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

minor edit war at Politico, possible tag-team & retaliation

Resolved

 – No need for immediate admin action, minor content dispute. Fences&Windows 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Reopened as requested. Fences&Windows 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that these two editors are working to keep the label of "conservative" (or even "right-leaning") out of the lede. They've each made 2 reverts without discussing it on the talkpage. When they finally do post there, it's to say that they don't like it and it's not accurately sourced. I also believe that one of them, Arzel, may be acting out of retaliation for the EAR I recently opened regarding similar behavior at FNC. The other one actually called my edit 'vandalism.' They don't seem to have any true interest in collaborating.

• Politico (newspaper) •• Talk:Politico ••• source of self-criticism

This article reads like a promo piece. I tried to balance with well-sourced criticism. (From the politico.com website, in fact)

1. Arzel (talk)
2. Weaponbb7 (talk)

• diffs: 1 2 3 4 • edit history

The first editor Arzel and I have a history from Talk:FNC ever since I disagreed with him & he got huffy. I know that AN/I doesn't resolve content disputes but I mention the criticism because it's a part of the larger issue of Arzel (&others) fighting those of us who seek to balance these articles. I've made several attempts to discuss the lede change and work to improve it, but they simply revert and use the edit summary instead of the talkpage. I've also revised it three times in an effort to be conciliatory, although neither of them has afforded me the same courtesy. Until he learned of Politico's conservative bias from myself & another editor at a separate mediation discussion, Arzel had never touched the Politico article. He immediately removed the criticism from this article which I had mentioned to illustrate a point. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Eye Roll* PRbeacon confuses a consensus against his position with tag-teaming, as i stated before on the talkpage i am not against criticism, but Neutral Wording that does not imply some Republican conspiracy to pretend to be a news blog, This Requires an RFC at most not i fail to see the need for this ANI thread. 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• This ANI should be closed and PrBeason should be reprimanded for wasting time. This dispute is the culmination of a mediation regarding Media Matters for America. One of the sources of information which PrBeacon disagrees with is from an editor at Politico. PrBeacon believes Politico to be a conservative organ and during the mediation he has assisted in the attempt to paint Politico as being biased towards Republicans. At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias. This claim was removed by a different editor and then quickly re-added by PrBeacon. After a month of no sourcing I removed the wording as uncited. PrBeacon then quickly re-inserted the section leading up to this ANI culminating in this final version which I removed. Using a very vague wording from Politico which would imply that Politico admits that they are biased towards Republicans (a clear violation of WP:SYNTH) when in fact the source mostly repudiates the source (ironically a criticism from MMfA). PrBeacon is a POV pusher and is attempting to insert language into the Politico article to support his argument against the mediation regarding MMfA. The accusation of "tag-teaming" is laughable at best. A check of my edit history will show very little (if any) common edit history with WeaponBB7. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is a waste of any admin's time, I apologize.   Since Arzel disputes the chronology, "At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias"   --a review of relevant datestamps shows that is incorrect. And further review supports my case, I believe.

5/06 • Politico criticism added- (by anon-IP)   (this was quickly revertedby another editor)

• my restore of the criticism- "add cite tag and give them a chance" (Based upon previous talkpage discussion)

5/27 • separate RfM started

6/14   • my comments at RfM-   "so far only conservative sources.."

6/16   • A's question at RfM-   "since when is Politico conservative?"

  • another editor's reply-   "no question they're conservative"

at 13:41   • A's reply at FNC-   "discuss in adult manner?"

at 13:48   • A's reply to E.A.R-   "if you're going to attackme.., pls notify"

at 13:50   • A's (first) revert at Politico-   "No citation."

The quick succession of these last three edits is what sparked my suspicion about retaliation. The issue of Politico's bias, in my opinion, surfaced as a minor issue in the mediation. No one else questioned it there. I think Arzel conflated the two when he moved from the RfM to Politico via the other two project pages.

    Unfortunately I'm not experienced enough to argue the issue of tagteam, i've only seen the (loose) allegation at other ANI threads -- used to question if 2 editors are circumventing the 3RR rule, thereby attempting to draw another editor into violating it.

If admins here deem either or both charges inconclusive then again i apologize. I will reserve comment about the remaining counterclaims. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this ANI thread to be a WP:DUCK of Badfaith. This editor has nerve to make Edits to support a unfounded POV (that politico has mysterious ties to Repulican leadership), with a Cherry pick a quote from a website to support his view. Throws unfounded acusations agianst two editors of Tag-teaming in an ANI thread complete with diffs and then has the audacity to claim he didnt know what he was doing. I highly doubt this to be a case of WP:Competence Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As you're keen to interpret policy & guidelines, please explain this revert in light of "What is not vandalism" (particularly the assumption of NPOV violation). -PrBeacon (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between adding Garbage to a page. A Quick look at your Edit history show a long term pattern of making controversial Edits to push a POV, and Gaming the system to do, this ANI thread is baloney. The Number of Mediation threads and complaints at notice boards you have posted is absurd. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please go back to discussing the content on the talk page. Fences&Windows 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If only it were so easy. I don't think this is just a content dispute although I do appreciate your comments on the article talkpage. I'd like to ask for a second opinion, especially in regards to the issue of retaliation by Arzel. And for the record, I acknowledge that even briefly mentioning the criticism in order to provide some context here may be distracting and unnecessary. Until now I haven't replied to Weaponbb7's counter-accusations because he has assumed bad faith from the start. His responses have ranged from a dismissive eyeroll to distortions of fact including a blatantly false summary of my edit history. (By the way, I forgot to mention that he attempted [1] to move the Talk:politico thread that i started to the separate mediation.) What both of them call POV-pushing is actually an attempt to provide balance. I may not be perfect in these efforts, but in the past I have collaborated with editors even when we strongly disagree on content. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon has Canvassed an editor that I have had disagreements with in the past to comment here. This kind of behavior has to stop. Arzel (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not canvassing, I asked for his opinion, "please let me know..". I didn't ask him to post here and I didn't expect him to.-PrBeacon (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: if any uninvolved editor or admin wishes to reopen and examine this issue, please do so. I request that involved editors do not post here again until other uninvolved editors have commented, to avoid furthering the dispute and to allow others to comment. Fences&Windows 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I accept the above invitation, as an uninvolved editor, to reopen the issue. I would like this to be reopened so I can hear more from the involved editors. They are most familiar with the circumstances. In the western world judiciary, as on wikipedia, efforts to understand the circumstances in a dispute are ill-served by seeking to censor the ability of victims, accusers, and the accused to state their case. Just the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Epeefleche, if you have comments to make to help resolve the dispute or about the conduct of the editors involved, please go ahead and reopen it. Do note that Wikipedia is not a court of law, and that this is not about censorship; I am discussing the issue with the participants on their talk pages and on the talk page of the article. I simply feel that this AN/I thread is not going to help matters. Others may disagree, but the involved editors have said their piece in detail already, which is why I asked (not ordered) them to allow others to comment. Fences&Windows 20:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll try to not be shy about sharing my further comments about helping resolve the dispute upon receiving the further input I've requested, now that I have taken you up on your offer to re-open the issue. As to resolving disputes, as a general matter resolution is not served by prohibiting victims, complaining parties, and accused parties from giving voice to their positions. It leaves them with unresolved frustrations. While you are of course correct that wikipedia is not a court of law, there are at the same time elementary principles that appy to both. Hearing the testimony of the involved parties is one of those -- efforts to stifle their giving voice to the facts and their views is, IMHO, counterproductive.

If the editors here had already, as you suggest, said all they had to say, there would be no need and indeed no sense at all in your saying above: "I request that involved editors do not post here again until other uninvolved editors have commented". The only reason you could have made that statement, without it having been wholly non-sensical, is if you anticipated that in the absence of that chilling statement the parties in question would have wished to comment. It does the project a disservice to seek to quash their contributions to the discussion. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look as well if needed. Soxwon (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you're assuming I was aiming to squash debate. This is not an example of admin abuse: I anticipated that a fruitless thread would ensue that repeated exactly the same as had already been stated, and into which no outside editor would wish to involve themselves, as often occurs with such content disputes at AN/I. Often each party becomes increasingly irritated and attempts to bait the other into getting blocked. My aim was to avoid unnecessary escalation and grandstanding, and to facilitate more constructive debate by involving outside editors; until that point, I was the only outside editor who had responded. I hope you can comment on the content dispute and behavioural issues here without further input here from those involved; I believe there is already sufficient information here and on the talk page. Fences&Windows 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sox--thanks. I welcome you taking a look as well. @Fences--whether its your intent or not, the effect of your approach here IMHO is to quash debate. That also leads to parties not feeling heard -- not a good thing. Parties rarely, in my experience, feel more "heard" when they are told not to contribute to the discussion. Anticipating that what parties would say would be fruitless is not, IMHO, giving the parties their due. For purposes of clarification, I'm addressing the instant issue here, not bringing an AN/I or RFC or arbitration about admin abuse. Let's see what the editors have to say, first, and Sox and I and whomever cares to can then comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I think this thread should be closed, in that it doesn't help resolve this dispute; it can only serve to stir up more drama, now that editors are discussing on the talk page and benefiting from outside input. That's only IMHO, obviously. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Holocaust

The New York Times and the Holocaust... now I'm a Holocaust denier

The page is currently protected from editing, but the hostility of one of the editors has just gone way over the top. The content disagreement is clearly outlined on the rambling talk page (if anyone cares). The current version of the article is the result of a massive cleanup i did on the article in January -- look at the series of edits i made then and the summaries to understand my reasons. Content disagreement, whatever. However, I and a few others have been consistently attacked as having an agenda over there by User:Cimicifugia, who wrote the article in the first place. He has been asked to desist multiple times. He has just gone far beyond the pale of what's acceptable; here [2] he accuses me and two other editors who disagree with him of being "Holocaust deniers," "malicious," "hostile," "spoilers." The post at the Judaism project is emotive, prejudicial, deeply hurtful and entire unsupported by facts or evidence (his case of holocaust denial against me comes down to my assertion that he was drawing conclusions that went far beyond the source material used in the article). He writes: "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article." Also [3] this edit summary: "asking for advice re hostile holocaust deniers". I'm livid.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Severe problems at The New York Times and the Holocaust Page

I was trying to get help on the proper way to seek relief from wiki administrators, but as two complaints were immediately posted against me for how I did it, I am going to proceed as best I might. I apologize if this is longer than it is supposed to be or if i have missed a step.

We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article could be based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see [4]; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and concluded that generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.

Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Wikipedia: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding directors of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism or the the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here [5]); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.

These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.

When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.

I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010

Another allegation of holocaust denial against me and two others who happen to disagree with him on content. "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers." Wikipedia is entirely too tolerant of this kind of stuff. I've also been dealing with insinuations of this very thing from other editors who are smart enough not to cross the line. Absolutely poisonous.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we merge these last two sections together here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, though I suspect there's some cunning {{anchor}} magic I've missed out... TFOWR 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other editors' comments

Cimicifugia, I appreciate you may be new to all this, but accusing other editors of "holocaust denial" is hugely, hugely offensive. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and - above all - WP:AGF. Would you agree to apologise to all editors to whom you've made that claim for making that claim, and conditionally drop your complaint against Bali ultimate (see below)?

Bali ultimate, would you agree to drop your complaint against Cimicifugia if they in turn dropped theirs, and agreed to avoid "holocaust denier" claims in future?

Cheers, TFOWR 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He accused two other people of same. I'm absolutely furious, and justifiably so. He has no evidence to support the disgusting allegation whatsoever.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've amended my request - big bit added - to clarify what I'd like to see Cimicifugia do. As a good faith gesture, and I do appreciate that claims like this are incredibly hurtful, would you be prepared to accept an apology from Cimicifugia if they were to apologise to all insulted parties and undertake not to repeat this? TFOWR 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Cimicifugia (talk · contribs) posted a couple of {{helpme}} requests about this on their talk page; I gave some generic advice on remaining calm and civil, etc, but I did not look into the specifics; I said that, as the incident was now on this noticeboard, they should comment and respond here.  Chzz  ►  15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of "holocaust denial," "malice," etc... continue. i don't think it is appropriate to use mediation with what are functionally Holocaust deniers.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for persisting in attacks, even after it was pointed out how offensive they were. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that I attempted to intervene in the dispute and help the two editors resolve the dispute peacefully. Cimicifugia was willing to accept neutral intervention, and had asked me for advice on how to properly request intervention. I told Cimicifugia that it was best to talk with the user first before reporting them. I then tried talking to Bali Ultimate explaining that I would attempt to mediate. Bali was unwilling to compromise or talk to me on the matter and told me "You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue" also in the editing summary to "Go back to editing Star Trek Articles". I informed Cimicifugia that my attempt to talk with Bali had failed and the only option left would be to report Bali here with a neutral post. By calling Bali a holocaust denier the post was obviously not written neutrally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Full quote from me to the trekkie who barged onto my talk page with an offer of "mediation." "I suggest you go the relevant talk page and participate. You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue best dealt with over there."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Isn't that the basic premise of Wikipedia:Third opinion? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion is to give a third opinion, not mediate. We have an actual mediation project here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the third ANI filed by Bali. Each report he's filed is against editors who oppose his POV. I was the victim of his last report just a few days ago. How many more innocents will Bali bring to ANI? When do the games stop? Let me remind folks here that Bali is the true problem. He's highly disruptive, uses vulgar language, is incivil, rude, attacks others and never gives any straight answers to those who question him. Just have a good look at the article's talk page and you'll see that he has done plenty that deserved a block long ago. Have a look at his own talk page and you'll see how mean he can be. How this guy gets away with such bad behavior is a mystery to me. Unless of course it's true what they say on WR. Otherwise, I have no clue how he gets away while others are blocked for less. Caden ^cool 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with Burpelson AFB: What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Dealing with problems in a way which will minimise drama is a positive thing. Avoiding further escalation is a positive thing. TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment First, Bali ultimate & I are hardly friends: last time we interacted it was on opposite sides of a content disagreement of some sort (I honestly don't remember what it was, sorry). That said, calling anyone a "Holocaust denier" who has not explicitly denied the holocaust existed is a personal attack. Stick that label on any Wikipedian, & people will refuse to extend good faith to that person. I find Cimicifugia's edit to be one instance of doing just that: accusing not only Bali ultimate but also Looneymonkey and PhGustaf of denying the existence of Holocaust. That was the only instance on the page; if there are any other instances elsewhere then we have a problem with Cimicifugia. But until they are provided, nothing can be done. -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan blocked Cimicifugia for repeating the attack in a later post, but I'm inclined to agree with Llywrch in principle. (Good block: prevented immediate disruption; but there's not yet any indication of long-term behavioural issues). TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're well on our way to that now though, given the latest invective from this morning. The unblock request contains lines such as "To me, it is Holocaust denial in action", and a followup contains "...you may disagree with my use of this term, but it is a use about which reasonable people may differ. i am not going to apologize for using it. the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history". This is a user who has clearly dropped others perceived as battleground opponents into the category of Holocaust deniers; his entire premise here is that he is the aggrieved party. Unless someone can convince him to do a 180, this is a block that should be extended to prevent further disruption, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, that's very poor. I'm personally reluctant to extend the block (involved, newbie admin, blocked editor venting etc, etc) but would not object if the block were extended. TFOWR 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

His unblock request boils down to saying me and two other editors who disagree with him are, in fact, holocaust deniers. The votes arguing for merge on that page are now running at something like 9-2. An outside editor came in to say both that he doesn't like me but that I was right on the substance. Commenters in some of the AN/I threads on this have agreed that the shorter version was preferable; the admin who reviewed his unblock request tells him that there was a problem with his content; are all these people Holocaust deniers? And now i'm expected to merrily collaborate with him? He's branded me and others as something particularly vile because we have the temerity to disagree with him. And he continues to poison the well. From his unblock request: they denied the use of experts such as the founding director of the Holocaust Musuem. what do you call behavior like that? To me, it is Holocaust denial in action: it wasn't true, it wasn't significant, it wasn't six million only half a million, don't believe those giving you the facts. It's all small scale as in a petrie dish, around this one small piece of Holocaust history, but the germ is the same. This is from a note he left on his talk page after the unblock request: the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history. the fact that bali admits he has been called a holocaust denier before should be an absolute red flag. this is not an accusation people make for no reason. I have never been accused of this before and have never said I was. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So the message is clear that it's okay to treat newbies (and experienced editors) who oppose Bali's biased POV like dirt? So it's okay to be disruptive (as long as your Bali) and censor historical, truthful facts, that are and can be sourced? It's okay to be abusive to other editors and break the rules just as long as your like Bali? It's okay to protect the NYT, (who admit they were wrong) by censoring the truth in order to not make them look bad? In other words, editors like Bali are valued and respected? Wow! No wonder all the good newbies quit! Caden ^cool 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I believe you have been told already, if you believe another user's actions requires admin intervention, then you are cordially invited to file a report here...of course with evidence, diffs, etc... This vague "but but but he did it too!" hand-waving, like some footballer protesting a yellow card, brings more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bali ultimate is certainly not a Holocaust denier. If Cimicifugia doesn't straighten up and fly right, an indef is in order. I've not looked all the way through this, but from what I am seeing, we're prolly past that point. The diffs offered by Tarc above are quite damning. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend anyone calling another editor a Holocaust denier without solid evidence. Cimicifugia was rightly blocked. However, it might be worth reflecting on how Bali ultimate's editing could have lead someone to make such an inflammatory charge. The persistence by some editors in trying to delete, cut down or merge this material was quite confrontational, and on such a sensitive topic as this it was probably unwise to characterise the topic of the NYT's coverage of the Holocaust as 'fringe' or 'non-notable' (the subject has had one book written about it, and appears in many other sources, e.g.[6][7][8][9][10] from a quick search). A more compromising approach might have been to widen the scope of the article to contemporary American coverage of the Holocaust in general. Cimicifugia was infuriated to the point at which they were convinced they were dealing with editors who were historical revisionists. Lacking an understanding of the tendency of Wikipedians to doggedly persist in trying to remove content they object to, they could see no motivation for wishing to downplay this content other than Holocaust denial. Fences&Windows 20:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What that suggestion of yours essentially amounts to though is special treatment be given to Holocaust topics, to treat them with kid gloves. There's no shortage of hot-button, controversial, and emotionally-laden subject areas that this encyclopedia has to deal with each and every day. Yes, Cimicifugia was infuriated, but the the responsibility for that is his and his alone. Some people simply cannot handle criticism or dissenting points of view, especially when it comes to religion, and IMO this one. This user needs to check his emotional baggage at the door if he wishes to edit collaboratively, and not see Holocaust deniers behind everyone who holds a different opinion. Malcolm Shoshsa (the socking 173.52.182.160 IP that infested this article's talk page) went down a similar road, calling his perceived opponents, myself included, antisemites. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some people would be quite pleased to be called a Holocaust denier. Many would not -- Bali among them. As such, use of the phrase here is inflammatory. If Cimi wishes to make a point, I would suggest he in the future use different phraseology that is not so inflammatory to Bali (and many others), though it might be longer -- such as, "Bali, who has IMHO deleted perfectly reasonable RS-supported information about the Holocaust". Or something on that order -- I expect others' here could come up with a shorter phrase, that would also pass muster. I believe that if he were to do that, that would allow for the parties to continue in their merry conversation within wiki rules, and focus on the merits of edits, in a more civil environment. In short, Bali has every right to object to being so labeled.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEAT & WP:NPA violations by User:Jean-Jacques Georges

(I do apologize for bothering you fellas with this after the above thread, but I should like the matter formally addressed.)

