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   pablo_hablo., sometime on the 14th of April unsigned at the time, sorry

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)

I don't think it should be mandatory. He was unblocked without any indication of restrictions. I would suggest that he consider that but I would not require it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be mandatory, but given that it is not an intended outcome of unblocking that the same disruption occurs again (ever), unblocking without restriction virtually guarantees recidivism, which means another block, which means more drama. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is such a thing. Every time Okip is brought here, there are fewer editors willing to speak in his defense. Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am one of his victims, to be sure - and still I am willing to defend him. Indefinite blocks rarely serve WP well, and frequently serve WP ill. I would suggest, in particular, that any CANVASSing of whatever sort be off his menu, as well as any initiation or participation in dispute review processes on his own volition. I would also suggest that he be encouraged to write encyclopedic articles (not stubs) as a positive sort of act. Collect (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If Okip is interested in doing just that, I have a list of articles & needed materials -- electronic copies of JSTOR articles, pdfs, etc. -- for him to contribute to Ethiopia-related topics. (I'd be doing this myself, but I seem to be struggling with a bout of writer's block.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 15 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)

For clarity, I had never ended or even looked at the article before a few days ago. My attention was drawn to it by someone posting a biased news headline to the daily portal. I figured that, given the biased headline on the portal there was a good chance of a similar biased edit on the article. (My suspicion proved correct.) My only interest in the article is to enforce NPOV/BLP policies. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 15 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[8] 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."[9] 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."[10] 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[11]. 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. [12] 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)

Cite the disruptive edits if you're going to claim that. There's no disruptive edits, I made edits and when other wanted to discuss it I didn't make further edits. That's yet another false claim among your many including a few WP:BLP violations which you couldn't back up. You haven't provided any evidence to support your claims. That's being disruptive.

There was no 'editor assistance' being given. I started out on wikiquette alerts but when I realised balloonman was an admin then it was clearly not going to be enough so I escalated it. There should also be a COI case but I haven't done that because I don't want to 'canvass'.

The defamatory/personal attack is still in the talk. Is this being ignored for any reason? RutgerH (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RutgerH, I went looking for the alleged "personal attack" against you by Balloonman, and I didn't find any personal attack. He just points out, correctly, that the National Catholic Reporter is not an "unreliable" source as claimed by yourself, but an independent quality newspaper specializing on Catholic issues. The fact that it specializes on Catholic issues doesn't make it "unreliable" in regard to the same issues, as has been pointed out over and over again. Jeannedeba (talk) 11:57, 15 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. [13][14]. 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."[15] 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)

Given the level of press coverage, it's definitely notable. There's so much press right now, from the Vatican and other sources, regarding the Pope, sexual abuse scandals, and related problems, that I just put a "current" tag in the Catholic sex abuse cases article and added some press reports. This is really all about content, though; it's not an ANI issue. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nagel, you haven't answered the question. Are you saying that sex abuse case and the furvor over that is notable and needs to be mentioned? If so, then nobody is disputing that. (The only question then becomes how much goes into the Benedict article and how much is relegated to the sex abuse scandal case article?) Or are you saying that the legal theory that the Pope should be arrested in England is notable? That is the only piece that others have called a Fringe Theory. Based on what you've written here (and on the Benedict page) I think you are referring to the scandal and not the fringe legal challenge in England.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Harassment of Kimberry352 by Ahnan

As seen in [[16]], 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[[17]][[18]] 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 [[19]] 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. [[20]].

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 [[21]] 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 [22]. 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)

I also request that something be done about Ahnan, be it a ban or some kind of probation. In this thread, as well as other comments of his on that talk page, Ahnan demonstrates fairly well that he does not assume good faith on those who disagree with him. As should have already been apparent from his userpage, he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, Ahnan is a crusader for The Truth^TM, with little or no interest in actually learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 15 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 ([23]). 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 ([24], [25], [26], 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" - [27]
• "This is false and hypocritical" - [28]
• "This has nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict (except in the mind of the person who created it)" - [29]
• "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." - [30]
• "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." - [31]
• "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." - [32]
• "Mr Falsifier of Facts" - [33]
• " Every trick in the book then sics her buddies" - [34]

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." - [35] -
• "If you think the three month topic ban and editing block imposed on me through baiting, harassing, stalking, hounding, stalking (and possibly racism)" - [36] -
• "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. " - [37]

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)
• I came in here preparing to object to this block, but having read this thread and the associated threads it seems like the correct call. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 15 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)

I had earlier changed the disable page, but the bot has been running despite it. Cambridge's block expired earlier. I have since blocked the IP anon. only (Cobi's other bots appear to work fine) and told Cobi (in the block summary and on his talk page) to just unblock it himself once the issue is resolved. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowolf, I hope you don't mind but I've unblocked the IP to try something. I created User:128.174.251.49/Run, with the same data at User:ClueBot/Run - I'm not sure how the bot works, but it might be that the /Run has to be on the user account that the bot is using - It would make sense as changing User:ClueBot/Run didn't work. No worries about reblocking if you want to though even without anymore edits. Might be worth seeing what happens though. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If Cobi isn't around to deal with this, it may be best to seek help from WT:BAG or someplace like that. It looks to me like 2 or 3 bots have edited from that address. The following is pure speculation since I haven't looked into it carefully, but the server side change that stopped the bot from logging in was on April 7 or thereabouts. I suspect that bots were able to keep editing logged in after the change, because of already-good login tokens they had, but those tokens eventually hit 30-day timeouts causing the bots to edit logged out. If that's the situation and if Cobi has more bots running, we may see more of them editing logged out over the coming weeks. Shouldn't highly active bots like these be running from toolserver anyway? That would allow other people to patch the bot if Cobi wasn't around to do it. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 19:56, 15 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. [38] --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)

New tactic by Revws

In an effort to open a discussion on the redirect issue I posted on the talk page of each of the stub pages my reasons behind why I feel they are best changed to redirects. However between 12:46 and 12:50 today Revws (talk · contribs) has removed all of the notices. I feel this is an attempt to stifle discussion on the matter and more evidence that he feels he owns the articles. I am not going to revert the changes my self as I suspect he will just revert them as vandalism. Codf1977 (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Revws's overall intentions may be good, and I take note of DGG's comment that articles on these university sub-units may in fact be proper. Nonetheless Revws is extremely resistant to negotiation, removing notices of this ANI thread for example, failing to answer here, and responding harshly to all comments by Codf1977. Since he has persisted in removing comments left on *article* talk pages by Codf1977, even after I warned him of admin action due to violation of WP:TALK, I've blocked him 24 hours for disruptive editing. This block can be lifted by any admin if Revws will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 15 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 [39] whilst the other attempted to disguise himself as a new user [40]. 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)

The edit filter has the ability to show the underlying IP address of any logged-in editor, but that particular feature is disabled on this wiki, and probably every other wiki that has an edit filter, because if enabled it would make information that is normally available only to checkusers to a much wider group of people. —Soap— 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If all it is doing is matching against IP ranges and preventing certain edits from those ranges from being saved, that doesn't actually reveal the IP addresses. The accounts associated with such actions could be logged in a place viewable only by checkusers. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I've made a new friend.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 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.

[41] (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.”

[42] (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.”

[43] (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.”

[44] (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.”

[45] (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.”

[46] (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.”

[47] (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)

One of these two has a history of crying foul over the article which has been an obsessive focus of his for some time, the other does not. See how that informs my judgement of the merits of each successive complaint? Guy (Help!) 09:16, 15 April 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 -- whom 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)
    • I'd say that Slrubenstein was getting pretty frustrated with some perceived non-consensus edits and the flow of some of the talk page discussion, but don't agree with him that this causes permanent damage to the encyclopaedia or that there is some sort of crisis brewing which requires such strong and emotive personalised language. Wikipedia editors are often not experts on all (or even any) areas of the subjects they are editing, and this is particularly true when subtleties of statistics and nebulous concepts like race and intelligence are involved. With time and patience, all these issues can be explained and ironed out in the article. He's fully aware of his own frustration, but I don't believe he has misused his admin authority here. If Slrubenstein could lower his expectation of the knowledge of his protagonists, but increase his willingness to communicate his knowledge uncritically, we could take a slower but surer path to resolution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Captain Occam, I don't know the background to this and it's a lot to read, but in general if Slrubenstein is getting frustrated in this way there's a reason for it, because he's a good editor. That's not to give him a free pass, so please don't anyone else misunderstand that. It's simply that he does tend to know what he's talking about. Captain, I don't know whether you yourself have an academic background in this area, but it's the kind of subject that's difficult to write about without knowledge of the scholarly sources. That could be the source of Slrubenstein's frustration. Sticking closely to the very best sources is often enough to resolve these things. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting up to now because I am concerned about turning this page into an extension of a conflict on another page. This is my perception of events: I have long believed that racist editors (often SPAs or "very few purpose" accounts) have sought to hijack certain WP articles in order to push their views, often under the cover of fringe science. Race and Intelligence is one such article. Now, we had a lengthy (four months?) mediation in which I thought I was consistently civil, and under the mediator's guidance sought compromise with all participants of the mediation regardless of my prior experiences with them. The mdiation ended with David Kane revising the R&I article based on points of consensus. Within a day, Mikemikev2 and Occams Razor started changing it.

The specific issue had to do with regression towards the mean. This is a statistical phenomena one inds any time there is a bivariate distribution (i.e. most scores are close the thg average, but some are above it and some are below it). Mike and Captain kept adding material stating that this is caused by genetics, so when it occurs with IQ scores it is proof that the reason blacks have lower average IQ than whites is, they are, as a group, naturally less intelligent than whites. Racism aside, this misrepresents the science, and the way they wrote it violated NPOV and NOR.

