligence article for several months, so all of us often come to him for advice about user conduct. Several other users have come to him with other complaints similar to this, Slrubenstein included.

There’s a lot more I could be bringing up about Mathsci’s conduct that I consider problematic, particularly involving his behavior towards Ludwig in the two linked threads, but I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place for it. Is that something we should be discussing here? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're having a centralized discussion of this bunch of related issues, then yes, put everything here for now. (That is consistent with what Mathsci did). If it gets too messy, it may have to move to an RFC per Wehwalt's suggestion. Either way, the idea is to keep it in one place at any given time. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban I was going to propose this myself when I first saw this thread a few hours ago, but wanted time to catch up on a debate I have been less than half following. Edit warring, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, POV-pushing, disruptive single purpose account &c. - I would not have chosen tag teaming as the main issue this editor has with Wikipedia norms, but I concur that it is about time we tried something new. I would like to try a ban just from Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy but not their talkpages or the mediation, but I could be convinced of the necessity of a broader action. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User Gabi Hernandez

I am asking the community to review the recent edits of User: Gabi Hernandez. When she first started, TAnthony and I tried to offer encouragement and advice about editing, but she refused to listen and take it. When warned, she even resorted to sock puppeteering. Now, she has engaged in the same disruptive editing, cluttering up soap opera articles with references, placing decortative images in articles here [123] and here [124], when she was warned [125] here about doing so. and removing maintenance templates without solving the problem here. [126] We have asked numerous times for her to read up on the use of guidelines, but she just refuses to do so and even asserts that she "didn't know" here. [127]. She's not engaging in hard core vandalism, but it's just so much work on us editors who actually try and follow rules. I'd hate to see her blocked, but the consistent issues are becoming quite tiresome. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the above concern, as I've run into this editor on several occasions. There are many examples of improper uploads and not listening. If this editor is going to remain here much longer, a mentor of some sort is needed. Someone very patient. Jack Merridew 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clearly she wants to treat this as a fansite. Someone should point her to Wikia. Anyway, there is a problem, it isn't new, and she does know what she's doing is wrong. Personally, I think a block is in order, and further infractions should lead to escalating duration, etc. etc. etc. AniMate 01:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Great idea; it's at:

• http://daysofourlives.wikia.com/wiki/Days_of_our_Lives_Wiki

WP:Editors for Wikia is a concept that's ripe. Casey; Collaborate with people who love what you love.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A short-term block appears to be in order. It'll at least give the user time to read the relevant policies. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting assistance for User:Azure12

I originally posted this at Wikiquette alerts, but ArcAngel suggested it was better suited to ANI. I have copied the notice below in its original form.

Over the last year the editor has made a large number of edits to articles, mainly focussing on Disney/Pixar movies and other fictional works. These edits fall into two groups -- additions of sentences such as "This was the third appearance of [minor cast member X] in a Pixar film, playing role Y", and longer paragraphs of original research and synthesised material.

The editor's talk page contains many notices of content and article deletion, and warnings not to introduce WP:OR to articles. So far he/she has not responded once, on his/her talk page or on any article talk page. One article, which I proposed for deletion through AFD, appears to be building consensus to delete under WP:OR, yet the editor has not responded on the AFD page, and is even continuing to add material to the page.

I have left a personal message on Azure12's talk page, but no response has been forthcoming, even as he/she continues to add WP:OR and have it removed (by other editors). Please advise of the best course of action. Regards, Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)