• User:Jean-Jacques Georges has endeavored to recruit his personal WP:MEAT "army", trying to enlist User:Theirrulez [11], User:Sir Floyd [12], and perhaps others I am unaware of.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Theirrulez, and Theirrulez's reply "About your plan" on User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Sir Floyd.

• In addition to this, User:Jean-Jacques Georges appears convinced that he is allowed to game the system and throw all manner of insults at whole groups of people simply by avoiding to name them explicitly.
  • during the first (Jean-Jacques Georges/Theirrulez) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)". Going on to say "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins." (These comments refer to the Josip Broz Tito article and should be viewed in the context of the recent discussion on Talk:Josip Broz Tito.) The (recently blocked) User:Theirrulez replies with "Tito's fanboys (I can't stop laughing when I read this definition :D) preside the article, raving something about consensus".
  • during the second (Jean-Jacques Georges/Sir Floyd) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)", going on to say "My personal opinion is also that some users (...) should not be allowed to participate at all".

In my experience this certainly seems actionable, so I warned the user on his talk pointing out policy [13]. He promptly took offense, deleted the warning, ordering me not to post on his talkpage in the future [14], and reported me here [15] (in an apparent attempt to post a classic "preemptive report"), and then simply resumed the activities [16]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I should be much obliged if someone notifies the user that he has been reported, as he has just ordered me not to post on his talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You do know how to make enemies, do you ? This is utterly absurd. The fact that several users have (in the first place) contacted me about current issues being debated, and that I have answered them and suggested that they give their opinions on the various project pages has nothing to do with such puerile accusations.

"Recruiting his own meat army".... This is simply pathetic. Words fail to describe the sheer absurdity of this claim. I have seen a lot of hostility and bad faith on wikipedia but this one definitely takes the cake.

I do not know Theirrulez and Sir Floyd. They wrote me a message, I answered them. End of the story. We seem to be in accordance regarding some issues, but that's it. I have no idea of their personal opinions on more global matters.

And indeed, many "Yugoslav" articles are in a deplorable condition and woefully biased. May I add that I have not read their respective revision histories and have, for the most, part, no idea who wrote them ? Why, oh why, does Direktor feels targeted ? If I am not mistaken, he never edited this or this or this (all insufficient articles, that have nothing whatsoever to do with him).

As for Theirrulez being "recently blocked", may I add that Direktor was also "recently blocked" ? (not that I care at all).

More bad faith from Direktor : the link he provides to "prove" that I "simply resumed the activities" ([17] : does he mean that I have resumed hostile activities against him ?) is simply a correction on a message that I had left earlier on Sir Floyd's page. A grammatical correction. The message was written, as far as I can remember, prior to the pathetic exchange that I had with Direktor.

Moreover, he (deliberately ?) misquotes me : the exact sentences are "A great deal of them look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)" and "the article looks like it was written by a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)." Meaning : these articles are bad, they look like they were written by one or several pov-pushers. Which is what I think.

Indeed, I order Direktor not to post on my talk page in the future. I find this user's attitude unbearable and his arrogance wearisome. What he does here proves further his aggressive intentions towards me. I have no interest whatsoever in any contact or exchange with this user - occasional project pages excluded, of course - and hope this wish will be respected in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As I see, JJG talks in general, not acusing any particular editors, but you seem to feel identified with the description he does on a particular way of editing. Perhaps you are acknolledging your own actions on his words... FkpCascais (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's called gaming the system, Fkp. In the given context it is perfectly clear who he was referring to with these obscenities. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. I was referring to several, possible, undeterminated people, as probable culprits for the deplorable state of the articles. If anything, I insulted the articles, which are indeed bad and which, by definition, have much more than one "author". And, also, you misquoted me (see above) in order to make what I say appear more agressive. If you feel targeted and insulted, that is your problem. If you feel the need to fuel our mutual hostility, that is also your problem. Now I consider that this absurd exchange should simply end, for I have no interest whatsoever in it. I think we should simply leave it at that, and simply abstain from talking to each other in the future. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? These "cretins" then, when did you "debate pointlessly" with them? Please. Despite your apparent assumption to the contrary, people are not stupid. Either way, the posts are there and they're reasonably brief, leave it to the admins to have a quick look at your two threads and make a decision. Appalling behavior, completely unprovoked in any way... I honestly did not expect such animosity from you JJG. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing you: "Appalling behavior, completely unprovoked in any way" , you must be joking, right? Anyway, you seem to have adopted the tactic of making allways a counter-report any time someone reports you (you did that with me several times), even if necessary to go around looking digging old discussions, just to find some reason. What you are reporting here has been your usual behavior for months. In some discussions we had, you made me go trouth some old archives of talk pages, where I found many interesting stuff about you. Then you and those users just begin doing less that on eachothers talk pages, probably because you found out that is way better to make those comments via e-mail. But you still can´t resist making them as you recently did with LAz21 on eachother talkpages about me. To be honest, I think you just hate to see that you were caught in what you were doing and the worste is that many users became aware of it and started talking with eachother. It really is not their fault and as you already admited, you are starting to be quite famous around, but don´t get too excited about it, because you´re becoming famous for the bad reasons. Even I receved several several anonim congratulations (as seen on my talk page) because I stood up to your behavior, from people that just gave up because, from I understood, they simply don´t want to participate in discussions that include you. The complains on you are numerous, and honestly beleave that you are doing much harm to WP. The problem is not what you defend, but how you do it. You can even be right in some cases (I had real dificulties to find even one edit war or discussion where you were completely right), but all this complains are certainly not all wrong. You should/could really try to change and I definitely hate to see excellent WP contributors like JJG (even you admited that) to think to abandon the WP project because they have no patience neither wish to deal with you. WP is a wanderfull place that allows everybody to be part of an encyclopedia. It is hard to understand that you just prefer to spend most of the time here the way you do. FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the Gunpowder Plot done in Pantomime. We are at the point where the "doubtful swords" are exchanged for bladders and the participants beat each other about the head and neck. I would have hoped that these participants had learned something from the Draža Mihailović mediation by now, but sadly, no. Some good faith would be a boon, as would sticking to content, not the contributor. Would all concerned be willing to try focussing on content once more? Sunray (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That it may be, but JJG is behaving rather inappropriately, to say the least, in an area that should be regulated by the ARBMAC restriction. Let's look at some of what DIREKTOR has had to face in the last few days: "Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds Direktor's agressivity and arrogance to be unbearable". [18]; "unless one is a hyper-sensitive Tito fanboy". [19]; "labeling him a traitor... is stupid to say the least" [20]; "Yugoslav articles look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV pushers" [21]; "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins".[22];"IMHO, it is useless to argue endlessly with Direktor, or even to discuss with him at all. Sources should be provided if there are some. That's it. And as for the "encyclopedic" nature of the word "regime", his arguments are absurd". [23]; "Direktor, you don't make sense. IMHO, you never do". [24]; "I seriously doubt that you have any knowledge at all besides a few pages glimpsed on google books". [25]; "No, I'd prefer that you stop contributing entirely to wikipedia, but I suppose it's useless to wait for miracles". [26]. Nobody should have to tolerate this sustained campaign of personal abuse. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Alasdair, I agree that there have been inappropriate statements made. And there are different styles too: Voluble vs. acerbic. But really, is it worse to make oblique comments about "insane trolls" or to accuse someone of "meatpuppetry? I have no idea. What amazes me is the seemingly infinite capacity of participants to be outraged by each other's comments. As Shimeru observed in the previous outburst on this page, these are "tiresome nationalism-inspired conflicts." One might only hope that the players will begin to lighten up. Sunray (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Accuse someone of meatpuppetry"? Sunray, if those posts of JJG's are not WP:CANVASSING, we need a new definition.

Say rather: "Is it worse to make oblique comments about 'insane trolls', or to canvass users to sway consensus? I have no idea." Apparently this will all go down under "crazy Balkans badlands nonsense", and the insults and recruitment will be ignored once more. I mean seriously, (over-)neutrality is one thing, but ignoring these wikicliques only makes things far worse when their "plans" come to fruition... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He plans to make a revision of some other articles. Nothing "obscure" as you pretend to make it look. On the other hand, you have been receving many support and help from other users, [27], so what? Prpa? FkpCascais (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Direktor: You seem to be conflating the terms "meatpuppetry" and canvassing. There is a quantum difference between the two. Canvassing is contrary to a behavioral guideline; meatpuppetry is an offense governed by policy. The policy, WP:MEAT, states: "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. Accusing someone of "meatpuppetry" is akin to calling someone a "troll." Both may easily be seen as personal attacks. Would you be willing to take responsibility for your own behavior now? Sunray (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see the basis for this report. The comments by JJG were about how to go about finding sources to improve some articles he thought were non-neutral and poorly sourced, they don't look like canvassing or recruiting 'meatpuppets' (how can established editors suddenly become someone's meatpuppet?). His comments about "POV trolls" were maybe unwise, but were directed towards hypothetical editors; I think we're all aware that POV edit warriors and trolls do abound in areas of nationalist disputes and DIREKTOR shouldn't assume that such a characterisation was meant to personally apply to him or any other established editor. DIREKTOR's post on JJG's talk page was pretty confrontational, I'm not surprised JJG removed it - it was dispute escalation, not dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Persistent date changes to cartoon articles -- Needs some attention

This IP (110.54.137.133) has deliberately changed dates to incorrect values, mostly air dates, on cartoon articles since March of this year. Most of those went unnoticed, although almost all were eventually fixed by regular editors. The IP has been warned, and received a 1 week block a little while back. This has only continued. Almost all of their edits are of this variety (a few early on appeared to be legitimate). There is never an explanation or source provided and the user's never engaged in dialogue.

Just to ensure that these are actual errors, I spot checked a few, and those examples follow.

• I Am Weasel IMBD source, diff similar
• List of Johnny Bravo episodes IMDB source diff
• Evil Con Carne source diff (Note that the IP changed the date for the end to match IMDB (the start date does not match IMDB) but IMDB doesn't list the last episode--the Dec 31 date had been there since early 2008 with this addition, and was changed by another IP (187.171.8.1), although it remained in the same month (that other IP might warrant investigating, but it's from a different geographical area))
• Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol Date source diff (VHS tapes in 1984 were pretty expensive, hard to imagine a children's video coming out like that)

As for the early on edits, this edit was in fact correct. It was originally correct in the article but had persisted for a long time due to this edit by a [geographically unrelated] IP [28]. This was early, so I don't know if it was a legitimate correction or just a random change that got it right.

Keep in mind, although I'm using IMDB as a source, these changed long-established dates on here. If this editor's on a crusade to fix erroneous IMDB dates, they haven't said as much or provided any evidence.

I looked for other IP ranges a little bit, but not extensively. The editing history speaks for itself, and the occurrence of some correct changes is odd, but given the absolute lack of communication, these issues have gone on long enough. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I in the right place with this? I figured it's not "active" enough to be at WP:AIV, and Long term abuse is not a notice board. Should it be at WP:AN instead? I'm surprised nobody has responded. Shadowjams (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP for three months, as they are not responding at all, the problem is long-term and the IP is stable. Fences&Windows 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know Shadowjams, I believe that policy on WP:AIV does insist on recent activity and warnings, but depending on who answers the report, they do often accept reports of long-term vandalism (I have submitted reports of a similar nature to AIV and they have been well-received). In any case, if you incorrectly file a report an editor will usually respond with a template giving advice on where it should be filed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my answer was a little confused/confusing there. AIV the place to report persistent / long-term vandals, but they do have to have made recent vandalising edits and have been appropriately warned. Depending on the severity of the vandal and/or the vandalism however, a level 4im (single) warning may be appropriate, and the user could be reported to AIV if they made subsequent edits following that warning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both F&W and Giftiger. I watch a few of these long-term editors and while many of them quit and go away after a few weeks, a select few stay on for much longer. There is a little bit of a gap between AIV and ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the block was well deserved. Repeat offenders (whether repeatedly blocked or not) do the project a great disservice.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry

Talk 10:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 – Anon Indefinite Block/Comunity Ban Slrubenstein

"unresolving" the case, see my comment below with this timestamp. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the "resolved" check -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request admin action against Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for creating an attack page about me, which he said he intended to post to mainspace.

He and I have been in a content dispute for several months at Christ myth theory, after I opposed its promotion to FA status and tried to help fix it in ways Eugene disagreed with. He recently arrived at an article I had rewritten, John Polkinghorne, and proceeded to make certain changes. We got into a content dispute; he violated 3RR; and I posted a report on the 3RR noticeboard, which was not acted on—see here.

A few hours later, Eugene created an article about me, now oversighted, in his userspace. It was written in the form of a Wikipedia article, and he said here on his talk page that he intended to post it to mainspace under the title "SlimVirgin". When he saw it had been deleted, he even asked another admin to undelete it for him. The article was written in a purportedly sympathetic tone about how I'd been cyberstalked, but it repeated the details of the stalking. He says it wasn't intended as an attack page, but it's hard to see how else to interpret it.

I feel this crossed a line and that some kind of action needs to be taken. Eugene is the pastor of an American Baptist church and relentlessly pushes what seems to be (in my view) a fundamentalist Christian POV. He regularly disparages sources he disagrees with—to the point of causing BLP problems—belittles editors who oppose him, and engages in serial reverting. He's definitely one of the most aggressive editors I've come across. There's a previous discussion here on AN/I about his comparing sources who argue Jesus may not have existed with Holocaust deniers.

If no action is taken about the attack page, he'll interpret it to mean that this degree of hostility is acceptable. I'd like to know whether there's community consensus to do something about it, and if so what. I kept a copy of the article, so I could email it to a couple of people to vouch for the contents, if that's needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on other behavior I'm concerned, but when you had that oversighted (as opposed to just deleted or hiding those revisions) you removed it from normal on-wiki review processes. There are only a handful of people who can comment on what was there now.

I am not comfortable with the idea of taking action for something I can't even see.

Are there non-oversighted edits which he's done which demonstrate the behavior problem pattern clearly?

If not, if someone who saw it pre-oversight feels that the material justified action that's fine, they can do so, but posting here for general review seems sort of hard without evidence to point to...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I kept a copy, so I'll e-mail it to you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a pickle, isn't it? I can't imagine any scenario where a valid G10 and oversight would be- in any way- acceptable, but the fact that oversight was employed means all but a couple dozen are unable to say anything definite about this. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Received. It's not a bright-line immediate-indef blockable attack page, but it's concerning and worthy following up on.

I'm asking Eugeueacurry some questions on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that creating a page like this about a fellow editor in response to a content dispute was indeed a bright-line issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Especially if an oversighter felt the page justified that level of suppression... Bobby Tables (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But how do we know if it is justified if the reasons and evidence are not transparent (i.e., made, at least temporarily, public)? As someone once said, "Trust, but verify". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is, but isn't it unfair to accuse someone of something without making the evidence public? I mean, not doing so seems like a secret trial. Am I wrong about this? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Bill supports Eugene no matter what the latter says or does. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So an editor can't be blocked for creating an attack page unless the attack page is left in public view? Um- no- not at all. Deletion of attack pages is very sound policy, as is blocking editors who create them. --Courcelles (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant at all, and I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. I have no problem with the deleting of attack pages. That IS a sound policy. My point is that if the "article" is not made public while deciding its merits, doesn't that put a question mark on the decision process? I mean, shouldn't the process be open in order to insure fairness? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm trying hard to imagine what could be on that page that would not be obvious harassment. I'm failing. The very act of creating an article about someone you're having a conflict with, and claiming you plan to put it in article space, is a prima facie attempt at intimidation, or at the very least baiting. It's gone, and he has said he won't be adding it again, so I suppose I won't block now, but IMHO this is the kind of shit we should be blocking people for, not using naughty words or making mistakes with a script. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, the mere act of creating an 'article' about a user you're in a dispute with is disruptive and probably amounts to harassment. Do we need an interaction ban? In any case, any further harassment or personal attacks by Eugeneacurry on SlimVirgin should result in a substantial block. Fences&Windows 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, I can honestly say that that I wrote that "article" without malice and with every intention of having it conform to Wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV. I intended to submit it to the Deletion Review folks (since the namespace had been salted) once it was finished, so I understood that it needed to be entirely above board. That said, it seems that three people who have actually read it found it problematic and I've agreed to let it go. Perhaps I was "too close" to the situation to see it for what it was; but I never meant it to be anything other than a good-faith high quality stub.