The mediation is over. I participated in the mediation in good faith, and thought we had achieved a workable consensus accommodating multiple perspectives. But as soon as the mediation ended, Mikemikev and Captain Occam referted to their SPA POV-pushing. I reverted to David Kane's original mediation consensus version.

Over time other editors have noted flaws in the aticle and I have made changes to the passage reflecting other people's comments - I just want to keep SYNTH and POV violations out.

I actually am aware of my own anger about edits that violate a mediation consensus, and are made in a way that show an utter disregared for collaborative editing - Mikemikev and Captain Occam have never modified their edits to respond to concerns I have voiced on the talk page. I actually went to the mediator to express my concerns, not only over their edits but over my behavior.[48] Please note that Captain Occam provides this edit-dif above, but misrepresents it. He states, aboe that this comment was "Directed at both me and Mikemikev." Not true, it was directed at Ludwigs2 the mediator, an in the comment I explicitly said that I was considering dialing back my involvement in the Race and Intelligence article because of how angry I was, watching Captain Occam and Mikemikev push back into the article things that we agred to take out in mediation.

Many of you might think that, if there is solid science saying Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites, well, we need to say that in articles. Let me remind you of NPOV: we have to present this as a view, not as the "truth." Moreover, there are many scientists who tak issue with this claim, this is by no means a consensus among scientists. Yesterday, I began to involve myself in a new argument on the talk page, about whether or not to include the views of Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was a Harvard biologist and one of the leading experts on evolutionary theory, and published a book examining claims that certain races are intellectually inferior to others has a biological basis. Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring. And yes, when we are talking about whether blacks are inherently inferior to whites, I think the stakes are high and we better get the science right and be fanatic about complying with NPOV. When a group of editors disregard these concerns, it does make me angry, and I am glad I went to Ludwigs2 to have an honest discussion with him about it, and I am trying to restrain myself. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi SL. It is, of course, where one or more editors view the stakes as being high that emotions tend to run the highest, and civility finds itself most at risk. I don't think the issue on this page is "who is right". But rather, whether the involved editors can comport themselves in a civil fashion, within the wiki civility requirements. Some of the editors on this page feel that some of your language (though not all of that cited) may have approached or passed the border of acceptable communication, and been somewhat short of what is expected of an admin. Would it be possible for you to apologize if your colleagues were offended? If that were the case, I for one would be happy to consider this case closed.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, two points:

1: Let’s keep the discussion here to user conduct, rather than rehashing content disputes here. There’s already a lengthy debate on the article talk page about Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity (which is what this issue is about), and whether what Arthur Jensen and Richard Nisbett have written about it as it pertains to IQ scores should go in the article. Since the discussion of Galton’s Law as it pertains to IQ is in the source material from both sides of the debate about this topic, it’s questionable whether we should be second-guessing the validity of the source material like this, but either way that’s not what we should be discussing here.

2: If you look at the discussion during which we were first coming up with the article outline, you’ll see that consensus actually supported the inclusion of this line of data, although we didn’t add it to the outline itself because we weren’t sure which section of the article it belonged in. When Muntuwandi proposed his own version of the outline, not everyone agreed that this point should go in his own version of it, since his outline wasn’t data-centric. But for the outline that we ended up using, the data-centric one proposed by Varoon Arya, multiple users agreed that it should cover Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity and how this applies to IQ scores, and nobody raised a problem with this until we tried to actually add it to the article.

However, even if you were right both that Galton’s Law of Ancestral Heredity had nothing to do with genetics and that there was never a consensus to cover this topic in the article, that still wouldn’t justify your personal attacks against me and Mikemikev. It’s easy to point out that you disagree with a piece of content without attacking the user who added it.

“Mikemikev, Captain occam, and Distributive Justice have been fighting to keep this source out of the article. It looks like any view that questions their view will be excluded. This to me is edit-warring.”

I should point out that before the article was protected I had reverted it only once during the previous two days, while you had reverted it four times within the past 24 hours. For me to be disputing on the talk page whether Gould’s views on IQ are notable enough to belong in the article, without editing the article itself, does not fit Wikipedia’s definition of edit warring. That’s just a normal content dispute, and the only problematic thing about the way I was expressing my viewpoint about this topic was the fact that I disagreed with you.

I think you need to recognize the fact that there’s a legitimate scientific debate as to what’s causing the difference in average IQ scores between races. Not everyone who thinks that genetics are contributing to it is necessarily a racist; they may just interpret the data differently from you. One of the things we reached consensus on in the mediation also is that this viewpoint does not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a “fringe theory”, so I don’t think you should be implying that it does.

Epeefleche: If Slrubenstein apologizes to me and mikemikev for being uncivil towards us, and agrees to make an effort to avoid this problem in the future, I would be happy for this thread to be closed. In fact, because of Mathsci’s effort to convert this thread into a complaint about my conduct in a separate article, I would prefer that this thread be closed before it drifts any further off-topic. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would go a long way to resolving this issue, perhaps long enough for the content disputes to be resolved amicably. I would also suggest that, as a further gesture of goodwill, you commit to take more account of comments from Slrubenstein. You have seen here he is generally respected as an editor. I have noticed that on technical issues, his understanding is often similar to mine, and these have included some matters of mathematical fact rather than opinion. And the list of participants Slrubenstien mentioned above includes someone who seemed to reject my reasoned argument with little attempt to understand it, and when Slrubenstein supported me, you opposed him seemingly on an unrelated point to my original point. Focussing on points of agreement first is often a good way forward - the differences may become less relevant later on, saving much energy which would otherwise wasted on irrelevant battles. My general preference is not to ban anyone, but for everyone just to step up their level of awareness by a level or two. Ironically, there is an editor who seems much more disruptive working on the article at the moment who hasn't been mentioned once, and other editors working quietly away without incident, which suggests there is a lack of trust and respect between the participants is the root of this issue. I would like the participants to resolve this underlying issue, because having editors coming from different sides is important, particularly for articles like this. I might also point out that several people feel that they are the aggrieved party here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I would like to express some opinions. I am currently involved with him at Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence, where we are discussing the validity of the article. In the past I would check up on articles like race and intelligence and such, and he is of course a regular contributor to those kinds of articles, so he has a level of expertise on the subject. I respect his opinions and viewpoints on various subjects relating to this, although I don't know what his biases are, and as everyone is human, humans have biases. From what I've seen of his interactions with various users over the long course of me checking those articles, he is sometimes combative with some users, and "bites the newbies" which is unfortunate. Personally I don't agree with Guy's opinion that SLrubenstein needs to be "backed" simply because he has been here longer, and then throwing a warning at Occam. That seems more like favoritism than anything else. ScienceApe (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Request of community topic ban for Captain Occam

• 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. In 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. [49],[50], [51], [52], [53] 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)

Just for context, my impression is that there is a group of editors on WP determined to give undue weight to research conducted by a small number of hereditarian researchers. As explained by academics from UCLA and Yale University in this source, there are only a few researchers in this particular area, which would neutrally be called "group differences in intelligence". What is clear from the history - at least all the sources I've seen - is that the hereditarian side periodically proposes a new version of their theory which is then commented upon, often in popular science books and academic book reviews, by eminent academics in related fields. Historians of psychology have chronicled how in the late sixties and early seventies political unrest amongst students spilled over into some rather ugly events involving physical violence or threats against academics. In the history article I don't give a point of view but just summarise what historians have written about contemporary reaction. I was slightly surprised that I could find good sources covering the whole period. My neutrality extended to omitting any specific mention of the well documented racist aspects of the Pioneer Fund, which supports much of the heriditarian research. Mathsci (talk) 03:12, 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. I also understand that Medcom can refer failed mediations directly to arbitration, though I have no idea whether that's appropriate here. Whatever venue is used, the idea is to keep all the drama in one place at any given time. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All right. I suspect that Ludwig will have more to add about this, but for now I’ll start with an explanation of the history of this issue.

When the race and intelligence article entered mediation last November, Mathsci was one of the users involved in the mediation case, but he dropped out of the mediation case early on. (This was before Ludwigs2 took on the role of mediator.) And so the mediation case proceeded without him, although there were still several other users involved in the mediation case who shared Mathsci’s opinion about this topic, such as Aprock, Muntuwandi, and Slrubenstein. Around four months into the mediation, in an unrelated thread at AN/I (from Muntuwandi complaining about incivility from TechnoFaye), Mathsci showed up and began a sub-discussion claiming that Ludwig wasn’t handling the mediation case properly. That in itself wouldn’t have been a problem, except that every time Ludwig invited Mathsci to participate in the mediation and offer his suggestions about how it could be improved, Mathsci repeatedly refused and just kept trying to shut down the mediation case via AN/I, or get Ludwig blocked for mishandling it. The discussion about this can be seen in the linked thread.

From there, Mathsci’s complaints devolved into a series of personal attacks against Ludwig, most of which involved bringing up of irrelevant past conflicts and which continued into the second AN/I thread. Here are some of Mathsci’s comments from the first thread that have been directed at Ludwig: [54] [55] [56] Remember, these comments were in a thread about incivility from TechnoFaye; what Mathsci was bringing up was completely off-topic there. Later on in the same thread, when a new editor (Cryptofish) showed up to express their opinion, Mathsci started a new discussion in the same thread about his suspicion that this user was a sockpuppet. And as I mentioned before, when Hans Alder closed this thread based on the off-topic nature of Mathsci’s complaints, Mathsi reverted the closure.