In any event, the admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block; so far the 3RR board haven't felt my actions at John Polkinghorne (where SlimVirgin also reverted pretty liberally) warrented blocking; SlimVirgin's attempt to raise the issues again here seems to be little more than forum shopping in an effort to silence my opposition to some of her edits at Christ myth theory. Still, like I've said, I'll not try again to write an article on her, no matter how well-intentioned. Eugene (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, a lot of people her have just pushed WP:AGF to its limit. If you want to continue editing here, then please do not create anything that could be reasonably interpreted as attacking somebody, regardless of whether that's your intent. Please try to work collaboratively with all editors, including SV and if you can't play nicely, stay away from each other. The best advice I can give you is the oft-ignored phrase "comment on content, not the contributor". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block -- I beg your pardon. I didn't feel it warranted an immediate block; your disingenuousness regarding your motivations makes me wonder if my judgment was a little off. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all being disingenuous; I've been exposed to SV through less than ideal circumstances, but the exposure prompted interest, the interest to an attempt at a wiki page. I don't see anything sinister about that. But like I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene is asking us to believe that of all the millions of topics out there he could have created a stub on, I was the most interesting thing he could think of, and it was a cooincidence that this occurred to him hours after I reported him for 3RR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Even without having seen the page, I'm quickly becoming of the mindset that this might, indeed, be worth a block. --Courcelles (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea that wiki-drama that does not reach the point of major media coverage (we all know the main examples of this) is encyclopedic enough for inclusion is dubious, at best, which makes assuming good faith difficult. Kansan (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt that coverage in the New York Times and Slate was "major" enough. But as I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I see two pretty simple principles here. The first has to do with any-page-that-has-been-construed-as-an-attack-page. I see zero excuse for it at Wikipedia. Of course we create pages in which we documented the times we have been attacked, for use as evidence at ArbCom. But Curry is clearly talking about something else. The principle is simple: we should be here working on articles. Criticize articles, praise articles, edit articles. There is simply no need to descend into attacks against others. This is a no-brainer. The second issue is the oversight. You cannot blame SV for asking. If fault lies with anyone, it is with someone who has oversight powers using them improperly. I am concerned about blsming SV for someone else's actions. Sure, we can disagree over how she reacted. But the responsibility for any redacting or overlight lies with the person SV went to. WP depends on giving these powers to people of good judgment. If you want to question their judgment, fine, but direct your questioning at them. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused ... you're complaining about oversight of the page? We normally oversight things that invade editors' privacy. Slim was 100% correct to ask for it to be oversighted and whoever oversighted it was 100% correct to do so. Attempting to out your fellow editors is not an acceptable tool in a content dispute. In creating this page, Eugeneacurry showed that he is not able to edit cooperatively and I strongly feel a lengthy block or ban would be appropriate. --B (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@B - no, I am not complaining against oversight. I am not complaining against anything. I am simply saying that Eugenecurry has no grounds to complain against SlimVirgin. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you removed my comment Eugene? Removing a comment that suggests you be banned makes it very hard to assume you are acting in good faith. --B (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was an unintentional mix-up stemming from an edit conflict. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Eugenecurry for removing User B's post, which advocated a block, as alluded to above in the middle of a discussion regarding their lack of appreciation of the inappropriate responses they made in an earlier dispute with an editor. Any admin who feels that Eugenecurry has become sufficiently clued up as to the correct use of protocol and practice in these matters may unblock without reference to me. I would also urge parties not to allow this block to simply become fact, but to arrive at a consensus on how this matter may be resolved (which, of course, might include an indef block) with or without Eugenecurry's continued involvement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked under the "block people for the right reasons" banner. I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It might help the discussion if I described (in very broad non-attack terms) the nature of the article so that this conversation might be put in context. I mentioned SV edit count (sourced to a minor regional newspaper), her first name as she gave it in an interview with a reporter (sourced to that reporter's article in a minor regional lifestyle publication), her experience as a subject of cyberstalking--using the term "stalking"--(sourced to a major mainstream online publication), some of the coverage the stalking recieved in peri-Wikipedia venunes (sourced to a major national newspaper and a technical journal), two theories predicated on that stalking--neither of which were presented as flat facts and neither of which were intrinsically disreputable/negative--I thought they were sort of glamourous myself--or overly personal (sourced to the previously mentioned major mainstream online source and the lifestyle source), and SV's response to the situation in terms of founding a new organization (sourced to the lifestyle publication). I didn't include any information that hadn't already been covered by reliable sources, I didn't try to make SV look bad, I didn't editorialize. While the community thinks it was nevertheless inappropriate (would you feel the same way if I wasn't the one who wrote it and if it was about someone on some other Wiki-like project?) I hardly think it rises to the level of a vicious "attack" and I certainly don't think it merits blocking.

I realize that Wikipedia tends to err on the side of restraint and privacy regarding it's editors, but I felt that if other notable editors who recieved mainstream media coverage could have a Wikipedia article (e.g. Essjay, though I recongnize that Essjay is a more controversial figure), why not SlimVirgin Eugene (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been here long enough that you know that casual mentions are not evidence of notability. There is obviously nothing out there for writing a biography of her. Also, as Slim correctly pointed out, your revelation of this as a topic for an article occurring during a dispute with her is completely unbelievable. It's ridiculous that you are even trying to defend this. --B (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my only defense on the notability point is that at least some of the sources (the lifestyle one and a couple others I didn't get a change to integrate into the body) focused largely on SV. As for the timing, you're right, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that this is unrelated to your editing dispute. You don't appear to have been inspired to make articles about any editors with whom you are not in conflict. If I were in this situation- I came to believe that a person with whom I was in conflict was so important that an article about them must be written- I'd probably go to articles for creation and see if any neutral people wanted to take on the project, just to make sure that my own judgment wasn't clouded by our disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect you are obviously right. I should have just put in a request for an article and simply provided the links to the RSes. I had thought, foolishly it seems, that SlimVirgin might have been impressed by my fairness towards her in the article and realized that I'm not just a jerk opposing her in other article disputes for spite, that my concerns are substantive and not motivated by personalities. Could I still submit the sources and a request? Or would that only be construed as further evidence of my nefarious intentions?

As for my not writing an article on other editors (those on my "side" of disputes), I'm not aware that any of them are notable. But if you're aware of reliable sources covering Bill the Cat 7, I'd write the article this afternoon. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's utterly impossible to believe that this is unrelated to your long, bitter editing disputes. I'm not sure whether or not you can make a case for technically not violating some behavioral policy or guideline, but this has the stink of bad faith all over it. (Why you would do this while identifying yourself as a minister on your user page is shocking to me. You don't really need to sacrifice the second greatest commandment for the first. [29]) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, your creation of the page a serious violation of WP:DISRUPTION, which I think is a good, catch-all policy for this kind of behavior. As I told you a while back on your user page, I really hoped you'd try to get along. And wouldn't the normal thing to do when creating an article about another editor be to contact that editor and, if told the editor didn't want an article, then to drop the idea unless there were some overriding need for it? I can't assume good faith enough to accept your explanation just above at 15:02. It doesn't look believable that you would create this without contacting her first. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When the material was first deleted off my talk space I said that I would be willing to submit it to SlimVirgin for review prior to submitting it to the Deletion Review team. [30] When it became clear that SV wasn't pleased, I said that I'd drop it. [31] Eugene (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the good-faith way of doing it would be (1) get the idea to create an article of, at best, marginal notability; (2) contact the editor/subject with the idea, preferably in a private email; (3) procede further only if the editor is receptive to the idea. Especially with an editor you've had conflicts with. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I am a little bit confused about your reverting LessHeardVanU. Are you simply asking that there be more discussion before Eugenecurry be indefinitely blocked? Or are you cateorically opposed to such a block? You wrote, "I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action" and I would appreciate it if you would amplify on this. I personally cannot think of a time when one editor created an article on another editor in the middle of an edit conflict. I personally see this as the worst kind of edit-warfare. I see no encyclopedic justification for this. How Eugenecurry could think that the world needs an encyclopedia article on Slim Virgin is frankly beyond me, but no matter how I look at it I just do not see any "good faith" spin on his doing so in the middle of an edit war. I see this as truly corrosive to the encyclopedia. I would like to restore LHVU's block but out of deferrence to you, would first ask for you to clarify whatever you think ought to be discussed first. What am I missing here? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• LHVU blocked Eugene not for creating the page about SV, but for refactoring B's posting here advocating a block; except that Eugene didn't remove it - he got caught in the common "edit conflict glitch" where two editors post very close to each other and the second edit overrides the first, making it look like the second poster has deleted the first poster's edit. It happened to me recently, and when I posted at VPT, it turns out it's fairly common. So it was a good unblock. Having said that, I'd have blocked Eugene indef anyway for creating the attack page in the first place. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that block. Clearly this is retaliation for SV's editing. AniMate 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above. His explanation that it was an accidental removal seems fine. He should clearly be indefinitely blocked, not for the accidental removal, but because he has clearly demonstrated he cannot edit cooperatively. --B (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that a number of people are advocating an indefinite block. What precisely is the intended purpose of such an action? Eugene (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To prevent the disruption and genuine human distress which your presence seems to have caused and have the potential to continue to cause. FWIW, I support an indefinite block. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SV has emailed me a copy of the text, and I agree with George that it isn't blatantly an attack. But Eugene is not some juvenile, either, he can argue very intelligently at Talk:Christ myth theory and he's smart enough not to produce something simple, so I think he knew he was doing something harmful to another editor. He says now that he wouldn't do it again. George used the word "concerning". I'd say I'm concerned about him, too. Some of his comments early in this discussion indicate he doesn't quite understand just how bad this is. I hate to be wishy-washy about this, but I'm not familiar with past practices, so I'm fine with following whatever the common practices have been in situations with this kind of a less-blatant attack page. At the very least, he should get some kind of block, in part so that the fact he wrote an attack page is on the block record. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanations, and retract my question for Jpgordon. I agree that refactoring a post is not an acceptable reason for an indefinite block (although if this occured at a much earlier stage in this conflict, a 24-hr. block might have sent a much needed message). I have just blocked Eugenecurry indefinitely because i think it is a disgrace to use a wikipedia article as a means of pursuing a conflict against an editor. The minimum integrity of the project as a whole is based on the idea that we create encyclopedia articles in good faith. Eugenecurry has demonstrated the worst kind of faith that perverts the encyclopedia by using it against itself. I further note that this occured after a very long period of edit-warring and what appears to be some degree of stalking. I see that diferent editors have tried to impress upon Eugenecurrie the importance of working within the spirit of our core policies and he has chosen to edit-war instead. I think there has been a healthy discussion here, with the participation of a wide range of editors, who express support for this indef. block. I trust this one will stick and if any other admin. questions my act I would be glad to discuss it further. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear -- refactoring a post might or might not be an acceptable reason for a block, but since Eugenecurry didn't refactor a post, but instead encountered an annoying bug, that block was just incorrect. I agree with your block here; he doesn't get it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully endorse. Eugenecurry's actions were so far beyond the pale of acceptability this is the only response. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully endorse block. For reasons already stated articulately above. The circumstances/timing here are telling.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I've seen a copy of the deleted content and, although it's not really an attack (SV is a [insert profanity of your choice]) type thing, it's not the kind of thing one would write in good faith. I think Eugene has been disingenuous in this thread and generally wasted a lot of time and proved to be a very aggressive editor and I think this block is a necessity, at least for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Resp to Slrubenstein (and Jpgordon) I indef blocked because of what appeared to be the refactoring of another editors comment, which was proposing a block/ban, during a discussion regarding that same editors extremely poor response to an earlier editor dispute. While I am content with the unblock on the basis of a glitch making it appear that the editor removed content deliberately when they did not, I would point out that I didn't make the sanction upon that incident in isolation - and that I noted specifically that they might be unblocked once it was clear the editor would not make further similar edits (which, since they did not in the second place, meant they could be unblocked promptly). Indefinite is just that, any time period between "how fast can I hit the unblock button" and "forever" and only for as long as it is deemed appropriate. Of course, next time you could ask... Oh, and, yes, good block by Slr. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking this over while cooking dinner, I'm becoming more of the mind that a full community ban might be in order here. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Eugeneacurry's actions are spectacularly inappropriate, and his behaviour on WP over the last several months do nothing to convince me that there is any benefit to be had from allowing him to continue editing here. Good riddance. Call it a ban if you want, this one should not be allowed back any time soon. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just what is going on here?no need for me to put it that way -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I was rereading this thread and it occurred to me that Eugenecurry was involved in a past thread on this page, so I looked it up. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#Slanderous Accusations of Anti-Semitism, from two months ago) I thought I might put a link here so that any admin who might be considering lifting the block in the future would have a little more insight into Eugenecurry's previous conflicts. I was very surprised to see that the previous thread was a complaint Eugenecurry made against Slrubenstein, the admin who has now indef blocked him. I still agree with the block, but that wasn't good form, it shouldn't have been done by Slrubenstein. Looking over WP:BLOCK#Conflict of interest, I see Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. I think a mere two-month distance between this thread and the previous one counts as "are involved". If an admin not previously in a conflict with Eugenecurry wouldn't mind unblocking and then reapplying the block, it's more likely to be respected in the future. It's important that the blocked editor, his friends and everyone else think that the process here was fair, even if they disagree with the result. It won't help to have a messy block followed by an unblock that will likely be messy, too. Better to secure this thing in place while it's fresh in all our minds. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block is solid; Slrubenstein is not sanctioning Eugenecurry for violation of policy, but was enacting the communities consensus following a full discussion. Since Slr is acting according to that consensus and not on his own judgement then the past history is irrelevant. As it is, consensus is unambiguous and does not require reviewing to ensure Slr was correct in his understanding of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with LHvU - this is a solid block. Its been discussed here and consensus is very clear. Secondly the matter of being uninvolved is equally clear - Eugenecurry wasn't being sanctioned for attacking/harassing SLR--Cailil ^talk 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I obviously do not think the word "are" applies here. I have not had any dealings with Eugenecurry for over two months, nor he with me; as far as I am concerned that mater was closed long ago. I have been involved in edit conflicts that were considered resolved about twelve hours afte the last contenious edit; in my experience I have never seen anyone give or ask for more than 36 hours to see if a conflict really had ended. Two months? You know, it is not like either of us were on vacation! Is there any editor here who seriously considers a conflict ongoing when both editors have continued to edit Wikipedia, and a range of articles, for two months, without any contlict? As far as I am concernded my last interaction with Curry could have been a year ago!

No administrator should block someone for personal reasons; it should only be a block that is called for by policy or represents th will o the community. I explained the rationale for my action, and so far no one has found fault with it. And I see a strong consensus here for a community ban.

The reason this system works - is widely agreed to be fair - is that any admin can undo a block at any time. All it takes is one admin who considers the rationale for the block wrong, or who does not agree there is community support. So I view my block in this case exactly as I would view it in any other case. I am no different from LessHearVanU in this regard. Does any administrator think that my rationale for blocking is wrong? Does anyone doubt community support? Then unblock, by all means! I see no other point in further discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea that I'm making too much out of this, and I am not as familiar with blocking policy and practices as most of the editors contributing to this thread probably are. I think a conflict over something as personal as talk of anti-semitism means it's going to be problematic for either party to block the other for a long while. That was a very serious, very emotional conflict. Personally, I can still get angry over matters less offensive after many more than two months. Is that a case of being slower to heal than most? Maybe. But I was actually talking about a conflict of interest in the subject area. Your last edit in the subject area was here [32] on June 16 at Talk:Jesus. The conflict in the previous complaint was at Christ myth theory. Am I misreading Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. at WP:BLOCK? If so, I'd be happy to withdraw my objection. Personally, I still see a conflict of interest on both counts mentioned above and I think it looks bad (and it's a bad example for other admins to follow), but my main concern is practical, and if more editors still think the block is unlikely to be reversed, let's mark this resolved again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I support the indef block, and oppose the reversal of it, for reasons already articulated in detail above by others. I, for one, see no consensus on this page for such a reversal. With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see it either. I restored the "resolved" check at the top. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur both with the block and that this is now resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2 and S@bre

The issue is that S@bre has not been "striving to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editor", to quote WP:ADMIN. The issue concerns this edit - [33]. The claim that "Between the bases there is a neutral space" was contested by Findstr, a new user. S@bre's comments, from my point of view, neither adequately support his claim that the statement is substantiated by the source given nor demonstrate the attitude administrators should have concerning new editors (see WP:BITE). They can be found at User talk:Findstr#Re:TF2, and I'll quote the last two comments in full:

"Because its not false information: its simply information that isn't universally applicable anymore. The source and the point in the article are contemporary to the game's release. At that time, pretty much all but a few maps conformed to that design philosophy. Most still do. In three years since the source was past, things have changed via the updates, but all those original maps where it is applicable are still there; thus it merely needs clarification in the wording, not removal: I've just provided you with an alternate way of phrasing that information. And honestly, trying to prove that Valve employees talking about how they made the game are unreliable sources (based on your own original research of their work no less) is completely absurd. -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got better things to do than to argue over one sentence in an article, especially if you're going to become self-righteous and start contextless comparisons with 400 year old sources. I'm sure you have better things to do as well. The source's claim of "The maps are usually made up of two enemy bases separated by a neutral space" is accurate; it doesn't, as you implicate, say "every map has a neutral space". I've made a change to the wording to reflect this, but at this point, I don't care if it satisfies you or not. I'm sorry this has become adversarial, but I just can't be bothered with this anymore. -- Sabre (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)"

These do not reflect well on the editor's commitment to WP:AGF, especially due to the generally civil nature of Findstr's comments (since removed from S@bre's talk page, but which can be read at [34]). It also seems from S@bre's minor "tweaking" of the page - [35] that Findstr's point was actually perfectly sound. I'm bringing this here because Findstr brought this up at WP:HELP, and I felt obliged to take it to the appropriate forum. Claritas § 12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to copy and paste what I left at the help desk a couple of minutes ago. If I have acted incorrectly regarding this whole OR thing, then I apologise. I certainly apologise for my behaviour in this case, looking over my last comment in particular, it wasn't acceptable or becoming of my position as an admin; its no excuse, but its been a long week. However, I had indicated to the user that I wished to disengage from this issue, primarily because, as Findstr noted himself, it was getting me worked up. Removing messages from my own talk page, last time I checked, was allowed and given that it can easily be retrieved from the page history, and should not be taken as "pretending the conversation never took place". You're welcome to debate my edits and change the article if I am at fault here, please don't involve me with the content dispute part of this anymore. -- Sabre (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of messages from your talk page wasn't itself at fault at all. I merely noted this in my comment in case people looked for Findstr's comments on your talk page. Regards. Claritas § 15:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I will paste what I wrote on the help desk (sorry that that wasn't the right place, didn't know about this).

---

I recently edited the TF2 article to add some content, and to change some existing content as it was no longer factually accurate. I did remove some content too by mistake -- I did not realise that the reference at the end of the paragraph contained multiple pages. Anyway, I got into a discussion with an administrator called Sabre about the removal of content and the subsequent reversion of some of my changes -- whilst I accept that I made a mistake in removing some content as mentioned earlier, even editing it was not an option since there was no newer source to verify a change in the article content.

The strange (and seemingly hypocritical) thing is that I was told to make sure that my edits conformed to WP:OR. Fine, even globally demonstrable data is not a verifiable reference for content, that's fine. What I find strange is that the same administrator who had told me not to add my own original synthesis in has now done it for me (see the lastest edit on the Team Fortress 2 page).

What sort of double-standard is this that I am told that if a source is out of date it does not matter, but the administrator in question is not questioned when doing the same thing I wished to do? I fail to see why his original research should be considered 'verifiable' whilst mine is considered unreliable and unverifiable. I find it demeaning that I am to be cautioned like a child and be told by the aforementioned that we are 'adversaries' merely for me asking a question to an administrator (who I thought would be kind enough to answer my questions, but I guess I was wrong about that), only to have the administrator who cautioned me himself edit the article in the way he told me that I could not, not to mention that when I asked about his double standards he decided to merely pretend like the conversation never happened by removing the conversation from his talk page.