Mathsci’s hostility to Ludwig has been near-constant since this point, although I’d prefer to wait for him to explain this himself, since I’m sure he’s been paying closer to attention to it than I have. The most recent problems I’ve had with Mathsci are on this article and its talk page, where he’s engaging in WP:OWNership. Several users (me, Mikemikev, David.Kane, Varoon Arya and DJ) have raised NPOV concerns about this article, but Mathsci has reverted most of our efforts to improve this article without any effort to justify it on the discussion page. After the NPOV complaints about it on the talk page were already well-established, Mathsi removed NPOV the tag without providing any justification of doing so on the article talk page. When I added it back, he then removed it a second time, again without any discussion, this time with an edit summary that threatened all of the users who were raising these NPOV complaints with being blocked. After he reverted my adding of the tag a third time, while also reverting an edit from David.Kane, he self-reverted when I warned him on his userpage that he was edit warring.

Along with WP:OWNership, the primary problem with Mathsci in this article is that even though there are five users who disagree with him about it, he does not feel that he needs to justify his edits to any of us. He’s said this himself, when I complained to him about his unwillingness to discuss our NPOV concerns with any of us: “I am completely unwilling to waste my time on any discussions beyond the material on specific pages in the sources I have used or other secondary sources for the history which satisfy WP:RS.” As a result, when other users have brought up their justifications for wanting to edit the article or at least add back the NPOV tag, Mathsci has either ignored us or brushed us off, as in this comment to Varoon Arya: “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.”

Obviously there’s nothing wrong with Mathsi feeling this way about another user’s comment, or even (possibly) with mentioning it. But if this sort of comment from him is the only type of response he’s willing to give to editors’ raising NPOV concerns about the article, then he shouldn’t be reverting other users’ edits when they try to improve the article, or keep removing the NPOV tag when other users add it. Part of WP:BRD is that when a user is reverting an article, they’ll be willing to discuss it with the users making the edit and work towards a compromise; if Mathsi isn’t willing to do this then he shouldn’t be reverting.

While I was not intending to suggest in my initial post here that I supported a block for Slrubenstein (I think a warning about civility would be enough), I would support a topical ban for Mathsci on race-related articles. His personal attacks against other users, bringing up of off-topic accusations in AN/I threads, and WP:OWNership of the R & I history article have all been disruptive. During the time since he became re-involved in these articles around a month ago, I have seen very few constructive edits on them from him. Searching through the archives of this noticeboard, I can also see that the past month isn't the first time Mathsci has engaged in this sort of behavior on these articles.

Ludwig, I would appreciate you filling in some more of the details about how Mathsci has behaved towards you; I’m leaving out a lot of that because I know you can describe it better than I could. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Ludwig isn’t interested in providing more examples of the behavior I’m describing from Mathsci, so I’ll find the rest of them as best I can on my own. Here’s one, in which Mathsci was refusing to accept Ludwigs2’s right to refactor his comments on the mediation talk page for race and intelligence, although Ludwig’s right to do this was something we all agreed to as part of the mediation. Even though Mathsci had agreed to this also when he signed into mediaiton, he threatened Ludwig with being blocked if Ludwig did this in his own case, and then brought it up at AN/I. (By hijacking an unrelated thread; this was the second AN/I thread that I linked to.)

There’s also this personal attack against David.Kane. “David Kane's editing is a disappointment. He seem to be POV-pushing and does not appear to be respecting any editing WP editing rules. […] He seems to be wasting everbody's time by suppressing and inventing facts to suit his purposes/ I have never seen worse editing in my experience on wikipedia.” After this comment from him, I warned him on his userpage about not making personal attacks like this, although it obviously didn’t have much of an effect.

I probably haven’t been paying as close attention to this as Ludwig has, so I may mention additional instances of this sort of behavior as I find them. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:13, 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)
• Needs more evidence and discussion - I am highly concerned about the article right now, from having taken a quick look, but we need more uninvolved admins / editors to review and analyze in more depth. I believe that going for a topic ban at this point, without sufficient evidence presented, is premature. I am afraid that the comments by Mathsci may be correct, but it's a complicated situation, and we should not prematurely intervene. I agree with others above that Slrubenstein may not have been entirely polite at all points; it doesn't seem actionable, beyond at most a reminder. In light of the possible issues with the article it deserves handling with care. I don't think Guy's comment helped; AGF and Defend Each Other are important, but all experienced admins eventually do something wrong, and we don't get passes on it when we do. We don't hit each other with mallets, either, but we have to be willing to entertain the possibility that we or our compatriots have erred. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know what to say about this silliness, except that I'm a bit disgusted by the fact that Mathsci believes he can solve all of his content disputes by running to ANI and screaming at the top of his lungs to have his opponent banned. How many ban requests has he made in the last year? anyone know? at least three or four from my own observation...

Just a couple of days ago, an admin (in a different context) mentioned that administrators weren't babysitters. I'd like to think that's true, but if you keep coddling Mathsci's tantrums like this, you might as well hit up the foundation for $5 an hour and fridge rights, because this is a long, looong, loooooooong way from adult behavior. --Ludwigs2 04:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Ludwigs2 came here as a result of this exchange with Captain Occam[57]. He is sympathetic to Occam's POV-pushing and seems to be spending time enabling it. His comments above are inflammatory - "opponent", "screaming at the top of his lungs", tantrums" - I suggest that he redacts those words, as they read to me like personal attacks. I should also point out that, despite his eagerness to comment on how articles should be edited and giving the appearance of some expertise[58] when requested, this unsourced stub is the only article he has created so far on wikipedia. In those circumstances, I've no idea why he thinks his opinions are of any value. The two of them are still planning my downfall. [59] Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, Mathsci, I am not sympathetic to Occam's position. I simply find your behavior reprehensibly childish, and since your behavior is a matter of observable evidence, I see no need to retract it. but keep talking, it only proves my point. --Ludwigs2 05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Topic ban premature but warrants more admin eyes, per Georgewilliamherbert above. --John (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Folks, look at Captain Occam's edit history. His mainspace edits are to Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Heritability of IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Race and genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Snyderman and Rothman (study) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Between-group differences in IQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)... virtually every edit he has made to main space has been in this one narrow subject area, all advancing the same POV. He's been blocked three times for edit warring on race and intelligence, and [60] shows numerous incidents of crying foul when people push back against his POV. We have here a single purpose advocacy account on a contentious topic and I am pretty confident that this one editor is a major part of the stalemate in respect of the race and intelligence article. A topic ban is more than warranted. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Have I been violating any rules or policies here during the time since I was suspended for edit warring in January? I’m quite confident that I haven’t. Guy, your comment makes it sound as though editing an narrow range of articles and having an opinion about how NPOV applies to them are in of themselves reasons for a block, but neither of these things violate either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia policy. In fact, the WP:SPA article makes it clear that being an SPA is not a policy violation.

I’ve attempted to justify all of my changes to articles via policy, and edited collaboratively with other users to the extent that it’s been possible. In this respect, my behavior over the past two months has not been any different from that of anyone else who has an opinion about how NPOV should be applied to controversial articles; and my conduct may actually be above average for users involved in this article because I haven’t been making personal attacks. If you need someone else to verify this who’s been involved in the same articles that I have, I’m confident that any of the following five users would agree with what I’ve said here: Varoon Arya, DistributiveJustice, Mikemikev, David.Kane, or Bpesta22. (Unless none of their opinions are worth anything, because they’re all SPAs that deserve to be banned also?)

Your comment seems to be more an attack on my motives for editing here than anything related to my conduct. I can get into my motives for editing here if that’s really necessary, but aren’t discussions on this noticeboard supposed to be about user conduct rather than motives? --Captain Occam (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I find Slrubenstein's contributions useful, as he is clearly knowledgeable, and his arguments recently seem to revolve around accurate inclusion of mathematical facts. His explanations to Captain Occam have informed other editors too. But Captain Occam is not unreasonable to object to his treatment, which was not ideal, and getting second opinions on talk pages is better than coming here first. MathSci has shown little interest in engaging with me on the talk pages, and all I have noticed so far is his general dissatisfaction with the process set up by Ludwig2 - to the exclusion of any actual article points. I have only been looking into a handful of article details, and it hasn'tbeen apparent from the periphery whether there are two opposing camps or a more anarchic set of disparate views which trigger local disagreement. The controversial areas don't seem to be that related. I prefer the way User:Maunus is conducting himself (for example: [61]), and the work User:David.Kane is putting in. The editors in dispute might enjoy WIkipedia more if they could adopt some more of these cooperative techniques. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a hard article to work on but I have done my best. My feelings on the current dispute is that all three of MathSci, Occam and Slrubenstein have done good work on this article and have useful points to make. I wish that they would all play more nicely, both with each other and with other editors. Is there some magic button I could press to cause that? Alas, no. In any event, I think that having more admin eyes on this article serves a useful purpose. I don't think anyone should be banned. David.Kane (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from article space of Race and intelligence and related articles. I note 3 blocks in the past for edit warring and one 0RR restriction, with 4 separate Administrators involved. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: A few of the people involved in this discussion have suggested that this thread should be about Mathsci’s conduct in addition to mine. Thus far, several users have commented on my own conduct, but none except Ludwigs2 and Stephen B Streater have commented on Mathsci’s conduct or the explanation I posted above of what I find problematic about it. Since the intention was for this discussion to be about both his conduct and mine, isn’t anyone here going to comment on Mathsci’s conduct also? If our past histories of conduct matter here (which they apparently do, since a few users have brought up that I was edit warring on the race and intelligence article several months ago), I think this is pertinent also. Mathsci was not blocked for this even though it involved WP:OUTING, and the reason for that is mainly because he essentially chased the user whom he was harassing (user:A.K.Nole) off of Wikipedia with this behavior, so A.K.Nole could not stick around for long enough to continue pursuing his complaint against Mathsci about this. Another discussion about Mathsci’s behavior towards this user can be found here. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Captain Occam is factually wrong here. In fact two users have been wikihounding me, One, Rhomb (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked with several sockpuppets. Another, a now disclosed alternative account of A.K.Nole, has agreed to stop following my edts. This agreement was arranged off-wiki by Shell Kinney, who confirmed that wikihounding had taken place. In these circumstances it's a non-starter for Captain Occam to attempt to misrepresent events so grossly. Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I could figure at the time, A. K. Nole was a troll and probably a sockpuppet, with some kind of axe to grind against Mathsci. A bunch of related socks were blocked during the Abd-WMC arbitration if I remember correctly. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT appear to be the two most relevant issues here, and both refer to you. I have just read back over the various noticeboard reports on Race and intelligence since November 2009 and one username keeps coming up as being involved in WP:OWN, edit warring, POV-pushing, stonewalling, gaming the system, forum shopping and so on. That name is yours. At one point you were being reverted by ten other users! You've been blocked and sanctioned several times and yet, according to you, the problem is always all those other people. This is one of the most clear-cut examples of m:MPOV in my recent experience. I repeat my previous support for a topic ban, but let's be completely fair and extend it to include all single-purpose accounts on this topic. A complete list of such accounts appears at the moment to be you and nobody else, but I will be happy to have any others identified here (though not by you, I've had enough of your finger-pointing). Guy (Help!) 13:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Guy - I know you're a buddy of Mathsci's (which isn't a bad thing; it's good to have friends), and I am more than happy to admit that Mathsci is a good editor when actually gets around to editing, but even you can't perpetually overlook Mathsci's over-bearing behavior. He lies, he insults people, he's arrogant and supercilious, he reverts edits out of sheer petulance when he doesn't get his way, he runs to mommy/ANI to scream about all the bad boys who torment him. He's a bright guy with (on wikipedia, at least) the emotional continence of an irritable 11 year old. Now I kind of get that idea that - back in the bad old days of the Pseudoscience Wars - this kind of behavior was deemed acceptable in order to chase off Evil Editors from the Fringe Realm, so maybe it's just old wartime habits that he's having a hard time shaking off. But he needs to shake them off - it's an uncivil nuisance. Whatever Occam has done, here, Mathsci has done twice over; Mathsci may merit a degree of slack due to long service, but even so let's keep things in perspective. --Ludwigs2 14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am not a buddy of Mathsci's as far as I am aware, I do not know his real world identity so can't say for sure. I am, however, very firmly not a buddy of the agenda account Captain Occam, having read through some of the past and present complaints by and against him. As I say, his reaction to criticism seems to be "look what billy did". Guy (Help!) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Groan Captain Occam is the only editor to have had their content edits reverted by me on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Nice try, Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• @ Guy: sorry, I just assumed from the way you stick up for Mathsci's irrationalities that you to had a relationship of some sort. I apologize if that's an incorrect assessment.
• @ Mathsci: Groan all you like - I can dig up dozens of incidents where you did the same thing on other pages, and worse, so let's not engage in selection bias. I've got nothing against you, Mathsci, except for your problematic pattern of behavior. If you'd play nice, I'd consider you one of the better editors on wikipedia, but your own actions subvert your effectiveness. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dozens of incidents? Diffs? The tone of these remarks constrasts with your cosy relationship with a POV-pushing WP:SPA. Your unorthodox/experimental approach probably explains why (a) editing on Race and intelligence has become so unstable (the article is at present locked), being primarlily based now on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, a gift-horse for POV-pushers and (b) why the article has become so unreadable, at least for me. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want me to dig up diffs? I don't particularly want to hijack this thread into full-out critique of your behavior; I really just want you to recognize your own weaknesses and reign yourself in. But if you think that would be helpful, I will. just say the word.

That being said, I'll point out that - again - you've based the entire argument in your last post (above) on childish name-calling. These so-called (by you) "POV-pushing SPAs" are in fact other editors who have a right to edit the article, so long as they abide by wikipedia policy. Your constant, tireless efforts to win your arguments through vilification is about as un-wikipedian as it gets, and is one of the major factors that has inflamed tempers in the article. You don't get to decide who is good editor and who isn't, and your insistence that only you can be correct is a major obstacle to effective editing. Since you have become active on the page, the vast majority of your time and effort has been spent trying to get people banned, accusing them of being a broad assortment of unpleasant things, complaining because they aren't deferring to you as an experienced editor, and otherwise moaning and groaning that you don't get your way in every little thing you want. Frankly, you lost the right to complain about the state of the page with your first move, when you decided that it would be better to run to ANI and demand to have me banned than to settle down and work cooperatively with other editors. It took all of my skills as a mediator just to get you off of ANI and into productive discussion on the mediation page, and even that was only partly successful, since less than a week after mediation is over you're back here at ANI with the same old intransigent, supercilious muckraking.

Damn it, you're making me use big words.

Let's put it this way; I would dearly love to see you have conversations where you:

1. don't call other editors names, or try to label them POV-pushers, SPAs or whatever other 'villain-of-the-moment' you might dredge up.
2. don't threaten anyone with being blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned.
3. don't insist that other editors need to listen to you because you're a better editor.
4. don't react with hostility and contempt when someone suggests your preferred version might not be perfect.
5. and finally, do actually listen to and work with people, even if you don't like or respect them or what they are trying to do. Almost everyone can be worked with, if you apply yourself to the task.

I know you can do it, because I've seen you do it on rare occasions. I would just prefer that to be the norm for you, rather than the exception. Do you think you can do that? --Ludwigs2 00:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

“You've been blocked and sanctioned several times and yet, according to you, the problem is always all those other people.'

Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve admitted before that I used to have a problem with edit warring, not just for race and intelligence but at Wikipedia in general, because I was relatively new to it and didn’t yet have a good understanding of what sort of behavior was acceptable under what circumstances. If the example during which I was reverted by ten other users is the same one I’m thinking of, it was around a year ago when I’d only been consistently active here for a few months. During the time since I’ve begun participating actively, I think this problem of mine has incrementally improved, so that the more recent examples such as the one in January haven’t been as clear-cut as this. And I think that even since January I’ve gotten better at knowing how to avoid this problem. It’s now been around three months since I’ve violated any rules here, either against edit warring or anything else.

“I have just read back over the various noticeboard reports on Race and intelligence since November 2009 and one username keeps coming up as being involved in WP:OWN, edit warring, POV-pushing, stonewalling, gaming the system, forum shopping and so on. That name is yours.”

What are you talking about? You’re just making this up. Before the current thread, there have been five recent threads at AN/I about this article, and the only one that focused on me was the one in January about me edit warring. The other four— this, this, this and this—either started out as conflicts between you, Ludwig and Mathsci or were hijacked by Mathsci in order to turn into that. I got involved in some of them, either by commenting or because other users brought up the fact that I’d edit warred on this article in the past, but there’s no standard by which I’ve been the subject of more recent conflict over this article here than Ludwig and Mathsci have.

This isn’t reasonable. You’ve said in your first comment here that you’re a priori decided against me in this thread, based not on anything to do with the conduct in question but just based on my reputation. And now, you’re pushing for me to be blocked based on this attitude, and misstating the recent history of this article here in support of that. Could this issue please have the attention of someone who will judge it based on the particulars of the conduct in question, and the evidence that’s being linked to, rather than the reputations of the users involved? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see grounds for an AN/I complaint with those diffs, I dislike diffs personally as they tend to obscure what has gone one before. Looking at the preceeding edits I very much get the impression that they're intemperate comments forthcoming after a lot of provocation. Certainly not grounds for action against that user. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to offer my support of Occam. In my opinion he's a neutral and talented editor. I'm amazed that this witchhunt is going on for no apparent policy breach on his part. The thread was originally about the incivility of Slrubenstein, which I can confirm. Mathsci appears to derail these valid ANI threads with impunity. I am disturbed and curious. mikemikev (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Support proposal that further investigation and possible topic bans are required. From my reading of that talk page there does appear to be a tendency to bully/tire out editors leading to intemperate comments that are then used to call for sanctions against them. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I oppose witch hunts on Wikipedia, but I think all those criticised should take advantage of this opportunity to ponder the criticism given to them. It is not given out of spite, and as people can't see their own faults, this is a rare chance to see themselves as others see them, caricatured by the filter of their Wikipedia edits. Take active steps to change your behaviour even more than you already have. I'd like to see all the criticised people make one commitment to move forward to make things work better in future. And those who feel the temptation to WP:OWN this article should consider even more keenly the idea of enjoying new pastures for a couple of weeks. You may lose the battle, but you'll win the war - hopefully, being older and wiser, all on the same side by then. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Stephen - you forgot the link to the dramatic, uplifting music... --Ludwigs2 21:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I approve of this suggestion. Given the comments here thus far, I doubt there will be a consensus for any action to be taken against me, Slrubenstein or Mathsci. I still hope that some good will come of this thread, though, in that having the problems with our behavior pointed out by users who are uninvolved in the debates over these articles might make us more aware of what we should change about it.

In my own case, the two main criticisms that were raised are my past history of edit warring and the fact that I participate in such a narrow range of articles. In the first case, I’m well aware that I used to have this problem, and I’ve already been making an effort to remedy it. As for being an SPA, I never intended for race-related articles to be the only ones that I edit, but the debates over these articles have been so involved and time-consuming that they’ve tended to suck up just about 100% of the time and energy that I’m willing to devote to Wikipedia. I’m not sure what can be done to remedy this part of the problem, but once the race and intelligence article has been stabilized I definitely intend to make an effort to edit articles about a wider range of topics.