I find this a rather disturbing revelation in an encyclopedia that I use often. What is going on here? Findstr (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I have not been uncivil, I have only expressed a desire to understand what I have done wrong, and how I can help. If this is what Wikipedia is like, I guess it is not the place for me. Findstr (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I might add to Sabre that being allowed to do something does not mean that it is a good thing to do. I find it rude that instead of trying to help out you shut me out and act like I am merely an aggrivation. I'm trying to help, but you're not exactly helping. Findstr (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• This doesn't appear ripe for ANI. Why wasn't this discussed with Sabre at their talk page first? –xeno^talk 15:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I placed this here per WP:GBU, on behalf of Findstr, because he and s@bre could not reach an agreement concerning s@bre's actions. I thought that it would be better to have a discussion with a wider audience than a private discussion between myself and s@bre as I was originally uninvolved with this issue. Apologies if this was inappropriate. Claritas § 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. –xeno^talk 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a fan of enforcement of sysops being held to their obligations under wp:admin. That said, I think this is a borderline case, and its not clear to me from the above that anything more is appropriate here than perhaps a reminder to the sysop of his/her obligations under wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• probably wasn't the most civil way of handling the conflict... wikipedia is hard work... that does not excuse the behavior... would probably be good for wikidrama if sabre apologized and maybe got a third party to help with the content dispute maybe from the relevant wikiprojectArskwad (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Request- contact user- semi-protected page

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

User_talk:JzG

Hi, I am unable to contact User:JzG as their page is semi-protected. I am attempting to ask them to explain their decision to delete a page I began called Radio23. The stated reason was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Experimentation, freedom of expression and a DIY approach to broadcasting are among the station's distinguishing traits. The ethos is to empower people to do their own show free from censorship..."

I whole-heartedly dispute that this article was in any way advertising or promotion, and I fail to see how freedom of expression or freedom from censorship are a bad thing. Radio23 is a valid internet radio station strongly linked to Scannerfm and WFMU, both of which have valid and long standing wiki-pages. I am attempting to follow proper protocol in asking the user to explain their decision before disputing, but am unable to do so because ofn their talk pages' semi-protected status. Please advise. Aspland11 (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Notified user. –xeno^talk 13:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It was pretty promotional. I am willing to restore the article to a user sub-page on three conditions: 1. you edit the article so that it is neutral and avoids partisan praise of this station. See Wikipedia:Words to watch. 2. You write the article using reliable sources. 3. You check with me before moving it back to articlespace. Fences&Windows 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't an article in a user subpage be alright, even if it was not neutral or had no reliable sources, as long as there are

1. No BLP attacks,
2. No copyright issues, and
3. No movement back into article space until article issues are fixed?

—MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy with that proposed resolution but Aspland11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Fiedorczuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is QuietCountry25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) all of whom have created articles on this "internet radio" (i.e not radio, zero bar to operation) station - with two previous autoconfirmed accounts plus the current account having been able to recreate an article, it's not clear to me why he's unable to post on my talk page. Also in my view use of the word "censorship" in such cases is a red flag for spammers and POV-pushers. It's absurd to use the word "censorship" in this context. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Aspland11 states on his talk page that "Finally I would like to point out that I am not Fiedorczuk or QuietCountry25, although these people are known to me." Perhaps they are friends, or possibly meatpuppets? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, right, maybe they are his WP:BROTHER. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• And BTW, since Aspland11 is not 10 days old yet, he is not yet autoconfirmed; (my bad, it is 3 days and 10 edits) however, new users can create pages, as they have the createpage right. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you should open an SPI report if you have evidence of sockpuppetry. Note that Quietcountry25 claimed to be Fiedorczuk. Fences&Windows 22:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to be informed of deletion sometimes

Hey guys and girls. I've been reviewing the article: Fight for This Love trying to get it to GA. Someone has deleted the image: File:Cheryl-crow-fight-for-this-love-500x279.jpg which was part of the music video section. Now I didn't upload the image but it would have been nice (and polite) if however had deleted the image to inform me so that I could try and rectify the situation. Its obvious from the talk page and revision history that I am carrying out the changes required for GA so it shouldn't have been too difficult to work out.

I would appreciate if someone could find out why the image was deleted and let me know please. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• It was tagged, and subsequently deleted, by the same user; their rationale was: "Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding." –xeno^talk 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. But i actually disagree with the deletion of the image. I am aware that many articles use snapshots from music videos to explain the concept of song. And i actually though the image used was appropriate. Could somneone please review the deletion because I want to request the restoring of the image. I think it was unfairly deleted. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is very rare that a music video screenshot passes our non-free image criteria. Criteria 8, as stated here, is the usual one. You've got to remember that the article is about the song, and so unless the screenshot significantly increases the reader's knowledge of the song, not the video, then it fails this criteria. This one certainly did, and if the article had got to GA review stage, it would have almost certainly been removed at that point. I've also removed two further non-free images from the article because they similarly fail our criteria, being either replaceable and/or failing criteria 8. You do realise that an article doesn't have to have pretty pictures to pass GA, don't you? - in fact using images that are against Wikipedia's mission is more likely to make it fail... Black Kite (t) (c) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Black Kite's take on this matter. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey in this case i'm guided by the GA review. My GA reviewer asked for images to be input into the article stating that irt was more appropriate for GA nominees to have images. But thank you for the explaination. If the general practise is not to include them then I won't argue. I completely understand. Its a shame that not all articles are treated equally. There are many that have such images and i guess its hard to enforce. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, having images is not a requirement for good articles (though I believe is for featured articles). –MuZemike 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article still does have one non-free image and one non-free media file. It is exactly the same for FA - although it has to be admitted that it sometimes wasn't in the past. No Line on the Horizon is an example of a recent music FA which meets our image policy. Note the use of free images. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would like the deletion formally reviewed, you can file at Wikipedia:Deletion review. –xeno^talk 18:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have great respect for Fastily and Xeno, and where the two agree as to the consensus view on wikipedia, you can expect it to be as they say. That said, I don't agree with the consensus view, and question whether most U.S. intellectual property lawyers with, say, a decade or two of experience, would share it. But that having been said, unless the consensus is changed, our mandate is to follow consensus. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think there is any doubt that the Foundation's legal counsel (Mike Godwin) has both hat experience and very much on-topic special expertise, and he had no small hand in overseeing the crafting of the copyright policy (which, incidentally, isn't subject to consensus: it's a legal obligation driven by foundation mandate).

  Which does not mean that I don't find it regrettable that the batshit insane copyright laws make it nearly impossible to make proper fair use of media in an encyclopedia while retaining the ability to make it libre. But that's not a problem our own policies make, it's an external constraint we have to live with (at least, until lawmakers stop pandering to Disney and the media megaconsortia). — Coren ^(talk) 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

  A comment must be made here. Our fair use policies do not reflect demands made by US Copyright law. Full stop. It is unfortunate that we have borrowed the term of art Fair use, as it has led to a number of understandable confusions. If we were simply exercising our fair use rights, we could easily host stills of music videos or copyrighted images of living subjects or copyrighted photos of buildings etc. All we would have to do is show that we aren't competing with the sale of those images (basically). The reason our non-free media policy has restrictions like NFCC 8 is because we have a foundation mandate to defer to free content. We prefer, all else equal, to have free media. The architects of the NFC rightly assumed that if non-free media had few restrictions on its use, it would displace free media, mostly because it is very easy to get a copyrighted picture of someone and very hard to get a free image of that person. We want people to seek out free images, take their own pictures and contribute to the commons. That's why we make it such a pain in the ass to use non-free media. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: to be clear, my comments here should not be taken as an endorsement of the deletion and were intended strictly to provide further information to the original poster. –xeno^talk 18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

 – There has been a motion to close for some time which has garnered support but no opposes, so I'm marking this incident as finished. User is being mentored and all involved seem to find this an acceptable way forward.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Nineteen Nightmares

Extended content

I believe that this report should have been taken here in the first place, but I am simply leaving a note here regarding a report made at WP:Wikiquette alerts where extensive details have been given, and to clarify the issue I placed a nomination there that the user should be blocked and/or topic banned. A sysop suggested that I leave this here to bring the matter to the attention of this noticeboard, but since the discussion has already started there, I think it's best to leave the discussion and proposal there. The relevant discussion and nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Please understand that I am a new user, trying to get up to speed, have encountered many editors who have been very hostile to me and that I would request a moment to address any charges you find that don't make sense or that make me look like I am attacking someone. There have been many accusions, most of them baseless, and it seems I should have an opportunity to address each one if I am to be banned. I will state that my only intention on Wikipedia is to read the articles and hopefully make them better when I can. Please also be aware that the person bringing this issue to this venue is on the opposite side of a contenscious DVR from me and wishes to have me banned to silence criticism of the discussion. It seems highly innappropriate for an editor to seek a ban on the main proponent of the argument against which they are making. Thanks for your time and I do apologize if I've gotten out of line occasionally. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Giftiger is probably correct, it probably should have come here. For convenience only, I have copied the discussion there to this location and collapsed it, so one doesn't have to go back and forth between pages. I've also posted a notice that any further comments should be made here. GregJackP (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC) To ensure it stays up to date, I have transcluded it rather than allowing it to remain copied. If this transclusion causes a disruption on either page, please revert both the addition of noinclude tags to Wikiquette and this transclusion here. This isn't exactly protocol but I am exercising good faith and WP:IAR here but welcome its reversion in case of disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Reverted it myself: didn't go as planned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Important Note: The following section was moved from Wikiquette regarding this subject, and contains the bulk of the report and discussion. I have therefore collapsed the note here left afterwards, which was originally just a note redirecting to the below discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of Personal Attacks by Nineteen Nightmares

A section has been opened at AN/I here - please add any other comments at that location. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) has continually engaged in a pattern of personal attacks, incivility and disruptive editing despite repeated requests, warnings, and a block. Examples are:

• Unsubstantiated claim here, stating "GregJackP, would you please disclose your obvious connection to the subject. I seriously have my suspicions that you are actually the subject of this aricle, right back in here in some devious way strongly trying to keep and manipulate the data in the piece." He also asked Minor4th and Giftiger Wunsch of basically the same thing, here.
• Unsubstantiated claim (diff here) that GregJackP and Minor4th are sock/meat puppets of Dmartinaus. Note that GregJackP initiated an SPI of Dmartinaus that resulted in his being blocked for two weeks and 4 of his socks being indefinately blocked, which is hardly the actions of another sock/meat puppet. Note that a checkuser was conducted in regards to the SPI and the investigation is located here. The checkuser did not find any relationship between either GregJackP or Minor4th and Dmartinaus.

Comment The socks of Martin have variously voted 'delete' and changed their minds and done lots of stuff that would not be in keeping with a legitimate separate editor. Because you nommed Martin as a sock, it doesn't mean you aren't friends with the guy. I see you didn't answer any of the questions. Do you know this man personally? Your comments and behavior suggest a strong WP:COI but you remain silent on this front, instead reverting to reporting me for asking serious questions about an article that has been an incredible adventure to unravel. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Incivility by changing section heading to "Lies and Skullduggery" here.
• Personal attack on Dmartinaus here, stating that Martin "You brought this whole thing on and behaved like an idiot." There is simply no call for this type of attack on a currently banned user.
• Unsubstantiated statement that "FYI, GregJackP is a liar" located here.
• Personal attack on JNW here stating " I removed the templates at first BECAUSE I WAS NEW AND DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER, YOU MORON!
• Personal attack and threats left on Dmartinaus's userpage: diff. I understand the frustration with this user but this type of behaviour is completely unacceptable per WP:NPA and WP:THREAT GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Personal attack left with this edit, I removed the part which was a clear personal attack here, and reinstated without modifying the tone here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Subject has been appropriately warned about his conduct, as shown below:

• Comments about inappropriate personal attacks here by Minor4th and Giftiger Wunsch.
• Comment on tone of this edit by Daniel Case here.
• Warned on personal attacks here by GregJackP.
• Warned for vandalism (disruptive editing) here by GregJackP.
• Comment and warning for disruptive editing, incivility and personal attacks, advised of her intent to block if it continued, here by Sarah.
• Comment on personal attacks here by Minor4th.
• Comment on incivility here by Pdcook.
• Comment on personal attacks here by Technopat.
• Warned for personal attacks here by Modernist.

• I have recently npa-warned this user up to a final warning level according to the most recent comments I mentioned above: [36] [37] [38]. The warnings were disregarded and removed (the final warning hasn't been removed yet, as of when I last checked) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous actions/investigations:

• Blocked for disruptive editing (24 hrs) here, request to lift block declined. This was from a report to AIV.
• ANI for "continued incivility and personal attacks" located here.

It is apparent that anyone that disagrees with Nineteen Nightmares becomes the target of his attacks, and that this is a long term pattern of abusive behavior. I also don't think that it is necessarily appropriate for him to leave messages for Jimbo, but I'm also sure that Jimbo can handle that himself. GregJackP (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- I fully support this notice by GregJackP, as I have been the target of repeated attacks and accusations by NineteenNightmares. Even in the few minutes since this notice was posted, NighteenNightmares has made another personal attack [39] on myself, GregJackP and Giftiger, requesting a checkuser because he thinks we are socks of Dmartinaus (a checkuser was already performed which resulted in blocks of Dmartinaus and 4 or 5 of his socks). The instances of uncivility, personal attacks, and disruptive edits are literally too numerous to list. A review of NineteenNightmare's contributions and his talk page will tell the tale. I support whatever actions can be taken to remedy this problem behavior. Minor4th (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment You will just try anything, huh? My questions are just that, questions. I questioned the idea that there were socks in the Martin piece and by golly, there were socks in the Martin piece! However, I am not making any accusations against anyone unless I see a pattern of behavior that mimics the subject and behavior of his socks. Incidentally, you are the individual who got me banned for a day by lying to a supervising editor. I have never done anything here but try and improve the site and constantly people such as yourself are doing this type of thing, which in effect wastes everyone's time. I believe you are closely connected to Mr. Martin and are trying to get me banned again so you can quell any kind of criticism of the piece, which obviously I have been the most vocal about here on Wiki.

To reviewing supervisors and editors, please note that the majority of "evidence" being presented here is from my first few days and I had no idea how the site worked as an editor. I admit being harsh at first, but the criticisms against my endeavors were continually hostile (and against Wiki policy of not biting newcomers and assuming good faith) and in effect curbed my ability to focus on editing, which is why I created an account after being a reader for many years. If you will look at my comments, editing and so forth, from the time of my one day ban until now, you will see that I have been at all times civil, but that does not preclude voicing my suspicions about possible misbehavior on the part of others. I smelled the socks before anyone else and I still smell them. I am not going to remain silent about it. I would be glad to be wrong as the article that is the focus of all the contention is a personal bio from a marginal individual with little to no notability. It is quite obvious to me that this report is just another attempt to get me banned so GregJackP wont have to address the inherent problems in the article itself. I suspect GregJackP of actually being a sock or meatpuppet of the subject of the article, Donald G. Martin, and respectfully request a checkuser on him to preclude the possibility that he is a sock or more likely a meat puppet, or friend of Martin's, judging from his comments and familiarity with the individual. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Comment - I was initially involved with this issue and started the first AN/I thread. After a review what has transpired over the past couple of months (I haven't paid much attention to it), I must say that I am terribly disappointed in Nineteen Nightmare's behavior. I felt like NN learned from the AN/I that no one was out to get him and that no one had any personal problems with Valley Entertainment Monthly. The article was userfied in order for NN to find additional sources that demonstrated notability, a guideline I thought NN had taken the time to understand. But faced with another AfD in which additional editors thought the article still failed to demonstrate notability, NN has become hostile again. What good does it do accusing editors acting in good faith of sock/meatpuppetry or saying that others are behaving like idiots? These are continued violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Is a longer block (one week) necessary so that NN can take some time to review these and other salient policies? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone would address the antagonistic behavior being directed at me, I would not be so ticked off about all this nonsense. Please let's make this clear that all this stuff has been a tempest in a teacup and amounts to attempts to silence me, so the Martin piece can be restored and we can all read about his land developments and lawsuits. Yeah, I'm feeling pretty sarcastic right now and sorry to disappoint you because you have been a good guy and I always appreciate your feedback. I will try and cool the rhetoric, but how about someone address my concerns in the AfD for Valley Entertainment Monthly? They have all been very vocal about what they think it wrong, but two solid refs are all the site demands in the first place for notability and the article has them. We're supposed to be concerned with content but no one answers my serious concerns and instead continues to make these kinds of reports. It is fairly apparent, isn't it, that they are just playing an "us and them" game? Personally, I am disgusted by it, Wikipedia should stop it, and if you ban me, then you can expect that article to have no one to actually make sure it doesn't end up selling the man's real estate for him again, and again, for free. So, you see my concerns are about content, but they remain unanswered. If these people were genuinely interested in following Wiki standards, they would offer advice on what is wrong, not attempt to tag and delete everything they find, then report me when I voice an objection because they don't like my arguments or perhaps the words I use. I don't consider any of my suspicions to be unfounded. They are based on patterns, just like when I suspected socks and said so early on. In fact, GregJackP got me banned the first time by lying about my behavior and the suspending editor never bothered to get my side of it, which was another punitive annoyance. I really can't understand how Wiki can even operate under such conditions and I hope this kind of thing changes so an editor could actually get some work done here without other's taking manipulative potshots. If you do not understand this, and still think I am just spouting off for no reason, I guess there's no more to say. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Support. Exhaustive and exhausting advocate of a non-notable subject. A far more effective case could have been made just by finding a few solid sources, and removing all the fluff. Communications have been contentiousness, with accusations and insults; user can't abide by not getting their way, and reacts by creating WP:WIKIDRAMA on multiple fronts. In addition to edits noted above, early on on there was this message [40], which struck me as unusual for accusing me of not understanding the guidelines, given the continued self-description as a newbie editor. Contentious from the start [41], [42], [43]. JNW (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, my fellow Wikipedians, but - What are you actually supporting here? Someone propose action, and we might be able to agree/disagree!  Chzz  ►  19:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point -- I did not know what the culmination of a Wikiquette notice was, so I was expressing my support for whatever actions could be taken to remedy the problem behavior. I will look at the proposals below. Thanks. -- Minor4th (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Block proposal