I think it would be beneficial if the other users being criticized here could also mention whether they’ve learned anything from this thread about their own behavior, and what they think it might be appropriate to change about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I mostly sympathize with the ban supporters at this point. It's clear looking at Captain Occam's user page and his off-wiki site that it links to, and his participation on-wiki (such as here), that he has far too much appetite for advocacy and debate than is really desirable for our style of neutral editing, and that he engages in a lot of gaming and wikilawyering. The goal here is to write exposition, not to debate (see also: Writing for the opponent). Intervention (such as topic bans) in situations like this is often necessary, to prevent the debaters from burning out the expositors. The essay Civil POV pushing also describes the problem. I'm not exactly buddies with Mathsci but I'm an admirer of his mathematical writing and I consider him to be one of the better expositors on Wikipedia, so I don't want him to burn out. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A very nice, helpful Editor left me a comment, not too long ago. It seems fitting here:

Tea is good. Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Captain Occam is over-invested in issues of race, intelligence and crime with one particular point of view. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Some time away from his preferred stomping grounds would be a good indication of why this editor is here, and might also be helpful in providing some experience in editing in a non-contentious situation. Is he here to help build an encyclopedia or is he here to push a point of view? It rather looks like the latter, but a topic ban would provide more evidence one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure if this is relevant, but a topic ban under these circumstances would probably make me frustrated enough with Wikipedia in general that I doubt I’d want to keep participating here. This has nothing to do with what articles I do and don’t care about; all it has to do with is the fact that I’m not violating any policies here, and haven’t for the past three months. The argument for what’s problematic about my participation here seems entirely based on the fact that I edit a narrow range of articles, and have an unpopular opinion.

Of course I have an opinion—so does everybody. But what should matter in cases like this is that my actual goal here is to improve articles here in a neutral fashion, rather than to just introduce my bias into them, and I think my participation has been consistent with that goal. RegentsPark mentioned race and crime in the United States as one article here I’ve been involved in, and it’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Before I became involved in this article, it didn’t exist at all, but instead redirected to anthropological criminology. But as a result of my and Varoon Arya’s involvement in it, it’s now a stable, well-sourced, and (as far as we can tell) neutral explanation of this topic that’s covered by courses taught in several universities.

If this sort of participation is not only considered POV-pushing, but is actually considered sufficient to warrant a topical ban, all I can say is that this site has problems that run far deeper than poor writing in any particular article or articles. I have serious doubts about whether I’d be able to remain motivated to continue contributing to an encyclopedia where these sorts of good-faith efforts to improve a narrow range of articles are considered worthy of a ban. If the rest of you end up interpreting my giving for up this reason as meaning the only thing I ever cared about is introducing my bias into these articles, I guess there’s nothing I can do about that—you’d be wrong, but it would only be another example of the reason why I would feel like the situation is hopeless. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is long. I'm an outsider with no interest in joining the wiki community (though so far I am impressed by all the time you guys put into it, and the good work that results). I was asked to give perspective to this topic as I have a few publications on IQ and one specifically on race and IQ.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more sensitive topic than this. Just mentioning the issue usually creates considerable tension. Trying to team-write an article on this, I figured, would be impossible.

I have though been quite impressed with the progress this article has made since I started (I guess late Feb?). I have not seen any site anywhere (in about 20 years of internet debate-- off and on-- on this topic) where a more balanced presentation of the issues are offered. That's a nice compliment.

I would like to express my support for Captain Occam. He's obviously interested in the topic, but I haven't seen anything-- even the above comments-- that suggest he should be banned from contributing here. As just one example, I thought the early history section was much much more neutral than the one mathsci produced. That's just my opinion.

I don't know how you police yourself, but banning any regular contributor to this topic -- now -- seems very extreme. May I propose that the rules of civility be underscored here and there again, and that further breaches would be punished. That levels the playing field for all, and lets all sides no that any further bickering will be punished. That might also save you from a long he-said/she-said thread of allegations from both sides.

So, my suggestion is to underscore the rules and then enforce them for all contributors there from here on.

Thoughts? -Bpesta22 (talk) 02:40, 16 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 [62] and here [63], when she was warned [64] here about doing so. and removing maintenance templates without solving the problem here. [65] 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. [66]. 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)

I have seen the user Gabi Hernandez (and her socks) warned again and again but she just keeps on editing and ignoring all advice. I was helping undue some of this user's mess back in January now it's three months later and nothing has changed. Not sure what a short block will accomplice but it's better then nothing. - Josette (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see lots on her talk page that would support a short block. If that doesn't sink the message in, then it may end up being an indefinite one to shuttle her to a Wikia project.--Chaser (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting assistance for User:Azure12

Resolved

 – User is blocked indefinitely until they are willing to communicate

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" to lead sections, 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)

No response will be forthcoming I'm afraid. I've run into Azure12 before, nominated a few of her articles for deletion, redirected some others, and he/she just keeps on going. Some fresh eyes on this user would be much appreciated. AniMate 03:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough. This is a colaborative project. I have blocked them indef. Which in this case means no specified time, they just need to agree to discuss issues in future. Here is hoping... Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent call. AniMate 04:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting deletion in history

Resolved

 – Deleted - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tyler509997 has been trying to create pages giving the phone number of another person. When those were deleted, he posted the phone number on his talk page (now deleted, here's the past edit. Could someone please delete this? Thanks. Sheeana ^Talk 04:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, though I don't understand the final warning for defamation. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. When someone starts with privacy vios, we shouldn't let them continue to screw around.--Chaser (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, for future reference, you should probably go here with stuff like this. HalfShadow 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27

This user, User:AlasdairGreen27 intentionally missinformed me that another editor, User:Nuujinn was the mediator on the discussion taking place on Talk:Draža Mihailović here [67]. Since a request for mediation has been made for the discussion [[68]], and I insisted that the main participant in the discussion, User:DIREKTOR signed the agreement for mediation, an attempt has been made so I would beleve that a third editor User:Nuujinn was the mediator. Since User:AlasdairGreen27 has been presented in the discussion as a "veteran wikipedian", and I was already accused of not knowing the procedures for requesting mediation, or other bureaucratic WP issues, it is hard for me to beleve in WP:AGF in this case. Now, they are all covering up for each other and I am being quite ganged up. I had been discussing the issue seriously, since for me, as a Portuguese/Serb of Jewish ancestry, "nazification" is a very sensitive issue, but this users have done all they could so they would prevent any serious analisis of the sources (their interpretation abuse by another user has been discussed), and they are now preventing the case for comming to a mediation. They all know eachother and are acting united against me. Could somebody please see what is going on here, and stop this constant manuipulative and obstructive behaviour? It is all clear at the bottom of the discussion page: Talk:Draža Mihailović. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a mistake to me. Weren't you just here yesterday trying to get sanctions on another editor in the same dispute? Yeah. AniMate 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Seems like a mistake to me that also looks like a purposly written excuse so they look innocent if this happend (see the time of that post, and the time I confronted them). It looks like you are also trying to find excuses for their behaviour... We are talking about senior wikipedians, and they all knew quite well the mediation has not been atributed. Aren´t you the one that atributed awards to User:DIREKTOR? Yes. Also, yesterday you were all but objective. You started analising my English, [69] as if that was in discussion... Am I forbitten to report if I can´t writte in perfect English? I don´t think so. Also, the other admin that gave his opinion yesterday, User:Polargeo is also the one that gives awards to Direktor [70]... Also defended him, and said that I had bad intention (???). Why am I not suprised? Unfortunatelly for me, I am in disagreement with DIREKTOR, so I have to listen to all kind of obscenities and take all kind of dirty games from him and his group, because it looks like they have people defending them, and leaving this cases in the garbage... Maybe it would be better to have some other Admins analising this case that don´t have connection with this people (DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27). Thank you for your opinion anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well User:Nuujinn does not appear to be in "DIREKTOR's group." Nuujinn and User:AlasdairGreen27 have never edited the same article. The only article talk page they have in common is Talk:Draža Mihailović. Similarly User:DIREKTOR and Nuujinn only have one article talk page and no articles in common. Yet you've accused AG27 of lying and Nuujinn of having a previous relationship with them when none appears to exist. You've attributed what looks to be a simple misunderstanding into something sinister. Assume good faith, because there's nothing actionable here. However, your repeated frivolous reports here that reek of bad faith may be an issue to look into. AniMate 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming WP:AGF for 2 months now. Their behaviour is still very wrong, but you instead choose to discredit my reports. And you also insist in excusing an intentional missleading of an attribution of a madiator (they falsifiyed a mediator, and when caught, they said it was accidental!). That looks bad faith to me. I am asking you please to stop discrediting my reports and to stop intimidating me about making further reports if necessary. If you find unusufull to read them, let other Admins analise it, but please stop defending and excusing people you know. FkpCascais (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:You are saying that AG27 didn´t lied to me when said that Nuujinn was the mediator? Well, you are wrong, yes he was. And they all have been very much in touch for days now (direktor and AG27 for months...), so am I liying? And naming intentionally someone "mediatior" to mislead is quite sinister... but you prefer to call it "simple missunderstanding" and say that me reporting it is sinister. Stop taking constantly their side, try at least to be neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Stop taking constantly their side, and start taking my side." There, fixed that for you. Anyway, diffs or it didn't happen. I feel strongly about baseless accusations of lying. Show us diffs that prove they are indeed lying and have been in touch for months and people might take this report more seriously.--Atlan (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh its just nonsense! Al mistakenly thought Nuujin was a mediator and told FkpCascais that he was one, Nuujin corrected him immediately, and FkpCascais started accusing everyone they're "lying" to him and such. The reason why FkpCascais is feeling helpless and "ganged-up" is that he insists on removing four university publications and the sourced information they support based only on his opinions as to what is The Truth!^TM. Naturally everyone that knows anything about Wiki is opposing that, and here comes Fkp with nonsense reports trying to get everyone blocked without any basis so that he can have his way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has any questions for me about this, please let me know, but I don't want to throw unnecessary bits on the camel. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@Atlan, your comment is close to vandalism.

@direktor, stop missleading about my requests. They have been many times well explained to everyone (including you), so I can only conclude you are doing it on purpose and acting in bad faith. Here are they as explained to you in the discussion: here or directly to you here, besides continuosly repeting it on several other ocasions. This intentional missunderstanding of yours is also making the discussion there completelly useless (you are doing this for 2 months now), and since you are also boycoting the mediation request, it is really you that is acting in bad faith and doing everything possible to obstruct further discussion. Also, you can´t behave civily and stop insulting me neither here, at ANI!. You are also liying when saying that "everyone that knows anything about Wiki is opposing that", meaning the Admin No such user, who was quite critical at your position, as he told you your talk page, knows nothing about WP??? Direktor, could you please accept mediation request so all this silly accusations of yours get really under some neutral scrutinium, and see if you are that right as you say, and get over with this. FkpCascais (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Threat?

Should I consider this a threat? Woogee (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like b.s. and bluster. What part of it do you see as threatening? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's empty junk. Ignore it. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

we don't take shit like that sounds like a threat to me. Woogee (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's empty, nationalistic bluster. We don't take kindly to that sorta talk 'round here, mister. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. And what's he gonna do? Find your address and swim over from NZ? (btw, he's already gotten a level 4 incivility warning, so...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

One never knows.  :) Woogee (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked if he meant a legal threat. If he did, we all know what that means :) — Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have much to fear from a guy named after these... rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not try to guide people into violating no legal threats, please. The first diff did not even approach one.--Chaser (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've self reverted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the same level of "threat" as the warning not to remove a tag from a mattress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Those warnings scare me so much, I sew extra ones on my mattresses. Due to a spelling error, I once sewed one to my mistresses too.  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not a bad idea. Although a tattoo might work better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a similar mistake when reading porcupine for concubine... Boy, did I ever feel a prick? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it may be time for you to remove your hands from your pants pockets.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Damnation and Bullshit

Resolved

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

I came across some CSD tagged redirects to Bullshit as created by User:Neelix. After deleting pretty much the lot of them (and more than were originally tagged), removing autoreviewer, and blocking due to the possibility that they were either a compromised account and/or using an automated tool to create 4 to 6 pages per minute, I have briefly perused the additional contributions, and found a whack of redirects from created to Damnation. I expect there to be more ... so additional eyes and hands will be appreciated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would seriously consider initiating an SPI there - because that looks very much like User:Tyciol. I would be surprised if it was because they co-existed for many years, though a quick contribution view shows no overlaps that I can find, and both accounts are from Canada. Just being safe here due to the situation behind Tyciol's block. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The history on Bichery was interesting too. For those who can't see it, mine was the third deletion - one of the log entries is "(Part of a series of nonsense and vandalism by Honeysuckledivine (talk · contribs)" ... not saying that there's a relationship, but it raised the eyebrows ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Honeysuckledivine's deleted contribs it looks like a coincidence - he/she created a small menagerie of stupid neologism articles, rather than redirects, and that's the only one that overlaps. I do agree that the resemblance to Tyciol's behaviour is striking, although far from unambiguous. ~ mazca ^talk 12:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tyciol was barely literate - Neelix's english is much better. Unless Neelix is also editing anime/manga articles, I wouldn't have said they are related. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Really, 4 years and 83k edits and a clean block log and a written WP policy of AGF gets you a block approx. 6 hours after you stop, and already explain yourself to another editor? With no attempt at discussion beforehand? You realize that the block button is not the only tool you have in your belt, right? You realize that some people get offended when they get blocked for no reason, and leave, right? Can anyone come up with a reason I shouldn't unblock right now, and ask Neelix politely what's going on? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  Support unblocking. A warning and pointer to the BOTPOL would have sufficed. –xeno^talk 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  I've unblocked, and asked him to explain the redirect creation here. Doesn't look automated to me, and i can see how someone might think it would be useful. I don't, but I can see how someone could, in good faith. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for unblocking my account. I apologize for my indiscretion in creating profanity-related redirects. My thoughts were that if we have an article about a term, it stands to reason that other tenses and forms of that term should redirect to that article. Since the redirects I created were directed to articles about profanity, I thought they would be appropriate for creation. I can see that consensus is against including such redirects on Wikipedia and will not create any more. If when I do a Google search on a term, I find that the term is used in a coherent sentence, I feel that it is a possible term to be searched for on Wikipedia and we should therefore have at least a redirect under that title. That has been my belief since I started editing Wikipedia and I have not been questioned on it until now. While that continues to be my belief, I understand how strongly some editors feel that profanity-related redirects not be created, and the redirects I create in the future will not be profanity-related. To be clear, my account has not been compromised; only one person has ever made edits under the username "Neelix", and that is me. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with this; I was just being very careful due to another account, mentioned above, that had an edit history of creating lots of redirects very quickly, was from Canada, and was blocked for serious reasons that we don't need to mention here. As I said above, I didn't think it was related, but you can't be too careful (etc). A lot of those redirects are speediable under WP:CSD#R3, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Neelix, having debated with you on the matter of Sordid, it's not that they are profane (Wikipedia is not censored, it is that they are implausible. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there is no need to offer a redirect for every single variant on a word. The function of Wikipedia redirects are primarily where there are two separate terms for one thing (eg Courgette and Zucchini) which need to redirect to the one article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slow-moving edit war at National-Anarchism

Unresolved

 – Discussion continues at talk page, page protected for 1 week by Cirt (talk · contribs) after RFPP request. Additional eyes/voices always welcome. Cheers, –xeno^talk 02:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

National-Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like some opinions on how best to handle a slow-moving edit war at National-Anarchism.

The executive summary of the dispute is that Paki.tv (talk · contribs) and Harrypotter (talk · contribs) feel that the words "far/radical right" or "right wing" should appear in the first sentence of the lead. Users Loremaster (talk · contribs), Gnostrat (talk · contribs), Pollinosisss (talk · contribs) on the other side of the dispute feel that these words should not appear in the first sentence as they require contextualization (National-Anarchism is asserted to be a synthesis of left-wing and right-wing politics), but seem amenable to a compromise whereby the words appear in the first paragraph of the lead with appropriate contextualization. See Talk:National-Anarchism#arbitrary break - 12 april compromise suggestion for more.

An informal mediation request was filed, but by the time a mediator volunteered, we had already arrived at the the present deadlock.

I'm kind of at wits-end here. I'm not sure that page protection is a worthwhile way to resolve this, as it would stall work on the article altogether (and of course one side would no doubt feel that the wrong version was protected). Outside voices were invited from several venues including WT:PHILOSOPHY and the Content noticeboard but have been in short thrift. –xeno^talk 13:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Xeno's assessment is accurate. Since it is now clearly impossible to resolve this dispute due to the intransigence of Paki.tv (talk · contribs) and Harrypotter (talk · contribs), action should be taken to protect the National-Anarchism article by either giving them a stern warning or preventing them from editing the article rather than blocking the article itself. --Loremaster (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Clay animation - Picture

I hope that the new image is more suitable for "Clay animation". So, I hope that other users also will tell what the picture more suitable here, this [71] or that [72] image, which I propose, in my opinion, better illustrates Clay animation. The image was removed in March because of doubts in copyright. Now that image has OTRS, found a new cause for removal - self promotion. I do not hide that I am the author of this image. Yes, I am not very modest, but let us decide what is good for Wikipedia. and ask their views, what picture is better suited for an article on Clay animation. And please explain why with admirable tenacity to English wikipedia, presents a picture [73]. Is this advertising ANI-MATO J-E Nystrom: "Case study: Chicken in Clay" (1997) ? to my gaze, this picture is inappropriate in an article about Clay animation, as the materials making up the scenery and characters are not like clay. sorry for the electronic transfer of English--Max Sviridov (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The above is a content dispute. This board is for incidents requiring administrator interventions. Content disputes should be dealt with by discussion among contributors to the article. Please discuss this on the talkpage of the article. If it is of any assistance, you can remind the other contributors that the vast majority of images used on Wikipedia were created by the person who uploaded them and placed them in the article, so merely being the creator is not grounds for removal. If on the other hand the image is advertising your business, that would be a different matter. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this issue on the talkpage of the article. There are no answers except the requirements OTRS I have not got. Who do I carry General debate, if no one answers me? My picture is replaced with the old without discussion. Does this mean that I too can do undo, not debating with anyone?--Max Sviridov (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You should do what you did, try to discuss it with the editor, preferably on the article talk page. But you've only been discussing for a day, give it a bit more time than that. But, frankly, I suggest putting both pictures up. The article is about pictures, after all, and it's pretty long, both of those facts mean there is plenty of room for two pictures of clay animation. --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

great idea! Thank you very much for your advice, I'll do it.--Max Sviridov (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bslmaglicensing

Resolved

 – Daniel Case softblocked and another admin made indicating an understanding of COI concerns a condition of any unblock.--Chaser (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been here for a month. The username (which I have just reported to WP:UAA) is the name of the business of one Bruce Sawford. His/their entire contribution has been about the company

• Bruce sawford licensing was created on 15 March and speedily deleted the same.