Proposal: Since an actual proposal hasn't been given above, despite the numerous "supports", I thought I would specify one here for discussion. I propose that the user User:Nineteen Nightmares be blocked from editing for a period of 3 months or so (which I think it appropriate given his history and his continued behaviour), and would also recommend an indefinite topic ban on Donald G. Martin and Valley Entertainment Monthly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Note to reviewers: Please be aware that 19Nightmares does not have an extensive block history and has only been blocked once and for 24 hours. Also note that at least half-a-dozen editors voting below are heavily involved in the underlying dispute with this user. Sarah 01:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nom. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. GregJackP (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, rationale above. JNW (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Do Not Support I would ask any supervising editor who reviews this to understand that several of the people who have signed it are on one side of a contentious DVR while I am on the other. The motivation here appears to be to silence me completely through a ban as the article they are arguing for is a vanity piece and I am the primary person who has been shouting about it for two weeks until if finally got some attention and was deleted. In addition, I am only here to enjoy and help to improve Wikipedia when I can. All the other stuff is fluff, and these editors have constantly gadflied me with nonsensical approaches to dealing with the controversy instead of having a civil, intelligent discussion in the first place. In other words, this whole block proposal is simply an attempt to quiet legitimate criticism. Yes, I have gotten irritated by this behavior and made some sarcastic remarks. I believe anyone who is under constant attack from a group of experienced editors and who himself is new to Wikipedia would probably have the same reaction. Basically, I'm still trying to come up to speed on how the site operates but from what I've seen so far, it is hard to understand how any article ever reaches concensus opinion with all the passive aggressive behavior on the site. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Comment - I have been referred to this WQA by one of the users supporting the block. After having been one of the first users to comment on Nineteen Nightmares' "uncivil behaviour" |here I have been occupied elsewhere and frankly have neither the time nor interest to go through the huge amount of exchanges between the several users involved in this, and related, issues. One thing, however, that does worry me following a random skim through some of the links provided above by the supporters of the block is their seemingly one-sided presentation of the issues at stake. No mention is made, or if there is, I missed it and am willing to stand corrected, of the exchanges at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs), for instance, which have directly or indirectly led to this WQA. My gut-feeling - a luxury afforded me by not having any interest whatsoever of acquiring admin responsibilities in the future - is to bind all the editors involved into committing themselves to not edit any page previously edited by any of the others, except possibly to revert blatant vandalism by third parties. This formula seems to have worked well in other similar situations I have come across. Good luck to the admins who have to take the decisions on this and many other ones. --Technopat (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a great idea. I see no reason for me to edit a page if there isn't someone there trying to use Wikipedia as their own personal sales platform, which is how I see this article. There would also be no need for a ban against me and the rules state a ban is supposed to be preventative and not punitive anyway. So, with that being said, if we can close this article discussion or reach some conclusion, I have nothing more to say about it. My only intent ever was to protect Wikipedia from this type of misuse of the site. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The problem I have with this is that this would result in four or more editors not being able to make constructive arguments to the AfD review discussion as a result of one user's abusive attempts to defame us. I expect that this is exactly what Nightmares is aiming for, which is why he is such a vehement supporter of this suggestion. In any case, it'd completely disrupt process on the review, and the AfD itself already saw enough disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Giftiger and would not voluntarily agree to such restrictions. If one looks at the entire body of edits, I don't think that an admin would find that Giftiger, Minor4th or myself conducted ourselves inappropriately, nor do I think that the three of us should be blocked from editing each others pages. It has not just been the three of us that have had a problem with Nineteen's personal attacks and incivility, and a number of them have also commented on the issue. GregJackP (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Again, in good faith am beginning to have reservations about what increasingly seems to be a concerted effort by the proposing editors. If the editors in question have already made their contributions to the AfD, I see no further need for them to worry. Besides, the proposal obviously refers to edit warring on articles, not AfDs, etc. Huh? Am also concerned about one editor's upfront refusal to abide by suggestion i.e. informal proposal for arbitration, the details of which would obviously be set out by an admin. (Forgot to sign my comment)--Technopat (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the AfD or edit warring, it is about repeated personal attacks and incivility. I have outlined what has happened and documented it - why would I voluntarily agree to a ban without having done anything inappropriate? I have yet to be warned for misconduct of any type and have tried to conduct myself appropriately. If I have done otherwise, then of course I would be agreeable to some sort of admin action, but I'm not going to volunteer for punishment where I haven't done anything. GregJackP (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- I would agree to stay away from NN's edits and his talk page if he stays away from my talk page and discontinues to make accusations about me by user name. Minor4th (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - No, I don't think the proposal has anything to do with edit warring in the slightest. Minor4th (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have no stake in the Don Martin page. I think that the editor's actions as described above, including their hypothetical suggestion to reveal another editor's conflict of interest to local media, speaks for itself. JNW (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Several of Martin's socks also voted delete before changing their votes to keep on the first AfD. Does that seem peculiar? In any case, Martin has been very adept at making his socks appear like independent editors. Not saying that is what is happening, just trying to address your comment. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

With the notable exception that he used the same IP address for all of them, as well as behaving in a similar way in all cases, and a checkuser confirmed all socks and they were all blocked. As I have said before, I invite you to take a look at my contribution history, Minor4th's contribution history, GregJackP's contribution history, and anyone else who you disagree with and therefore decide to accuse of sockpuppetry. You'll find that we all have significant and varied edit histories, and there is quite literally no basis whatsoever for an SPI, and certainly no basis for the persistent defamatory comments you have left about all of us. In any case this is a separate issue and the discussion of Martin's various socks is not relevant to the proposal and it is not a defense for your clear history of personal attacks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Look, I really would prefer to have a civil discussion like two adults. You say something, I answer or try to, etc. and hopefully we resolve whatever issue is in front of us. Anyway, I've asked the three of you repeatedly why you are so adamant the piece be kept. He just doesn't seem notable much at all. More like his 15 minutes of fame and he wants an article out of it. I don't get it, but I would like to know why you, Minor4th and GregJackP are fighting so hard for this one. I promise to try and keep civil here, but I would appreciate if you could make an effort to better communicate your thoughts, too. There seems to be a lot of mystery. But that doesn't mean Im opposed to admitting a mistake. If you are not socks, then I can accept it, but your behavior has appeared to mirror the subject's own. This whole thing has obviously been frustrating for a lot of folks, including me. If you are not a sock, I do apologize and will readily admit such things if they are indeed verified or explained. It also seems a lot of the confusion around Wikipedia is related to lack of communication but not sure we can do much about it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Nightmares, I realise that this has been a frustrating process but the veritable mountain of personal attacks you've made simply isn't acceptable, and being civil for the duration of this AN/I report isn't going to negate that. As I have stated several times, and I might add, never in anything less than a civil tone, all of us have made our views very clear, as well as carefully justifying our reasons. You have made numerous arguments which amount to "I don't like it", and there is very clear evidence for that above. I still plan to support the block since frankly your actions have been totally unacceptable despite my attempts to reason with you. If the block is carried through, I hope that the experience will serve to help you recognise these mistakes and not repeat them in future. I have no issue with you providing you keep future communication civil and observe policy, and I would encourage you to edit constructively following whatever block is actioned, if this nomination is indeed actioned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be taking a WP:Wikibreak anyway. Good luck with everything and I'm glad you are not a sock. You still have not answered the question of why you want to keep it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

If you read my comments on the AfD and the review more carefully, and especially if you look through the previous consensus discussions, you will find that I have very carefully and very completely described my viewpoint of why this article should be kept per wikipedia policy. I suggest you read these comments if you want answers, because I do not feel I need to explain any more times than I have already, and in any case this is not relevant to the AN/I discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

19N, I have asked you to look at the talkpage of the article in question where I was in opposition to Dmarinaus and his socks on the lawsuit section, I initiated the SPI on him and his socks, a checkuser did not show any connection with myself (or Minor4th/Giftiger) and Dmarinaus, I have asked you not to continue to repeat your unsubstantiated allegations of sock/meat puppetry, I have warned you about it, etc. None of it has stopped what I believe to be unacceptable behavior on your part, nor brought on any degree of civility that I could discern. I support the block proposal. GregJackP (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support for a block. Despite numerous warnings, a previous AN/I thread, and a lot of patience from other users, NN continues to disregard Wikipedia policies. Given that he has not in the past two months learned to interact with other editors in a civil manner, then I feel a block is, unfortunately, necessary. We have all spent way too much time dealing with this WP:DRAMA. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support for a block per nom. I think something shorter than three months is more appropriate. I'd say a week or two and then monitor. I'm concerned that NN still does not have any insight into his own bad behavior and apparently thinks he has done nothing inappropriate since he was last blocked. Minor4th (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 3 months might be too long. 2-3 weeks might be more appropriate. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the repeat performance after the last block, as well as the number of warnings the user has ignored, I'm not sure that 2-3 weeks will be long enough to have a good chance of really stopping the behaviour. But I am flexible with my views on that, and in any case if it continues after a 2-week or so block, a longer block could be implemented later. I'm still in favour of around 3 months, but I have no real objection to it being 2 weeks instead if that is what consensus decides. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support a shorter block (two or three weeks) and I would urge Nineteen Nightmares to get a mentor, because his behaviour has been very poor, so far. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC) - Changed my mind; it's now a conditional support, see below. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support for a block. The thing that struck me as really strange about 19 nightmares was as soon as he got the original reprieve from AfD to fix the sources in his article (and after he doled out a few barnstars) to would be allies, he began deleting other peoples articles, showing no compassion for anyone. However now he certainly feels sorry for himself when things do not go his way...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I believe we've essentially snowballed that there should be a block, but it seems split as to the length of the block; can we discuss that a bit more thoroughly? I invite those contributors who have supported without modifying the nominated block period to also discuss what length would be most suitable. I'm also wondering about opinions on the proposed additional topic ban. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, what you have is a consensus of mostly involved users and that's not a consensus that we recognise. Sarah 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree there. Support from unrelated parties has been shown by Salvio, Modernist, Pdcook, Technopat, and others. I would also like to strongly emphasise that this is about recent personal attacks made against myself, Minor4th, and GregJackP and has no relation to the AfD or review discussions; the issue is with his behaviour, not his opinions on the topic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Salvio seems to be the only one on that list not involved at least to some extent and a consensus of one isn't very compelling. I'm not sure who the "and others" covers but Modernist was involved in the dispute over the newspaper and Pdcook has acknowledged involvement in his comment. Modernist, Technopat, and Pdcook were involved enough for Greg to think they warranted notification of this discussion. Sarah 03:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A section has been opened at AN/I here - please add any other comments at that location. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of the above items (including my warnings) pre-date the last block so 19Nightmares has already been blocked for them. My observation of the user is that their behaviour has improved markedly since the block. If they've slipped in the last few days, it's probably because they feel under attack and that their article is being unfairly targeted as punishment for editing the Martin article (I don't personally think this but I can certainly understand why 19Nightmares might). I really don't think that a long term block or ban is appropriate given the circumstances. If there are civility issues, I would suggest a civility parole. I also note that most of the people supporting are people involved with Martin or newspaper articles and it's really unfair for them to have such a heavy involvement in this decision. I don't mind them stating their views but community sanctions really need strong input from uninvolved and uninvested parties, not those with a vested interest in getting rid of an opponent. See the Ban policy which explicitly calls for "a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute". Therefore, I call on the closing administrator to weight the views of the half-dozen votes from people involved in underlying disputes with this user. Sarah 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If you could provide a list of users you feel are too involved to contribute to consensus, then that would be helpful. There have clearly been comments from numerous third-party contributors who were not involved in this series of personal attacks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• You're kidding me! As one of the very involved parties, I'm sure that you're fully aware of the fact that the bulk of the people here are involved in disputes with 19Nightmares. If you want a list, a good place to start is with Greg's contributions and the people he notified of this ANI, who then came straight here to rubber stamp their vote on it. And I'm using the word "vote" very deliberately here because that's what you all are doing with your empty "support per nom" type votes. You might not be aware but we don't actually do "Votes for Banning" nor "Votes for Bannishing". Rather, this process is meant to be a conversation which reaches a consensus of uninvolved users. I don't think that I should have to start compiling lists - rather the involved parties should have the personal integrity to be clear in their comments that they're involved in disputes with 19Nightmares, so involved, in fact, that Greg notified them about this discussion, and then leave it to uninvolved users to decide how to proceed. Sarah 02:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have no idea whether three weeks or three months is enough time to encourage behavior modification--but I don't think we're discussing a cooling off period--this is a long term and unrelenting mode, not a sudden flash of anger. I'm not clear that 19 has done damage to articles, so I don't know that I'd support a ban on topics. The issue seems to be a kind of insistent ownership, which can be transferred to other topics, and results in notably aggressive reactions whenever challenged, and the belief that there is a vendetta. That didn't start with the Martin article; it's been there from the first challenges to the valley paper. I'm most troubled by today's threat to contact the media in order to publicize another, blocked, editor's self-promotion. Boundaries aren't understood and guidelines are abused, and the user's 'newness' is continuously invoked as an explanation. Since I was involved in the newspaper article, my thoughts can be weighed appropriately. JNW (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, Sarah, even without the earlier (pre-block) activity, he has shown remarkably uncivil behavior with personal attacks. Since the ban he has:

• Accused GregJackP of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Accused Giftiger of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Accused Minor4th of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Called Dmartinaus an idiot, how he "slimed, cheated and faked" and then threatened to notify a local Austin newspaper about Martin's conduct.
• Characterized Dmartinaus as "this stuffed shirt from Texas."

Those involved in the earlier cases have also commented, and are concerned about 19Ns long-term pattern of behavior. As far as a vested interest, it appears that the DRV is heading for an endorse, which I will accept as the consensus decision. I don't agree with it, but that is how it is supposed to work. Whether 19N is here or not will not make a difference on that outcome, and there is no need to silence him on that basis. I would have hoped that you AGF on our part, but if not, that is OK too. I certainly don't think that a civility parole is appropriate based on the threat to contact Austin newspapers. In any event, if I'm correct, this needs to stay open for a while anyway to make sure that uninvolved editors and admins can look at it, evaluate it, and make their recommendations. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(Addit)In light of the diff below, this is even more objectionable - that's no threat to contact the papers, it's a warning about the reality of what could happen to someone engaging in the behaviour Martin has here. This doesn't have a single thing to do with assuming good faith - it's purely about treating people fairly by complying with the banning policy. Whether you think you have anything to gain from getting rid of an opponent is meaningless, the fact remains that you and the others above are heavily involved in disputes with this fellow and policy requires a consensus of uninvolved users for community sanctions. You're entitled to state your opinion and present evidence but you need to accept that the decision comes from the uninvolved community. I actually don't blame him for those sock/meat puppet views as I reached similar suspicions entirely on my own when I first read the AFD and became involved with the Martin dispute and I very nearly included a couple of the accounts he's now apparently expressed suspicions about in my SPI evidence. I don't think they're socks of Martin or they would have come up in the check of Martin's IP, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there are other socks being run here. You don't present diffs so I can't actually check what he wrote (a major problem when you quote and paraphrase people out of context and don't provide diffs for people to read the comments in full themselves) but I don't see a problem with raising concerns that involved parties may be running puppets especially when their behaviour is entirely inexplicable and baffling - that's why we have an SPI in the first place. The only possible problem is the manner in which he does it. I certainly agree that he can be incivil and abrasive and that's why I think a civility parole should be tried before we even talk about banning someone. Yes, I'm not surprised that you don't want to try a civility parole. You're probably the most "involved" of all the involved users and I don't blame you for being exasperated and fed up but bans should be a last resort. We have here someone who has been blocked ONCE - for 24 hours only! And you want to jump from that straight into a ban! If we're going to make such a dramatic jump, there needs to be very clear with no questions about fairness and that's only going to happen if there's a consensus of uninvolved people. Thus I urge you and the others to leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins. We see above attempts to declare that a ban proposal is "snowballed" on the basis of a group which is at least 90% involved people and the claim that the only issue remaining in question is the duration. This is completely unacceptable. We do not allow people involved with disputes with a user to shepherd and push through a ban in this way. If uninvolved admins review the evidence and conclude that a ban is appropriate, I will support that. However, I will not accept a ban that is heavily driven by the group of people so heavily involved. Look, I've been very critical of 19Nightmare's behaviour, I've given him very stern warnings, I've refused to unblock him, and I've got no interest in protecting him from his actions. But I insist that all users are treated fairly and I'm not going to abide a ban that violates the banning policy. Sarah 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Please provide a diff for the threat to contact newspapers - that's the first I've heard of it and I can't find any evidence above for it. It's very unhelpful this business you have of making allegations but not giving us a diffs so we can check for ourselves, thus requiring us to completely accept your interpretation. This isn't the way ANI works. Read the instructions at the top - we require diffs so we can review the evidence for ourselves. Sarah 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

[44] "How would your major Austin newspaper feel about this as a story? About how this "big time," highly respected PR firm owner just slimed, cheated and faked his way through adding his own puff article to Widipedia. Honestly, I'm full exhausted with your subjective babble and repeated denials about your behavior. Get it together or just edit your own website, where we know you are Superman. You are not going to be allowed to use Wikipedia to further your own selfish interests. Not while I'm around, sorry." <------ by NineteenNightmares. There are many diffs in the Wikiquette notice posted by GregJackP that is copied above. -- Minor4th (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the diff, Minor. But I'm not sure why that's being painted as a "threat to notify a local Austin newspaper". It's plainly a rhetorical question and a hypothetical headline and it's a very important message Martin needs to fully absorb and appreciate. The press do monitor what happens here and what people get up to and there have been numerous scandals in the press as a result of people doing exactly what Martin has done here. I have warned people about this exact thing myself and I hinted at it with Martin in my comments warning him that his activities here are publicly viewable. So I don't find that message objectionable and I think it's very misleading to paint it as a "threat". As is often the case with 19 Nightmares, the problem is not the message (which isn't remotely a threat) but the abrasiveness and incivility of his words. Which is why a civility parole and incremental blocks should be tried before long-term blocks and bans Sarah 03:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Noting here for the record that 19Nightmares has clarified he was not making threats." title="Linkification: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartinaus&diff=prev&oldid=369081870">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartinaus&diff=prev&oldid=369081870. Sarah 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

When I read it, it looked like a threat to me, and obviously others took it that way as well. Perhaps it's because of NN's persistent caustic and horrible behavior whenever anyone disagrees with him. I see that the comment was later explained by him as not intending a threat but merely cautioning Dmartinaus that his bad behavior is out there for the world to see -- and I don't disagree with that. Did you read the rest of the comment? There's no excusing that kind of behavior. For instance, in the same comment: "And no one is going to take the "author" thing seriously because someone borrowed some cards from your collection for a book and you added the cutlines." and " You have absolutely wasted my time and other's time to puff yourself up with a Wikipedia article. " and "Get it together or just edit your own website, where we know you are Superman. ". By the way, I suggested a much shorter block, so I feel I was a little unfairly caught up in your broad brush strokes. His abrasiveness and incivility is exactly the problem as you've stated, and that is the reason this discussion is being had. By the way, I am a relative newcomer myself and did not know that as an involved editor I was supposed to refrain from commenting on behavior that was directed at me. Good night. Minor4th (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course I've read it. As I've said multiple times now, I'm not opposed to blocking when he lets loose but they should be incremental and not merely jump from 24 hours straight to a ban. Civility blocks per se are controversial here and to go from a block log of one 24 hour block to a ban without incremental blocks or a civility parole is extraordinary. I'm not remotely opposed to appropriate blocking when warranted. I am however opposed to allowing content opponents determine the fate of their opposition. Sarah 04:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- I also want to say to Sarah that I think your rant to GregJackP above was really unfair. For one thing, you're an admin, and your criticisms and comments directed at non-admin editors are taken with a bit more weight -- you chastised him for not providing a diff to the threat to notify Austin newspapers, but he clearly did provide the diff in his opening notice. You made a blanket accusation that he didn't provide diffs so you can't check his behavior yourself, but in GregJackP's opening comment, I counted 19 diffs. From your comments, it seems you have not read the diffs that were provided as evidence of Nightmare's latest acts of incivility and personal attacks. It is true I am an "involved" editor only because I have been the target of numerous attacks from Nightmare, and they continue through today. I do not think it is improper for editors who have been attacked to comment on the behavior of the editor who levelled the attacks. GregJackP started this discussion on the Wikiquette page and it was suggested by another editor that a proposed solution should be made so that we could agree or disagree. Stating that one supports action against a persistently virulent editor in no way suggests that anyone is trying to circumvent admin functions or whatever it is your're reprimanding Greg for. Further, I am dismayed that you have just given credence to Nightmare's outlandish accusations of sockpuppetry against GregJackP or Giftiger or myself. Please read the diffs. The behavior actually speaks for itself, and may I also note that you too are an "involved" editor just as much as any of us. --Minor4th (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This board - and admins - are extremely busy and you MUST cite diffs with claims if you expect us to take some piece of information into consideration - it's non-negotiable. Greg gave me paraphrasings of messages and he didn't provide a single diff with them, nor did he tell me he had posted diffs elsewhere or where to find them. You can't expect us to try to figure out if someone has posted a diff amongst numerous other diffs elsewhere on this page. I key-word searched the page for "newspaper" but couldn't find any diffs or even any explanation of these claimed threats and if that's not enough for an admin to find relevant diffs, there's something very wrong with the way the material is being presented. And the reason we don't accept un-diff'd quotes and paraphrasings is exactly highlighted in this case - Greg claimed 19Nightmares' threatened to contact the press and he used this alleged threat to justify jumping from one 24 hour block to a ban and to dismiss the usual path of a civility parole, yet when the diff came to light, the "threat" looked rather different to what was decribed. "I do not think it is improper for editors who have been attacked to comment on the behavior of the editor who levelled the attacks." I'm not sure what that's about but no one has said that people attacked have no right to comment. Sarah 04:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah, GregJackP's diffs are in the report of the incident you're responding to, not "amongst numerous other diffs elsewhere on this page." Instead of reading the opening AN/I report, you parachuted in to NN's defense and immediately took issue with a couple of editors on an assumption of bad faith. For instance you called our behavior on other discussions "entirely inexplicable and baffling" when you suggested that we may be Martin's puppets; accused GregJackP of subverting process by voting for a lengthy ban (which he didn't), and on and on. You keep touting fairness of process, but you are not living up to your own standard. One has to wonder if content opposition is influencing your neutrality on this issue. Now, for the sake of my own enjoyment on Wiki, I am leaving this and all related discussions because as others have mentioned, there has been far too much time wasted. Again, good night. Minor4th (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Sarah, I'm going to try and address some of your comments calmly and civilly. First, if you have the evidence to support including me in a sockpuppet investigation, then please file the request, but innuendo about it, while not as blatant as 19Ns, is still a problem with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you feel that way, you should file the case with your evidence. Otherwise, you should not insinuate that about editors. I'm not worried about the outcome because I know that I'm not either, but as an admin, you should hold yourself to high standards in that area. Second, I did not bring up a block, nor did I refer this to AN/I - I took it to WQA. I also did not suggest any period of time for a block, but considering that you suggested a block on him in your warning (diff above), I find it extremely strange that now you are against any type of block. Third, you are as involved as any of the rest of us - having been given a barnstar by 19N on June 13th and by giving him advice on your talkpage. If our input is to be disregarded, then yours should also be disregard as being just as involved. Fourth, I notified everyone that was mentioned in the original WQA - which included you, 19N, and Technopat, all of whom have taken positions in opposition (as expected based on the DRV discussion). No one was trying to stack the discussion - as I stated earlier, it should remain open for discussion for non-involved editors to give their input. Fifth, you jump on me for notifying involved editors, yet I don't see a comment from you that your were involved, nor that you were notified by me. It goes both ways. Sixth, you ask for the diffs - they were all provided in the initial posting - it is not my fault that you apparently did not read them. You didn't view 19Ns comments as a threat, but Martin did (on his talk page), as did a number of others that read the comments, especially when you consider the same comment called him a number of names and was insulting in nature. Seventh, you stated that involved editors should not vote, but it's OK for you to do so as an admin, when you're just as involved? How so? You've been involved for a good while. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd also note that these personal attacks started from the very start of the initial AfD discussion, with extremely rude and insulting comments from the individual, which I was very lenient with. I only started warning him after the 3rd or 4th occasion, when the attacks were severe enough to warrant a couple of them being removed and replaced with an explanatory note regardless of the fact that this was on Afd. I forgave that since a couple of weeks passed while I was inactive however, and issued more informal warnings for him to stop, and yet despite the fact that I didn't start template-warning him until the 3rd or 4th instance again, it reached a final warning in the end. And that's ignoring comments he made inbetween, such as the personal attacks he made to Dmartinaus' user talk page which I couldn't warn him about as they had been made before my previous warning. I think it's clear he's a pretty severe offender and repeated offender and I'm wondering whether you are opposing the block because you honestly don't believe that he has made sufficient personal attacks to warrant a block, or simply because you don't feel we should be participating in the process, as you stated previously. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'm opposing for two reasons. I fully agree there are problems with 19Nightmares's behaviour, but we have methods for dealing with that (civility paroles, topic and interaction bans, short and incremental blocks etc) which don't require us to jump straight into a long term ban and these options should be exhausted first because such lengthy blocks are a last resort, not a first. I'm not opposed to a reasonable block if there have been further civility violations, but 19Nightmares has only been blocked once and that was only for 24 hours, a very short block, so this 3 month ban with an indefinite topic ban is extraordinarily excessive and coupled with the fact that it's coming from his opponents on those very same topics they want him banned forever from and I find it completely unacceptable. If his behaviour is so problematic, users should be reporting (with diffs, not mere quotes and paraphrasing) so admins can review and block incrementally. This hasn't happened so the point hasn't been driven home about the tolerance for such behaviour. Secondly, it's unacceptable having involved users push through a longterm block and an indefinite ban for their opponent. As I've said, the banning policy is very clear that bans require a consensus of uninvolved users. Frankly, involved users should only present evidence and give their opinion but not actually be voting because their "consensus" is irrelevant and their "votes", without even declaring they're involved, corrupt the whole process and lead other people to believe that there's a large amount of uninvolved support for a ban so they just go along with it. It's completely tainted and unfair. You ask "whether...[I] honestly don't believe that he has made sufficient personal attacks to warrant a block". I fully agree there are civility issues and could well warrant another block (I'd have to have a close look at the diffs since the last block), however, such a block should increase incrementally (since the last one was 24 hours, I'd suggest a week), not jump straight into a long term ban. Sarah 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Sarah above. I think she makes the most sense. I must say that 19Nightmares brought up many legit points in his defense that I agree with. I can understand how he feels. It appears to me that he is very much under attack by his opponents and was frustrated, which is normal. However he feels, it's no reason to punish him or silence him. I should also point out that the block proposal is a bad idea in my opinion. Caden ^cool 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I EC'd a bit too, whilst seeking the right words... the following is probably still wrong, but if I do not post it now, it might never 'take';

• Support the specific proposal for a 3 month block.Not as 'cooling off' but, to protect Wikipedia from harm, based upon recent contribs. Also - it should go without saying - with no comment regarding any subsequent unblock request, in which the user might explain why their unblocking would not cause further disruption; to me, it is clear that a block is an appropriate action, and should have already happened; the correct forum for a discussion of unblocking is via an unblock request. I believe that I am a neutral party in this matter; I have come across the users contribs (via Mr. Wales' talk), but that is all.

19, if you're reading this please remember: I am one of those who does not 'bite the newbies' - I try very hard to help new users. I understand your frustration, I really do - but resorting to personal comments does not further the cause of Wikipedia. I make this !vote without any prejudgement; I truly hope that you will come back and interact in a collegiate manner. I support the specific proposal - you've (recently) harmed the project, and two wrongs do not make a right. If you can explain to an admin in an unblock request why it would not do harm to remove the block, that would be all well-and-good; I really hope you understand what I am saying here. Even if others don't "play by the rules", I do.

Your user page is WP:POINT -y, and borderline WP:NPA; My biggest suggestion for "fixin" Wikipedia would be to vet all editors and block the seemingly 90% of people who are here to harrass under guise of site protection while in reality they've done nothing but cause a lot of confusion. and dozens of Wiki editors and only one that was willing to go beyond crude criticisms and actually be constructive - I accept that this is not personal, but it is an attack against the Wikipedian demographic grouping.

Yes, Wikipedia is not perfect. Yes, it has many, many huge problems. However, I encourage you to "fix the problem from within" - work with your fellow Wikipedians, not against them.

As always, I advise caution and relaxation - it's only a damn website, after all. Let's chat, eh, and figure out how to fix this? But play nice. Chzz  ►  01:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support three-month week ban block; however, I do not support the indefinite topic ban, but instead suggest a one-year month topic ban on Donald G. Martin and Valley Entertainment Monthly, as indefinite topic bans are almost nearly unhelpful, no matter what the situation is. (Note that I am a neutral editor that has not been involved with this conflict before I read this on ANI.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• 19Nightmares has only ever been blocked once and for 24 hours. It is very excessive, to say the least, to jump from a one single 24 hour block to a ban. Very excessive and very unusual. People who get banned for civility related issues usually have a list of blocks and other options have been exhausted. We have other options and tools available which we would ordinarily try before moving to ban someone. Sarah 01:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• My fault, I meant block, not ban. I've edited my post. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've also fixed some of the time lengths. I made a mistake with the time lengths; I've shortened them, as I had intended. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Three months isn't just excessive, it's ludicrous. I can see the evidence that this user has been thoughtless and overzealous, but as far as I can tell from his contributions so far, he's basically here to help build an encyclopaedia. He seems quite passionate about it. We do need specific measures to instil thoughtfulness and respect, because talk page messages clearly aren't doing the trick.—S Marshall T/C 03:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Of Two Minds Here This seems to be a continuing and recent trend of behavior, and by this point the user should know better, but a block that long with a ban on top of it seems to be an invitation to make sockpuppets. If that happened and Nightmares is stupid enough to use the same IP, then consider it darwinism on the reblock, but if the user has only had a 24 hour block so far, there's no point in giving that good of an excuse to engage in that behavior. Whenever a negative user gets enough of an excuse to engage in even more negative behavior, they'll use it. A block only works when it is a wakeup call for the user to change their behavior. Nightmare's behavior needs to change if they wish to remain on Wikipedia, and I hope it does because every user has the potential to be valuable to the project. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to politely say to all uninvolved editors that I will certainly respect whatever the concensus is on the block/ban issue and I will not be creating socks, with my IP or otherwise. I'll just go back to reading Wiki, which is the best part of being here anyway. I am just hoping the supervising admin on this one takes his time to see the truth of it all. Its been quite an awakening. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Comment I think this has already been a huge waste of my weekend, and I'm going to wash my hands of it now; I have given my views, and I have no intention of continuing to fight tooth and nail with Sarah (who I might add, is just as involved as anyone else, and has also shown that she hasn't actually looked at the diffs which she claimed haven't been provided) to defend those views, which I have already justified. Whatever your definition of "involved", I don't honestly believe there is any doubt that consensus is indicating that the user should be blocked, the question now is how long that should be; even Sarah, the primary (and quite vocal) opposition to this nom, has stated that a (shorter) ban may be appropriate. In light of the suggestion by MC10 that an indefinite topic ban rarely works, and would like to indicate that the topic ban should be reduced to six months. I still hold that the block should be for three months, per my own nom and per Chzz' explanation above. I have made my viewpoint known, and I'm going to bow out from the discussion now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. It's unreasonable to claim that there was a threat to report another user to the newspapers, to use that as justification for dismissing my suggestion to implement a civility parole with incremental blocks, insisting instead on jumping from a 24 hour block to a 3 month ban with an indef topic ban, and not provide a diff next to the claim. I did, in fact, read all the diffs presented in the opening post (which is how I knew that diffs predating the last block were included) but there was no threat to contact newspapers in any diffs I read (and as it turns out that's because no such threat existed). No admin is going to accept such a claim without a diff clearly backing it up. Claiming now that it's evidence that I didn't bother looking at the diffs is absurd, unfair and yet another assumption of bad faith. I have never pretended to be uninvolved. I blocked Martin, I blocked his socks, I refused to unblock 19 Nightmares, I've acted as an administrator on the Martin page and related pages. I've never claimed or implied I was uninvolved, but I'm not the one trying to orchestrate a ban for someone I've been in disputes with. I have said several times that I have no problem with blocks being used appropriately but it needs to be fair and measured. I do not think a 3 month ban and indefinite topic ban for someone with a single 24 hour block in their log is remotely fair without a very special, compelling reason, which doesn't seem to exist in this case. And seeing a group of involved people tell each other to come here and then try to push through such an unusually and irregularly harsh penalty against their opponent with 'Votes for Banning' type comments, with the person making the proposal, who is also a very involved party, declaring two hours in that the proposal was snowballed and the only question remaining was duration, all on the basis of one uninvolved person and half-a-dozen involved people who were messaged to come here, it's just not right. The banning policy is very clear and explicit that a ban requires a consensus of uninvolved users and you'll just be giving 19Nightmares a very credible rationale for appealing if you (collectively) don't allow that to happen. Sarah 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is not unreasonable - at least three separate editors and the subject took the comment as a thinly veiled threat. You freely accuse others of not assuming good faith, but you should look in the mirror. You have assumed bad faith on my part at this AN/I (see [45], [46], [47]) and in the DRV (see [48]). I could post others, but you have consistently assumed bad faith on my part and ignored my attempts to explain when I first learned of your concerns - please stop assuming bad faith on my part. You have made insinuations of sock and meat puppetry, without providing any evidence of the same when asked by two of the individuals that you insinuated that about. You have misstated facts - I did not seek a ban or block. I took this to WQA and the instructions on that page explicitly state that it is not for block. It was brought here by another editor at the suggestion of yet a third editor. I did not propose a block, but I did support it. You comment on the fact that I notified individuals of the WQA as if I were trying to round up votes - I notified everyone that was referenced in the original posting at the WQA. You omit the fact that I also notified you and Technopat - who could hardly be expected to take the same position I was. I brought inappropriate conduct up for review. That's it. Please stop assuming bad faith on the part of others while you are doing the same. It causes me at least to have serious doubts about your neutrality and fairness in this matter. At this point I'm tired of it - you can block me or ban me or whatever, but it is not appropriate for a Admin to use their position to shut up those on the other side with thinly veiled statements regarding sock puppetry and bad faith, but not to explain to them why they think that, and why they think it is appropriate to basically tell them to shut up and go away when they try to ask you about your so-called evidence. Do what you will with this. GregJackP (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Nineteen Nightmares picked up on my proposal to get a mentor and, although I hand't meant myself, asked me. I've told him that I'd be glad to help him. In light of this, I'd change my opinion above from support to conditional support: basically, if this doesn't work, I'll support once again a two or three-week block. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent development and I would fully support a mentorship. It might be worth coupled with a civility parole. Even if a limited block is required, I still think mentorship would be very valuable as 19Nightmares seems to care about content (as S Marshall above noted) and it's very unusual to see someone so new (8 weeks) being proposed for a ban or long term sanctions without the use of lesser remedies being tried first to try to guide and assist them to become valued community members. Sarah 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

I propose that with Nineteen Nightmares requesting mentorship from Salvio, and Salvio having agreed, that we suspend further action unless a problem with the mentorship becomes evident. I propose that Nineteen Nightmares is encouraged but not required to apologise to editors he may have offended and that others involved are encouraged to bury the hatchet.—S Marshall T/C 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I am willing to forgive and forget the attacks providing he modifies his behaviour (immediately). Blocks exist to protect wikipedia from disruptive editors, and despite certain accusations made during this process, I have no desire to silence the user, nor to retaliate to his comments. I am confident that Salvio will be an excellent influence. I recommend however, that if any further personal attacks are made by the user in the near future (say a month), the 2-3 week block endorsed by several users here should be the immediate response. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I clearly support this (and thank all those who are showing confidence in me). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Conditionally support - I concur with Giftiger, am concerned that the behavior will recur. What is the process if that happens? Do we start all over? GregJackP (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Depends what he does. If it's an egregious repetition of the same behaviour, post on AN/I with a link to this diff. Any uninvolved administrator will read this along with the background and understand that the user's on his last chance. But if it's more minor then his mentor's talk page is the place to go. I'd just mention to Giftiger_wunsch and GregJackP that if there are two possible interpretations of anything Nineteen Nightmares says, the onus is on you to assume he means the less offensive one; and also that it may not be a good idea for you to be involved users on lots of AN/I threads in quick succession. Try not to take offence if it's avoidable.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm talking about blatant personal attacks. I am a firm believer in assuming good faith but some of his comments could only be interpreted one way, in my opinion. It's this sort of comment to which I'm referring. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Good idea and good luck to Nineteen Nightmares. Minor4th (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. JNW (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

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

block review of admin fastily's indef block of Threeafterthree

I have had a look at this indefinite block of User:Threeafterthree and unless I am missing something it looks a bit severe. I left a comment at User:Fastily's talkpage but he has added a wiki short break comment. I have had some good exchanges with Threeafterthree and looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions for over four and a half years. Is there perhaps another method we could restrict him for a while without complete rejection? User:KeptSouth and User:Tcncv have also commented in a similar vein. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedily overturn block: I agree that this is a far too extreme reaction. I haven't looked in great detail at the edits, but based on the discussion, the edits did not appear particularly severe, the user was never warned as far as I can see, and the user also has an extensive history of making minor constructive edits. Unless I am missing something drastic, I believe this block should be speedily overturned and the user warned. If problems persist, by all means reinstate a block: but a fairly short one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. As to your comment "the user was never warned as far as I can see", that may have misled some people whose comments follow your comment below. Of course he was warned. Multiple times. He simply prefers -- as is his right -- to delete warnings from his talk page. That may, understandably, have misled you into thinking he was not warned ... but your impression and statement are incorrect.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did also take a quick look over the history and didn't see any warnings; could you provide diffs of these warnings? In any case, my intention was not to confuse other editors, and I would hope that anyone commenting on such a serious matter would check for themselves rather than going by what I've observed, which may or may not be correct. Diffs would certainly be helpful to show recent warnings, however. But in any case this doesn't change my view that the indefinite block was overkill. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand you could have missed them, if you didn't look at his talk page edit history deletions, in which he removed his warnings from public view. If you do look at his deletions, even limiting yourself to warnings he received the very day of his block, the following same-day-as-block warnings by more than one editor fairly jump out at you: June 17 warning for deleting talk page contents, June 17 warning, and June 17 final warning. The fact that nobody corrected you on this page suggests to me that nobody noted the fact that the editor had indeed been warned three times the very same day before he committed his last offense (again deleting the comments of another editor, who disagreed with him, from an article talk page), and all people had to go on was your (good faith) incorrect assertion that he appeared not to have received proper warnings.