• Bruce Sawford Licensing (Magazines & Digital Media) was created on 18 Mar. Same day, User:Airplaneman added a reflist and quick-tagged it for categories but, as it wasn't marked patrolled, it came up on the back of the list and it seems I've been the first to take a good look. I tagged it for WP:COI and references which were unclear and missing footnotes. I checked out the refs - all but a couple were in-house and the others in publications/sites whose reliability I cannot be sure of.

To sum, this is a blatant single-purpose/COI account. The one uncertainty I have is about the notability of the company, which needs a more informed look than I can give. I considered AfD-ing it but can't be sure of the grounds (because of the refs). The username will certainly get banned but what about the user? I'm new at NPP and would welcome someone taking a look at this. Thanks! Plutonium27 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Smoke Illusion

<span class="anchor" id="Smoke Illusion (talk · contribs)"> Smoke Illusion (talk · contribs)
This is a disruptive single-purpose account used solely for adding Armenian and Greek names in bold at the start of Turkish cities and subsequently edit-warring with everyone who reverts it. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this part of the ongoing national dispute? Usually city names in other languages common for the place are encouraged in articles (though not in bold). I'm ignorant here, so please educate me.--Chaser (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes; not in bold, and when they already appear in the naming section, I think repeatedly adding them is disruptive nationalist behaviour yes. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please diff where he added them when they are already there. If you agree that names in Armenian and Greek belong in the article (I have no opinion on that), then getting Smoke Illusion to stop putting them in bold ought to be easy.--Chaser (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

CSI4LIFE (talk · contribs)

Editor has made 9 edits in the last month or so, and all have been at Lucille Ball inserting a large section of poorly sourced original research. There are 8 messages on this editors talk page - 7 are warnings about the edits, from 5 different editors including myself, and 1 is the standard welcome message. The relevant policies etc have been linked to in these messages. Editor has not responded to any of them and has continued to insert the same material that has been removed by other editors. Could someone please take a look because the warnings are not achieving anything. Rossrs (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User given a final warning to stop. Any admin should feel free to block if repeated, as this user has been advised numerous times about avoiding original research and reliable sourcing. –MuZemike 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

7mike5000 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Blocked - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This user is less than civil [74][75] after a request that he be more civil [76]. He appears to be leaving WP with this account and coming back as someone else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Those last couple of edits were very unacceptable. Blocked 3 days for harassment. –MuZemike 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unequal implementation of a supposedly bilateral interaction ban

Resolved

 – By striking their report and comments, I assume the user has withdrawn their report. –xeno^talk 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interaction ban The ban clearly states: Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption. The other party has made at least three spurious complaints about my behaviour to the admins, behaviour that did not involve any violations of the ban and did not result in any blocks. [77]. [78]. [79]. I, meanwhile, have been repeatedly blocked for merely mentioning the name of the other party in the ban and have been treated extremely harshly by the admins in question - Georgewilliamherbert and Sandstein. So when I complained to the admin in question about all these spurious complaints and that they violated the "Repeated spurious reports" clause, I was blocked for "griping" by User:Georgewilliamherbert. This admin has a long history of persecuting me that you can read on my talk page. So am I to accept that another user is allowed to continually criticize me, comment on my behaviour and accuse me but when I protest about it I am subject to being blocked? This is a psychologically abusive situation, and I don't think I will be able to continue to contribute to Wikipedia if I am to be the subject of continual accusations with no means to defend myself. I don't think anyone could and that this so-called interaction ban is being used as an ad hoc means to drive me off Wikipedia for good. No doubt I will be blocked for a very long time by either Georgewilliamherbert or Sandstein for making this report, given how they use the ban to block me for anything they like, so this is probably going to be my final notice to Wikipedia. Factomancer (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hm. My impression is that the community-imposed interaction ban was intended to stop exactly this sort of timewasting drama. It is evidently not working, see the block log of Factomancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Another approach would seem to be needed, though I can't immediately think of anything useful short of a community ban.  Sandstein  16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Of course, a Wikipedian who has recently contributed a number of quality articles should be banned because they dared to criticize you. Shows your commitment to building the encyclopedia. You can't see that you're the one creating the drama by encouraging users like Mbz1 to make fake reports against me and then punishing me when I, naturally, complain about it. Factomancer (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The best thing you can do is ignore these complaints until they affect you. If MbZ1 complains about you and then an administrator decides to take action on it, then you should respond. Otherwise, just ignore it. MbZ1 appears to be breaking the terms of the interaction ban and if they continue to make comments, someone will notice. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (restoring my previous edit) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Panyd is correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Edit conflict --:Just because you didn't get banned doesn't mean that the report was spurious. In the first diff you provide, the admin asked you to remove the offending passage and after awhile you did, though dare I say not very graciously [80]. Your second diff shows a clear violation of the topic ban by you and you were simply lucky that you did not get blocked or banned for it. You made a snide personal attack on an article she created, and Mbz1 avoiding responding personally to you as she was required to do. Her comment on the admin's talk page to clarify was exactly the right thing to do. The last diff is also correct. It looks to me as if the one making spurious complaints here is you. You are on an interaction ban that was implemented because of your interaction with Mbz1 every bit as much as vice versa. This comment [81] to an admin should have been sufficient for you to be banned on grounds of (obliquely violating your ban, or at the very least for crude, rude and unnecessary personal attacks. Stellarkid (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oli thorpe

Resolved

 – Deleted - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this BLP-"article" for real or just a bad hoax? --Túrelio (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it for a speedy deletion as a G3 and explained why on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarabeth Tucek

Resolved

 – Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Satori Son 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are current issues on this article, relating to the subject's date of birth. The only verifiable information I have found is a late 2007 interview, referring to her age as 34 and implying a DOB circa 1973. However, several editors (or perhaps one), currently identified as Mjo5650 (talk · contribs · block log), is attempting to insert a claim that she was born several years earlier, based on personal knowledge. I have asked for sources, but the editor has not replied to my messages except to add a hostile message on my talk page here. In addition, the subject of the article (or someone claiming to be her) has sought to remove any mention of her DOB from the page (and at one point asked for the article to be removed). My reaction to all this, apart from seeking fruitlessly to engage the editors in discussion, has been to remove the contested DOB info from the article per WP:BLP, and revert changes which re-insert it. I'm not sure whether to go for protection of the article, blocking of Mjo5650, or both. Advice, or suitable action, welcomed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that the ref to WP:BLPN has resolved the issue. I now have an unhelpful (and almost incomprehensible) reply there, plus two more hostile messages on my talk page, by the editor who has now also reinserted the contested birth date info on the article page. In my view his latest addition is contrary to WP:BLP (unverifiable primary source), but am not sure if WP:3RR rules apply. There is also the issue, if you check back the article history, of the article subject actively seeking not to have the DOB information included - which is her right, I think. Unfortunately I will be offline for most of the next 24 hours or so, so I would be grateful if further action is taken by an admin. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An admin left a talk page message. I don't think a block is yet justified, so I'm unclear what further action you want.--Chaser (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More eyes are on the article so problem edits will be reverted and the user warned and perhaps blocked if necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say the underlying issue had been resolved, only this thread at ANI. The editors at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are the best equipped to handle this content dispute. — Satori Son 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski vandalisme on talk pages and articles

User:Wtshymanski vandalisme on talk pages and articles pls look into this.

Wdl1961 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's definitely some content dispute stuff, but I don't see any vandalism by this user. Your recent edit here, though, doesn't seem all that productive. — Satori Son 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

Resolved

 – Blocked 72 hours. Tan | 39 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

64.134.238.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a legal threat into the Homelessness in this edit, stating "REMOVE THE PICTURE OF THE HUMAN BEING IN A SEWER OR YOU SHALL BE IN COURT ." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Crazy fool, it's in Vienna, not Trenton, NJ!—Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

This type of block looks over-pedantic and bitey. So you advised them of our policy, which they obviously weren't aware of, and they didn't repeat their observation. They made a fair point with their second comment though, don't you think. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More likely fruitless, as 64.134.23.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be the same guy and 64.134.20.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might be also. Probably an IP-hopper. Based in L.A. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it is the same user as the other IP - given the other post a few days back - the two might be through the same location/network, but given the elapsed time they could easily be different users of that connection.

I was in the process of posting the initial notice here when they made their follow-up post to the article (ie: I hadn't seen a follow-up until after the notice was posted). Given that the IP was trying to tone down their subsequent post, a better step may have been to request that they acknowledge the problem with the legal threat and agree to retract it (making clear to them that they're free to follow that path - just not to use it as a threat to try to control content). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I still support the block - but the block notice, to me, isn't clear enough on how to proceed to get unblocked, so I supported giving them more guidance on that aspect as they had shown evidence of being willing to tone down their wording. I posted more info to their talk page earlier today, but by that time it was likely too late for them to notice - and now that the user has hopped to another IP, any unblock instructions became meaningless. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Amendment rights? I fully defend my right to keep and bear arms!! –MuZemike 18:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what his comment about 2nd amendment has to do with anything, but if he's threatening to shoot wikipedia, that's not allowable either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Might make a good essay to back up WP:BATTLEGROUND, complementary to WP:FREESPEECH. Physchim62 (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat ironically, I think the "pedantic" part of this issue is somehow thinking that this editor is a little baby bird in a nest, that we need to coddle and woo into our ranks. They shouted a legal threat, they get blocked. Simple. It's the way legal blocks work. If they want to post an unblock request acknowledging that they've read the applicable policies, they can. As they IP-hopped anyway, talking about unblocking them is a giant waste of time. Tan | 39 19:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100 percent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Likewise.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. This is the type of bullshit that is most frustrating about wikipedia. Fully support Tan's actions here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, completely agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He's back Dlohcierekim 02:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

New topic - parthenogenesis??