Note, as well, that he has been blocked for the same "editing/deleting other editors' talk page comments" before. While I've limited my comments to his blocks and his edits leading to this block, other editors have made bald assertions characterizing his efforts as otherwise helpful. But, in response, one need only look at his recent post-block behavior to see the opposite is true. And that even prior to his block date, he was warned by other editors for disruptive behavior here by DD2K on May 17 "Tom, you need to quit altering other users comments and self-revert. This is not helpful to the project at all, and using the excuse you are using (notaforum) is not backed up by the facts. Just stop deleting other editors comments unless there are grievous violations (BLP etc).", here by Scjessey on May 17 "Editing the comments of others ... With all due respect, leave my comment alone. It is a perfectly legitimate response to specific requests for a criticism section. ... selectively removing my comments will not be tolerated" and "Virtually all of the WP:FORUM-related deletions you make are directed toward points of view you obviously disagree with", Dayewalker on May 17 "Scjessey's comment does deal with the criticism section... Picking one comment from a larger section, and then removing it three times seems one-sided. In any case, Scjessey's comments do actually address the article." Some on this page have sought to characterize editor as squeaky clean rather than disruptive, suggesting that his six blocks don't reflect disruptive activity. Clearly, these comments from just last month reflect an editor who, having been warned and blocked for removing others's comments from talkpages, happily continued in the disruptive activity, not just on the date he was blocked, but at other times as well subsequent to his last block.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this is certainly no personal criticism of Fastily, I have had some interaction with this sysop in the past and I have never had an objection with any of his actions that I've seen, but we all make mistakes and I think he acted a little rashly here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked for 72 hours. Removing talk page comments is something that Threeafterthree has done before and has been warned about, and 72 hours is an escalation of their recent block of edit warring. An indef block for removing two questionable talk page comments is not a proportional response. Fences&Windows 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Block as originally issued was proper, and Fences' revert without proper discussion was clearly improper. I think the original block was completely deserved. This editor has been blocked a number of times before. Included has been a block for precisely the same behavior that he was warned of here, and continued to engage in, vis-a-vis multiple editors on the same day. He is way too experienced, and has been warned and blocked way too many times, to be excused as a newbie, or anything other than intentional callous disregard for the rules of wikipedia and intentional disruption of the project -- yet again. 72 hours for the sixth block? I don't think so. This is intolerable behavior from a master edit warrior and ignorer of the rules of wikipedia. Not someone who should be coddled, and not someone who Fences should revert another sysop on -- certainly in the absence of input from the sysop and fulsome input here (Only 21 minutes of discussion? Seriously?).

This master violator of wikipedia rules has been blocked variously for 24 hours, 48 hours, 55 hours, 1 week, and 1 month prior to Fastily's meting out the ban. Fences not only railroads through a reversal of a highly respected sysop's ban with 21 minutes of discussion, and without input from the sysop, but dials it back to 72 hours given that history of rampant abuse, level of punishment, and continued in-your-face repeat of the same disruptive behavior, after multiple warnings, to multiple editors on the same day? I fail to see a legitimate rationale for Fences doing so. See below, as to his block history.

• 21:20, June 17, 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)
• 10:32, March 16, 2009 CIreland (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: at Sean Hannity)
• 16:07, November 13, 2008 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: 3RR violation on Barack Obama. Continued disruptive pattern of behavior)
• 06:21, October 27, 2008 Papa November (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: Reverting other users' edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period at Sarah Palin)
• 01:31, September 9, 2008 Ice Cold Beer (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR, repeatedly removing legitimate talk page comments)
• 19:44, November 20, 2006 Jayjg (talk | contribs) blocked Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (evading blocks with sockpuppets etc., creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits)
  • I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Wikipedia as a battleground before he posted here. My reblock is of course open to review, but by independent parties, not those directly involved in content disputes. I have also posted a note about the Palestine-Israel arbitration enforcement at Talk:Helen Thomas. Fences&Windows 21:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Incivility? Treating Wikipedia as a battleground? I'm criticizing you for dialing back another sysop's block, on someone who is a repeat offender, and has been blocked (up to a month) and warned a multitude of times. And your response is ... I'm sorry if you're offended by my questioning your judgment here. But that is not uncivil. Nor is it inappropriate, as your comment suggests. First you take the above actions, and now you compound them by trying to bully an editor who criticizes your actions? Not, I believe, what wp:admin suggests an admin should do.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Wikipedia as a battleground before he posted here." Note the key word: "before". This was a note to make clear that my warning on your talk page about treating Wikipedia as a battleground and for what I saw as incivility was done before you criticised my change of the block and was not done as a retaliation to your criticism; I was not attempting to bully you. Your criticism of me here is of course allowed (though you are an involved editor, so it will hold less weight than the view of uninvolved editors) and I was not trying to suggest that you were attacking me or being uncivil. Fences&Windows 01:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First, if your "warning" was unrelated to this, then why are your cluttering this ANI up with reference to this? Second, I don't recall you ever making an appropriate warning to me. Just the opposite. It's yet another example of highly questionable behavior on your part. You -- a sysop -- seeks to let off a 6-time blocked editor, who was amply warned multiple times by multiple editors the day of his block -- but at the same time you warn the person who reported him for using the (children, shield your eyes here) word "pup"? That's pretty funny. Third, I think your down-sizing this block from indef to three days, where the editor had half a dozen prior blocks including one for one month, based on only 21 minutes of discussion, is not appropriate. Fourth, I note that only two editors got comments in within those 21 minutes, and one was dead wrong in what he said -- the editor had in fact been appropriately warned. That makes your acting on two comments, one dead wrong, in only 21 minutes, even more untenable.

Fifth, I see no way to interpret your mention of a "warning" -- likely as baseless as your closing of this discussion was rushed, that is not related to this discussion as anything other than a transparent effort to bully. Very un-wp:admin. Sixth, I recognize that it is possible that you do not handle direct criticism awfully well, in that your posting of the above note followed directly and replied to my criticism of your actions. Your attempt to de-link the two is belied by the timing of my comment, and your comment, and the fact that yours is cast as a reply to mine, directly below mine and indented from it -- which reply is either unrelated (I give you more credit than that) or an effort to bully. Seventh, your effort to deter me from commenting was poor form, as -- as you know -- generally in matters such as these interested parties are notified so that they can provide input. That has the salutary effect of avoiding sysops making decision in 21 minutes of such monumentally different impact with the only input being from two editors, one of whom mis-stated the facts dramatically. This wiki approach of course accords with that of courts of law in the Western world -- we don't say, "we prefer to have evidence from those people who were not witnesses to the scene, and are therefore unlikely to raise actual facts rather than mis-state facts".

In sum, I think your dramatic revision of another sysop's block from indef to 3 days was not appropriate, was made in a manner consistent with one trying to close off dissent as you acted within 21 minutes, was based on only two editors' comments--one of which was blatantly incorrect, was followed by your bringing up a likely improper "warning" you placed that is either irrelevant or an attempt to bully me, and which was accompanied by your suggesting you did not want me -- one of the wronged editors -- to comment. Huh? What court of law says victims can't testify? For the aforementioned reasons, this has a distinct smell of spoiled fish.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Also note that Fastily has posted to say they are on a wikibreak for several days, or I would have discussed this with them before changing the block. Changing an action is not wheelwarring; reverting my new block without discussion would be. Fences&Windows 22:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The block was severe for the edits. I hardly think your description of 3after3 as a master edit warrior is fair either and he does imo attempt to stay within the rules, he is hardly making the wiki wheels drop off. His block log is here, he has only had one 48 hour block in the last eighteen months, to assert that indefinite is appropriate is totally excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Like Sox below, your math is off. His last block was 15 months ago- almost breaking his record long time w/out being blocked (21 months), but let's also remember that on 2 separate occasions he has only gone about a month between blocks. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Note also that the last block in that log was over a year ago and all of the blocks have been short-period, for relatively minor offenses (we can't see the circumstances surrounding the 3RR violations without digging into his contribution history, but there is doesn't seem to be any indication that this user is a long-term offender, as I can see many positive contributions in his recent history. I believe that Fences' speedy overturn was appropriate (as I suggested above), and that a 72-hour block period is suitable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have no comment to make at this time about the original block, but reverting an admin action under review at ANI without waiting for a consensus is improper, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) You may have a valid point there, but I think given the circumstances, an indefinite block was essentially complete overkill and given the user's positive history (clearly as well as some degree of negative history), I think that it is appropriate to address that problem immediately before the user is discouraged from ever editing constructively again; this is in accordance with WP:DONOHARM and at the least, I believe WP:IAR can be made to apply here. If consensus overturns the reversal by Fences then fair enough, but in the meantime it seems very extreme. Again, I certainly do not believe that Fastily intended to cause an issue, but I do believe he was a bit hasty with the indefinite block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Reduction in block length to 72 hours. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reduction in block length made after 21 minutes discussion, by 2 editors (one of whom was Off2, the nom, and above voter), with one of those editors dramatically mis-stating the facts of the case (as there were in fact warnings), which was a dramatic departure from indef, to an editor with half a dozen blocks under his belt, including for the same behavior, the longest of which was one month, followed by efforts of the block-reducing-sysop to further chill discussion as otherwise discussed herein.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, but I agree with the reduction. Perhaps, under normal circumstances, overturning an admin action under review is improper, but if an admin doles out an *indef* block, and promptly takes a wikibreak, I believe it's the correct course of action. 72 hours will provide enough time for a review and consensus to form. Blocks can then be adjusted again if necessary, although I believe 72 hours will prove to be appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've no problem with the block length reduction. Also, an indef block of an established editor with nothing on their talk page except a template isn't good. (I worded that poorly.) Also, making an indef block on an established user, and leaving nothing on their talk page except a template to explain the block, isn't good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reworded 23:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the block length reduction, but we should ask Fastily why he chose to block Threeafterthree indefinitely as opposed to a shorter block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This really will not do, all these attempts to undermine an entirely proper block. The time has come to take the next logical step, and block all content editors. In particular, long term editors with established track records of useful contributions should be blocked immediately. Some of those creatures actually expect to be treated with some basic human decency; others have expressed dangerous views, even, gasp, challenging the view of an administrator. This must stop. Pre-emptive action should be taken by blocking wantabe content editors who signal their intention by creating an account. It is from precisely this group that future trouble makers arise. Wikipedia doesn't need these people, who seem to think mere content matters, and clearly do not understand that administrators are elected by the RfA, an infallible process which elects the true elect only. It is time to get real and get things back in proportion, restoring to all administrators their rightful glory, and putting an end to those who would question them. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. The encyclopedia is built with content editors; blocking them all would lead to the downfall of the project. If we had no content editors, all of the articles on Wikipedia would stay nearly the same, with no new articles added that had significant content in it. That would defeat the purpose of the wiki, block useful constructive editors, cause other editors to retire because of this, discourage newcomers from joining the wiki, and overall produces a bad look of the wiki to the general public if we disallow content editors. If we block the editors all, who are the admins to "govern"? The answer to that question would be "no one", as we would have the rest of the wiki left. Go discuss all about policy if the rest of the wiki wishes to; if we have no content editors, our articles will not be vastly improved if need be, and we will not have lengthy articles about current and important subjects, making the discussion of policy absolutely pointless. Your logic is also flawed: Just because one content editor may have these "dangerous" views does not mean that every content editor would have these views. To summarize: Epipelagic, you are welcome to your ideas, but they seem completely unreasonable. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem with Epipelagic's edit is that I have no idea which parts are sarcastic and which parts are not. This is why it's generally best to state your views clearly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Um, MC10, I believe that was sarcasm (which works really well on the internet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Epipelagic has a point. We should do as he says -- except, that we should unblock immediately (oh, let's say after 20 minutes of discussion) all editors who have at least half a dozen blocks against them, ranging in time up to one month. In the face of the facts (annoying as they may be), let's ignore them, and knight him a "productive editor". Surely, that will counter-act the annoying fact of his multiple blocks, and umpteen warnings -- at the very least, it may confuse other editors, who take us at our word, and are happy to ignore the facts. It is certain that only by having these useful souls doing their good deeds that Wikipedia can hope to approximate the goals of some. Any editors with fewer than six blocks, and who have not been blocked for up to a month, should -- as suggested by Epipelagic -- be warned and/or blocked immediately, and told that their views at this review are quite unwelcome -- as they, due to their involvement, may actually know something about the matter, which of course could be discomfiting if they were to share it with others. And oh yes -- let's characterize their complaints as to the deletion of multiple editors comments on article talk pages a mere "content dispute" ... we must remember to confuse the masses.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment SNOW close of this conversation since rob brought it forth and is alright with the 72 hour block. I don't think anyone is arguing that a block should happen here, only the time frame. Since that's been changed, let's move on. Three is on thin ice but hasn't cracked through quite yet. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Given the circumstances and involvement of the only editor who is opposing the decision to reduce the block, as well as the clear support for the reduction, I believe this can now be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. Epeefleche is clearly adamant in defending the indefinite block, but given that he was heavily involved in the most recent incident and the only argument he's provided is that it was reduced after a short consensus discussion, I think the much clearer, not now longer consensus discussion in favour of the reduction is evidence enough that his reasons for opposing the reduction are not per policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If Epipelagic's edit was sarcastic, well, it didn't help much. Sarcasm is so easily detected on the Internet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it was sarcasm. This is another one of Epipelagic's comments. My fault that I took his comment too seriously. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame the timing is such that Fastily is not here to participate. He does good work, and I had hoped this could be resolved with much less drama. There was much history that could indicate that Threeafterthree was a long term disruptive influence, so I can see how Fastily could conclude that an indef block might be appropriate. I, on the other end of the spectrum, interpreted the facts differently and chose not to block. Consensus seems to be somewhere in-between. I think it best to treat this as a case of reasonable people disagree, but the system still works. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment An indef block, absent consensus for a ban, plus a wikibreak template, is a de facto admission by the blocking admin that someone else may have to reexamine the block. A block log that's been clean for 18 months is a good sign that simply escalating past block lengths is probably not the best solution. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I expect that anytime a sysop goes on wikibreak he believes that his colleagues will pick up in his absence. I don't think that a 21-minute review, including comments by two editors, one of whom was completely incorrect -- and thereupon mislead everyone else -- as to whether this editor had been warned, leading to a revision of an indef block to a 3-day block, for an editor who has already been blocked half a dozen times, including for the same violation, and for up to one month, is appropriate. The ram-rod nature of the timing in reverting sysop action suggests to me at least that the sysop was seeking to chill conversation. Poor form -- even AfDs go on for a week; 21 minutes, in the absence of something extraordinary where no judgment is involved, has an odor that is not a pleasant one. We on this page have people being blocked for three months for their first violation. For this fellow's sixth, we dial it back from indef to time served? Perhaps there was some confusion by one of the three editors who were on top of the matter enough to get their comments in within the 21-minute period, who indicated that as best he could see there were no warnings. That was -- though I am certain a good faith comment -- entirely false and misleading to others, as the editor had received a number of warnings, but simply deleted them (explaining why the editor making the statement was confused). 72 hours is, given the many blocks I've seen meted out on this page even this month, way out of line with standar wiki practice that I have observed. There is a wide span between 72 hours and indef. That such a short timeframe should be applied, reverting another sysop, within a 21 minute period in an apparent effort to avoid discussion makes the reverting sysops choice of "term" especially dubious in my view.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You could talk all day and all night and there would be no support for an indefinite block for this issue. I see you are still objecting to the reduction... I see you mention poor form and an unpleasant odor regarding the reduction but I also see other issues, Fastily after the block left a message on your talkpage letting you know about the block and requesting your help when the shit storm starts..Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. Thanks, .you then (I assume) saw that it was wrong of Fastily to put the request for help to defend the block on your talkpage and you trimmed this part of his comment Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. and you then added your battlefield style reply of Thanks. One down; it's a start. .. all in all a dubious exchange at best, you were warned quite rightly for the one down battle-fielding comment by the Administrator that you are complaining about still now and imo you should have a look round and see that there is no support for a longer block. I don't think we have looked at Fastily's comment yet but he was clearly expecting hell to break out and was preemptively requesting your assistance to defend his poor block. In some cases the shit storm you imagine can be the boomerang coming back. Off2riorob (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prognostication that there would be no support for the action taken by sysop Fastily, in indef blocking a six-time repeat offender who engages in continued disruptive activity in the wake of multiple warnings by more than one editor.

I'm curious -- you were well aware that the editor here had been warned three times, the day of his block. Inasmuch as you referred to the discussions detailing the warnings yourself, elsewhere. Why then did you fail to correct the above mistaken statement, supporting your nom here and directly below your comment, that said the opposite? I'm of course certain that you are seeking to get to the correct NPOV result here, but I'm struggling to understand why then you would let that clear misstatement stand.

As to the banning of editors who are blocked six times for disruptive behavior, and yet continue it -- yes, I believe that that is a good thing. And a start. Clearly, given the level of disruption on wikipedia, and support for certain flagrant repeat offenders who engage in further disruption after receiving three same-day warnings, it is not the entire solution ... but it is a start.

BTW, I might add -- that while I believe that an indef block (though I view it as appropriate under these circumstances) is a length that can be legitimately discussed, I think that a reduction to three days is way out of bounds. I note that your first comment was with regard to discussing the block length. I've no problem with that. I believe, however, that three days is unduly short for a six-time repeat offender, previously blocked for the same behavior, who has received three warnings the day of his fourth same-day violation leading to his ban. I expect that those of us who have spent time on wikipedia can quickly see how against-the-norm that time period is; on this page, this week, we have banned first-time offenders for one month. Three days? Doesn't make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering YOU were the one who warned him, you might wish to retract that part of your statement (lest you appear hypocritical). His last block was 18 months ago, perhaps instead of sitting here shit-stirring you could wait for the blocking admin to return? Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Check your math, Sox. His last block was 15 months ago and before that it was 4 months, and before that it was less than one month, and before that it was one month, and before that it was 21 months (which has been the longest he has gone without being blocked). Anyone else see a pattern here, or is it just me?--Brendan19 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was one of the editors who warned him. I'm happy to hear what the blocking admin has to say upon his return.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on the merits of the block, but what's up with Fastily disappearing right after performing controversial actions using his admin tools? This is the second time this month his actions have been called into question at this board, and the second time he's gone on wikibreak. AniMate 23:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly many on this page would agree that it would have been better had he been around to discuss his block. Perhaps it might have forestalled his action being reduced to such an incredible extent, on the basis of only 21 minutes of discussion (discussion notable in that it was marked by factual error). Perhaps not. But that's probably best a question for you to pose to him elsewhere, no? Just my thought.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me both sides here have had their say after raising some reasonable points. I would have to add that, as noted, a three day block seems too short... I have always found Fastily to be a reasonable sort - for an admin ;) - and also look forward to Fastily's return to get some closure. I respectfully suggest to all parties that unless there is further new information that we wait for that to happen, and refrain from further questionable language. Jusdafax 23:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with User:Animate , I remembered myself when this issue came to my attention and I thought user was only recently here for the removal of his rollback rights and now heres here again. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would like to add my two cents. I have noticed a disruptive pattern of editing from 3after3 for some time now and his block log reflects it. He has a long history of antagonizing people and I recently fell victim to it when he deleted my comments from a talk page. Here is the diff of the message I left on his talk page (which he also deleted). How many blocks does it take for this guy to learn a lesson?--Brendan19 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rjuner and the National-Anarchism article

I've been editing, expanding and improving the Wikipedia article on National-Anarchism since 5 October 2009 and my work was praised on 8 February 2010). Unfortunately, since the beginning of of June 2010, User:Rjuner, who openly admits to being Andrew Yeoman, a local “leader” in the National-Anarchist movement, has taken a more active interest in the article. I suggest everyone read a 2009 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled 'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists to familiarize yourself with this individual and his agenda. As I explained to him on the Talk:National-Anarchism page, Yeoman therefore has an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to how this article presents the definition, history, views, political positioning, and criticisms of his movement. When one look at his 13 June 2010 edits of the article, the majority of them seem to try to whitewash the racialist (racist) dimension of National-Anarchism and suppress some sourced criticisms in order to make his movement more attractive or less controversial. This is simply unacceptable. Furthemore, in light of his first comments on the Talk:National-Anarchism page, it is clear that he doesn't understand that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether he thinks it is true. I therefore suggested to him to refrain from editing the article and limit himself to voicing his legitimate concerns about the content of the article on the Talk:National-Anarchism page so that other editors can access whether or not his claims have merit.