User:Ari, began a discussion about Virgin birth (mythology) and before the discussion was really underway, he deleted that article title, moved the article to Miraculous birth, and rewrote and reorganized it. He has given it a Christian emphasis, but that article is in a 'religions' project. He will not answer questions--always draws you into a personal exchange. This could go on forever. He is threatening to block me and won't be civil.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Diffs. Links. Anything really, so we know what on earth you are actually talking about....and why it is a problem that might need administrator intervention. Has he been rude to you? He's not an admin, so he can't actually block you. Does that help? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommend close. This also appears on WP:WQA and User:Ari does not appear to have edited. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He means User:Ari89. A quick check of the page history shows both of them are active there. --SGGH ^ping! 21:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the the note, so I have taken the liberty of notifying the other editor. —DoRD (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Which editor?--The Phantom In Church (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89, that is the account that has been editing the same articles as Hammy64000. --SGGH ^ping! 23:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA & User:FkpCascais

User:FkpCascais has a history of repeated personal attacks and extreme incivility. He was previously reported [82] in the past, which resulted in a stern warning by LessHeard vanU after another bout of incivility during which he and an IP sock of a banned user "brainstormed" on how to get me blocked from editing enWiki. The user at that time characterized me as a "propagandist" and my behavior as "abnormal" further insulting my mental health by calling me a "very ill and frustrated person". [83]

This trend continued. He was soon back in full form and, regardless of the warning, continued to insult others as well as myself:

• he stated that I "shit out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". [84] (This was due to my sincere attempt to point out aspects of WP:V to the fellow, while he, in his words, perceived my tone to be too "paternal".)
• he continued to insinuate that I am mentally ill, referring to my "complexes" on several occasions [85][86]
• he insulted my origins by calling me an "imbecile" and instructing me to "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village...". [87]

He was blocked for a week after this by Black Kite, apologizing in his attempt to get unblocked, and claiming this is the last we've seen of this behavior.

• pretty soon I was being called "simple" [88] and unfit to edit articles due to my Croatian ethnicity ("Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history"). Further insinuating that I supporting Nazism in the article by "nazifying" people. [89] User:FkpCascais had voiced prejudice against Croats on previous occasions as well, demanding, among others things, that all publications by a Standford U professor be disregarded as the author might be of Croatian ancestry. [90]
• User:AlasdairGreen27 and I were called "terrorists" [91] as part of a tirade during which he insulted and ridiculed both users.
• In accordance with his previously stated intent ("The most important is to gather all the problems he already had and present it to some admin") [92], he filed two reports against User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself, attempting to get us both blocked and out of the way with obviously falsified and distorted claims (virtually no diffs, just cleverly written emotional text). [93]
• Finally, the user has just recently insulted my intelligence yet again by insinuating that my "IQ is minor" and that I "simply don't understand when something is repeated many times to you". [94]

This, I must stress, is the brief account. To be frank, I am honestly sickened by this constant abuse being leveled at others and me during the course of ordinary discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just a response to a ANI report that I have made relating the same discussion [95] just earlier.

@direktor: You can´t have me blocked for something I said to you in some time now, and for what I have already been blocked. You can´t repeat reports!. Regarding your Croat ethnicity, I am just saying that you (an assumed Titoist and a Croatian) may not be the most NPOV person to find yourself owner of the trouth regarding a monarchist Serbian movement (quite logic, and your repeated accusations towards me that I am a "Serbian nationalist" are much more offensive, since I am only partially Serbian, and much less can I be considered "Serbian nationalist"). I have Croatian wikipedians that in case of need may confirm my excellent relationship and total abscence of any nationalistic feelings agains any nationality. I am quite a "non-national" or "world" person. Hey, I have Croatian friends, an ex-girlfried and I a house in Croatia (well not me, my family, on the Adriatic coast).

I didn´t called terrorist to nobody.

I have been lately very patient and polite with you.

You haven´t been with me: As clearly even seen here on ANI [96] but anybody can also go to the discussion talk page and see what is really going on.

Resumingly, you are being "sickened" that I had insisted over 2 months, against all your obstructing behaviour, and get you to sign today a mediation request, so this dispute can finally be analised by someone neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! And just to demonstrate the kind of manipulation I have been taking from you: You claim I had insulted your IQ, well this is what I have said: [97] so by that, everybody can that I just said the oposite: "I can´t beleve that your IQ is minor and you simply don´t understand when something is repeated many times to you." saying that I find you intelligent, and that was impossible, and bad faith, that you intentionally missunderstand something whan repeated to you over and over again. I also don´t beleve that you didn´t understood this (I even explained it to you), so again, your manipulation, and much, much bad faith. I really wished I had your ability to distorce the ANI reports as you do, and do it with impunity. FkpCascais (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and about "simple", I just now understood... It was when I have said to User:BoDu to be kind with you because it seems that you don´t have too many kilobites to spend. But, how can you feel offended by this, when it was just after you insulted the other editor that because he just didn´t agreed with you, you said:"[98] that you want be responding to him any more because it was a "waste of type and kilobites". It is really you that should have been reported here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LeeSeem

Resolved

 – Blocked indef, stalking and quacking

I have already filed an SPI report about this user, but in the meantime the user LeeSeem (talk · contribs) has been going to pages I have recently edited with the sole purpose of reverting me. See [99], [100], [101], [102] and most of the users other recent contributions. nableezy - 01:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would I be "after" you?, I can see that you are follwing me around. I did make edits that include (maybe yes or not) you or others, according to the recent changes I see or to subject. LeeSeem (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Since pan-Arbaism was fully protected you went to the following article I had recently edited to revert my edits: [103], [104], [105]. nableezy - 01:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And very much the edit-pattern of User:Terminologistic earlier tonight. Guys and gals; is there no way we can just block these highly disruptive socks, who come here for the sole purpose of reverting 3 times? Seriously. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. Dlohcierekim 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Except this "content dispute" started at pan-Arabism and since then the user has followed me to 4 or 5 article to revert me. That is hounding, not a content dispute. nableezy - 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And take Deir Yassin: "Irgun" and "Lehi"-supporters have tried for years to get it to be a "Battle" (instead of "massacre")..there has even been an arb.com ruling on it; and "massacre" it is. But every now and then, both here and on "commons", we get these "new editors" (read: socks) who try to rename it as "battle". This, eh, battle, has been going on for years. Still, the consensus for "massacre" is clear. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the prettiest looking set of user contributions. Is that 5 reverts to the Pan-Arabism article round about the 15th?     ←   ZScarpia   01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Huldra, Banleezy & the sock method

I have seen that argumnent (sock???) by Nableezy and by Soman on the talk page of Pan Arabism, amazing how this syndrom is in this group of one opinion minded team. hmm.LeeSeem (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't ANI much. Is there a way we can put these two 3 threads together. They seem entwined. Dlohcierekim 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy

Nableezy and Huldra (in case they are not sock puppets of each other...) follow me around and revert my nedits. see his edits April 16 2010, 00:53 1:04 LeeSeem (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, this is great. LeeSeem has already been told that "Nableezy" is a guy in the US (who understands Arabic), I´m a woman in Scandinavia, (who understands Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and New-Norwegian). Sock indeed. ;D Huldra (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I don't ANI much is 'cause you get a user sometimes claiming another user is following them around when it's really vice versa. Seriously folks. Do you really need this drama? Dlohcierekim 01:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Leeseem. You seem to be the one who's come in like gangbusters and reverted abunch pf pages. WP:AGF and all, but some might find it odd that such a new user found way to ANI so readily. I was here a long time before I got to ANI. Nableezy and Huldra. This looks like an edit war with a lot of POV pushing thrown in. Ya'll know the drill. I find LeeSeem's cries of hounding a bit disingenuous. Shall we leave at that, or do have the ANI regulars weigh in? They're better at this than I am anyway. Dlohcierekim 01:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Easy, I just copied what Nableezy edited on my page. true I wanted to use wikipedia a long time, followed material here from outside... didn't have the time. LeeSeem (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One edit in February, then just getting going within the last day. Be careful about labeling users as socks without evidence. You could "Plaxico" yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Which you did. Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well I suggest you edit collegially in future, or your time here will be seriously limited. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

3 minutes, to be exact. Is there any connection with a user called "Toothie"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think so. nableezy - 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

...followed by yet another revert of User:Huldra, goodbye. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

...Hmmm, you didn´t check what "new" user User:Terminologistic did earlier tonight, did you? The identical twin of LeeSeem? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked that one as well, clearly the same user. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tusen, tusen takk! (That is "thousand, thousand thanks" in native laguage ;)) I have really spent far too much time on this joker today. Hope he stays away...Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In these times of huge spending and huge debt, "Thanks a trillion" would be the new catchphrase. I've added Terminologistic to the SPI, as he likewise seems to be especially interested in the Hitler stuff, as the other blocked editors were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

American, eh? We genuine trolls don´t really have such a problem with huge debt (or any debt, actually;) but "Tusen, tusen takk" is still valid currency here.. We don´t have much inflation either, ...and the way this night is going; we don´t have much sleep, either!;D Thanks for adding him to SPI, and "God natt", Huldra (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Amir.Hossein.7055

Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be evading his Commons indef. block for uploading images without permission here on Wikipedia. Can someone look into this? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please notify them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 year for uploading copyright violations. Any admin is free to unblock without consultation if they feel it would be appropriate to do so. NW (Talk) 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)