That being said, I was hoping a Wikipedia administrator could intervene in this dispute in order to resolve it once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• While the COI rules do not prohibit an editor from editing something w/regard to which he has a COI, it does call for close scrutiny of his edits. Which are then to be judged under normal standards. Can you supply diffs? Say, the worst such instances? That might prove helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The one difference that is most telling is the 05:26, 13 June 2010 Revision in which he mangles the sentence while trying to suppress the racial dimension of the National-Anarchist agenda, which is exposed by our primary reliable source, scholar Graham D Macklin, who wrote the following in his essay Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction:

This racist anti-capitalism had as its end the desire to foment civil and racial strife through ‘no-go’ areas for ethnic minorities and state power as an essential prelude to racial civil war and the collapse of the capitalist system.

While our secondary reliable source, journalist Casey Sanchez, wrote the following his report 'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists:

Calling themselves the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), they envision a future race war leading to neo-tribal, whites-only enclaves to be called "National Autonomous Zones."

I rest my case. --Loremaster (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't edited the article since the 14th, he's stuck to the talk page. Where is the immediate problem? We do allow people with COIs to edit articles; it is only when they become disruptive that they are blocked or topic banned. Are you proposing a topic ban? If not, what is your purpose in posting here? Also, please remain civil; calling Rjuner "Oh Great Leader" is sarcastic and unhelpful. Fences&Windows 01:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Fences.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam

Articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses are frequently controversial and often there are heated disputes from all sides. These have often involved myself (and others) who have disagreed with User:AuthorityTam (and others). During that time, AuthorityTam is one of the editors with whom it has been particularly difficult to work with. However, recently when I raised some AfDs regarding a series of articles about JW literature that do not have third-party sources, AuthorityTam made, on three of the four AfD pages, a lengthy irrelevant personal attack, which includes dredging up edits I made in Talk pages over 4 years ago (before AuthorityTam was even an editor at Wikipedia, mostly out of context, with entirely wrong conclusions, including a false claim that I had previously "discussed [my] "firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion" at Wikipedia Talk pages.) AuthorityTam felt the need to make it appear that I raised the current AfDs out of bias rather than sticking to the merits of the articles considered for deletion. In doing so, AuthorityTam also deliberately declined to mention many extended debates where I have defended the same religion, in which debates AuthorityTam was on the same side. The irrelevant content included at the AfDs is clearly a breach of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette. For the AfDs containing the attacks, please see:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications_for_evangelizing

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents

--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Further instances of antagonistic editing: AuthorityTam and I have clashed frequently on JW-related pages over our interpretation of material. This is not unexpected, given our respective positions inside and outside the religion. I am content to deal with such differences of opinion, but I am becoming tired of his relentless attempts not only to antagonize and attack me with every comment, but to stir up trouble over a matter that was settled six months ago.

For a time my user page contained a strongly-worded explanation of my motivations in editing JW-related pages. After an editor complained, I voluntarily removed the strongest denunciations of the Watch Tower Society in order to AVOID offending editors who are still in the JW religion. The material was deleted on January 11. Since April 2010 AuthorityTam has repeatedly quoted from the deleted material and, recently begun wikilinking my previous user name with that deleted material. I’m unsure of his intention, but the result could be to heighten whatever offence the material might have initially caused. I showed good faith in removing the material; he repeatedly, unnecessarily and provocatively revives and highlights it. I have twice asked him to stop using the material and concentrate on subject matter. He responded with further invective. Examples of his resurrection of the deleted material are: on 16 April, on 22 April, on May 14, on 19 May, on 28 May, on 28 May, and on 18 June. In the last week he has added the same wikilink to my user name at three AfD pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses reference works, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing as a pre-emptive strike before I had even posted a comment.

On April 23 AuthorityTam created a list of partial and in some cases distorted quotes from my earlier comments framed to give the false impression I had attacked him, made physical threats and suggested he was homosexual [49].

My requests for him to desist were made on 22 April and 13 May. BlackCab (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Help at WP:RFPP

If someone has a few minutes can they please pop on over to WP:RFPP, there are a few cases at the top in desperate need to attention. Top two are BLPs currently in the middle of a huge edit war between SPAs and IPs. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlogged

Resolved

 – Backlog has been cleared. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

...is in desperate need of Admin attention. IP 68.7.241.68 is not going to block himself, and another IP is leaving notes there that may be genuine or may be attempts to frustrate justice, as it were. -Rrius (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any Admins awake? There are 13 vandals in the queue. -Rrius (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Saturday night, lots of parties to attend. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So being an admin and having a life are not mutually exclusive? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed the header....gets their attention faster. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying, most admins are at the party and it's impressive that some can use their 5g iphones to phone in updates. Perks are perks. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a requirement that you hand over your personal life at the front desk when you receive your admin-badge? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins are knocking down the backlog now. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You get an iphone with adminship. Whatever generation it is, so 4g + 1, that's what you get. ALL RUMORS of course... Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs still more help. I'm off now.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

General comment

It seems to me that too many discussions on this and other noticeboards are turning, very early in the discussion, to a near-voting format (as in, every post preceded with Support or Strong oppose or the like. While marking comments in this fashion may be useful in some circumstances (e.g. disputed community bans), moving to this type of format in ordinary discussions tends to polarize the comments and move the participants away from a search for a consensus outcome. Just an early-morning thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You might consider moving this to here, as I believe this is the correct place to discuss this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem. It's a balance. Sometimes a clarity is needed from bolded clear opinions within conversations to make sure they don't go back and forth endlessly. As long as it doesn't become a proxy democracy rather than a discussion, then it's alright. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Avargas2001

Resolved

 – User has been blocked (without the ability to edit his talk page) for 1 week. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This user is currently engaged in creating some serious POV violations at Falkland colony and Matilde Malvina Vernet. The first is a POV fork of Falkland Islands, the second a recreation of material previously deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Matilde Malvina Vernet (a not-blindingly-obvious hoax). Both have been deleted before, the second at AFD.

User has repeatedly accused editors of being "racist pigs" [50][51][52][53] and has deleted speedy deletion templates four times in the last hour [54] [55] [56] [57], having been blocked twice before for similar behaviour. User has received final warnings and continued problematic behaviour afterward.

I suggest he be given a longer block (the last was a week) and that these two article names be salted.

Since he has been blanking his talk page, I note that I am now notifying the user of this discussion here. Pfainuk talk 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

you guys contribute none and delete my post i am now sure it's a racist group because you guys post lies over falkland wich is a patch of land occupied illegally by britush pirats you do what you want i do not care to read wekepedia anymore since everything is edited to defend the white race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avargas2001 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User blocked for another week for WP:DE, WP:NPA (see "racist pig" comments on that article talk page) derogatory race-orientated comments, and general misguided POV-pushing nonsense. I have kept it as a week for now but would not object to an indef or longer block. I have followed the contribs around and I think I've got everything. Both articles have only had to be deleted twice now, I don't think they need salting myself - it is hardly much effort and we can always reconsider. I expect that, at the very least, the user should be told that resumption of this silliness on return from block will result in indef without warning. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pfainuk talk 11:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've only taken a cursory glance at the evidence, but I believe the action was appropriate SSGH. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll go for that - though I will note that he has now replace the block notice on his talk page with the same kinds of personal attacks as before. Pfainuk talk 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've locked his talkpage for the duration of the block and directed him to the email unblock route. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as resolved unless there are any objections, since the matter has been dealt with. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Range block needed

Back to January, I have been intermittently dealing with a vandal who utilizes IP addresses originating from Mumbai who in addition to vandalizing articles I primarily have on my watchlist (Tensou Sentai Goseiger, Goseigers, and a few others) also vandalizes articles on Bollywood films and actors. The used IPs (from oldest to newest are):

• 59.184.51.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.9.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.46.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.0.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.48.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.22.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.10.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The range 59.184.0.0/20 would encompass all of these, but I do not have the technical abilities to make sure that this would not adversely affect Wikipedians in Mumbai. As far as I can tell, these are all the same individual.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be more fitting to semi-protect the articles, there don't seem to be that many. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several Bollywood movie articles that would need to be protected and the other articles get good edits from other IP users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I think it's probably a much safer option to semi-protect the pages worst affected; IP address editors may still use spers to get positive edits made. Alternatively, you may be better off launching a SPI if you believe that these are all socks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The worry about a range block is, the IP is editing non-static from a commercial ISP and it could wipe out so many GF users in Mumbai. When articles are semi-protected for awhile owing to one nettlesome IP, they tend to get the hint, quick. Start with say, 2 weeks, which could do the trick. I've seldom if ever seen it take more than 2 or 3 months for an IP like that to get bored and stop checking back to see if they can get in. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no real "worst affected" page. The IP comes by, makes his two edits to the pages I watch list, and disappears. The fact is he vandalizes several other pages which only et noticed when I find he's edited the pages I do. So semiprotecting the two pages I watch will only mean that the other edits go missed. I will contact a checkuse to see if the /20 block will produce any significant blocks of goodfaith editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to contact a check-user for that. The toolserver has a neat tool that can check the contributions made for a certain range. Personally i deem it a great help when i decide on a rangeblock. Of course it won't show edits made by logged-in editors, but a range-block is a semi most cases anyway. Non-confirmed users or account requests can always be handled trough the mailing list. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at the tool server it seems that nearly every edit from this range is this individual, or it's a vandalistic edit anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could apply an IP-range oversight? By this I mean that any edits coming from a particular range of IPs would need to be sighted before they went live. Such a system could be effective in dealing with vandals if we were able to use it, without affecting other IPs who aren't causing problems. Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Raised at WT:PEND. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea Mjroots, I would certainly be interested in commenting on introducing such a feature and how it might be implemented. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Mjroots and Giftiger.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

59.184.53.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) showed up today, same range same edits. Can the range be blocked yet?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ottre's request for reviewer status

Resolved

 – The reviewer right has been granted to Ottre (talk · contribs), after discussion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross-posted from User talk:Fastily, who is on a wikibreak. I want this matter resolved today.

It seems you misunderstood me here. I don't think I should have been blocked for removing negative information from the Tony Abbott article, a high-profile BLP which gets a lot of contentious edits. Because I am an experienced editor, a caution would have sufficed. What I plan on challenging is the comment by User:Orderinchaos (in the collapsed discussion at Talk:Tony Abbott#Budget Reply 2010) that the ABC Television program Lateline is automatically a reliable source because it is produced by the ABC, which was used as a pretext for the block. Cheers, Ottre 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a short 24-hour block, which you have already appealed and were declined. If you are looking for consensus to overturn the block and appeal decision, it is extremely unlikely that such consensus will be formed before the block expires. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm also somewhat confused why you have requested that a block be lifted under the heading "request for reviewer status". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This was presented a bit confusingly at first, but it seems this user's application for reviewer rights was denied, apparently on the basis of a month-old block. Though framing the reviewer request in an "I was wronged a month ago" context probably was a counterproductive way to go about this, it seems others that weighed in over there didn't think the request should have been denied on that basis. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the way this was presented. I'm still quite upset to be denied reviewer status. I've been editing for the best part of two and a half years. Ottre 13:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My mistake, I just realised the block I thought he was referring to was made today, but it was actually made last month; it should have struck me as strange that he had access to this page while blocked. In any case, the block was issued by one sysop, denied appeal by a second, and originally issued as a 3RR violation; 3RR violation and edit warring is automatically grounds for a temporary block, and the block is now over so I see no reason why it should now be challenged. You may wish to challenge Fastily's decision to deny your reviewer rights, but I don't think you're likely to get anywhere trying to challenge a month-old, 24-hour block issued because of a clear 3RR violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any meaningful worries in granting this. It's a stale block for 3rr and the editor has acknowledged that a warning for that would have been ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I should note I never said any source was "automatically a reliable source". Everything is always a set of probabilities, as I see it, peer reviewed academic sources >> program shows (with greater fact checking) > live news > opinion. As for the particular situation a month ago, Ottre got into a major edit war over a fairly minor bit of a BLP, it got reported by a neutral editor, I actioned the request as the situation was fairly uncontroversial, that's pretty much what it comes down to. This editor is normally OK (it was his first ever, and hopefully last ever, 3RR situation), the article itself is a bit of a battlefield and would test even the most patient editor, and so I see no problem in granting reviewer status. Orderinchaos 12:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think Ottre should receive the reviewer bit. I've also initiated a thread on the question in general here: Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#On denying requests for reviewer permission. –xeno^talk 15:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If a single month-old 3RR block is the sole reason for withholding review status from this experienced, dedicated user, then I believe the status should be granted. For what it's worth, as a general matter, I would also prefer to see 3RR issues arising from good-faith attempts to enforce the BLP policy addressed in a tailored manner (e.g. by a temporary page-ban from the specific page in dispute) whenever possible, rather than by blocking, although I'm not opining on this specific block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Issue reviewer status: I believe the block was completely justified as a result of a 3RR violation, but I don't see why a single, short block a month ago for a relatively minor offence should be a reason to deny reviewer status, especially when the user's contributions clearly show that the user would make good use of the status.

Ottre: I must point out, however, that the block was completely justified and it would serve you better to read WP:3RR, understand why the block was justified, and accept that. Others are likely to have a more positive impression of an individual who has had a brief block but understands that their actions were inappropriate and has corrected that behaviour, than an individual who has been briefly blocked but maintains that it was not justified. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the permission should have been given; preventing editors from gaining the permission because of old 3RR blocks seems a bit extreme to me. As long as the user requesting the permission is experienced and trusted, I would trust the user to not abuse the reviewer right, and grant the right. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the emerging consensus here, and in general here, I have enabled the reviewer permission on Ottre's account. –xeno^talk 18:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Hannah Williams.jpg

Resolved

 – Previous edit removed from history by User:Gwen Gale as requested. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please can the edit history of this imagebe revised removing the incorrect image which was uploaded by a new user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, edit histories must be kept unless there is a serious reason for them to be hidden by a sysop. Can you explain why you feel this is necessary in this case? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently someone substituted an incorrect image (a picture of someone else) for the correct image, which has now been fixed back. Deleting the incorrect image from the history would not raise any problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Would that come under RD6? Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RD6 might be appropriate; I don't think it is a controversial or contentious deletion; but the edit has been reverted so I don't personally see the need to remove it from history. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The other picture is of Hannah Williams (actress). I don't think deletion is appropriate, partially because we don't just indiscriminately remove things from page histories and partly because it doesn't meet any of the revision deletion criteria. --Deskana (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is fair enough in the general case. In this instance, the intended image is a photograph of a child murder victim, disseminated by the victim's family. It is a bit insensitive to leave the visible history, which includes the images themselves, conflated with the photo of an unrelated person. Under the circumstances, my view is that we should grant this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how it's insensetive, but I guess it doesn't matter since it's been done regardless of my opinion. --Deskana (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Update on previous notice concerning sock puppets on Hemant Karkare

A notice was made on this page yesterday (archived here) about a possible sock puppet army edit-warring anti-Israel and anti-Hindu Conspiracy Theories regarding the Hemant Karkare and the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Conspiracy theories now being disseminated on the internet exhaustively by the Pakistan Government, as well as the left/Muslim press in India (see the diff of the ANI complaint, and the sockpuppetry allegations, for reference). While the sockpuppetry allegations are currently under review, and the page fully protected, the sock army has fled to another article, Saffron Terror (see article history), and are espousing similar POV in that article via edit-warring and using the sock accounts to bypass WP:3RR [58] [59]. Immediate intervention remains a dire necessity. The socks in question are:

• SuchiBhasin
• Khan.found
• Cool_hindu 117.194.193.101 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would protect that article, but I commented on the talk page about the proposed merge. Is YellowMonkey or RegentsPark submitting an SPI? Fences&Windows 23:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I've informed the editors that there is a thread at ANI about them. Fences&Windows 23:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Little catastrophy when trying to move a lemma

Resolved

Hi admins,

I did something really stupid, I'm afraid! My aim was to move Rederi AB Slite to Rederi Ab Slite, as "Ab" is the correct Swedish acronym. In de:wp, this would not have been any problem. But en:wp seems not to be really case sensitive, is it? So, I tried to "Workaround" this way:

1. Move Rederi AB Slite to Rederi Ab Slite1
2. Move Rederi Ab Slite1 to Rederi Ab Slite

Obviously, in en:wp I cannot overwrite redirects? :/

I am so sorry for the inconvenience... Can anyone help me please?

Thank you! -- JøMa (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. FYI, your original intended move wasn't possible because the target already existed and had a prior change in its edit history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

African Americans in the Revolutionary War

Sorebird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been executing what appear to be well intentioned, but badly formatted and poorly sourced, edits to the subject article. I've approached them twice but have not received a repsonse. I do not know if this is disruptive enough to qualify as vandalism and I have reverted their edits twice, so I feel I should not take further action. More eyes would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 18:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A very short attention-getting block might be in order, if they keep ignoring input from you... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just undone a couple, malformed contributions seemingly at odds with the flow of the article. I have reminded them of WP:CIR. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Salvio.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We do seem to have a problem with basic competence here. If they persist we could semi-protect the article, and see if that prompts them into talking? Fences&Windows 23:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Capsot and WP:CANVASS

Resolved

 – Consensus seems to be that building support for a Wikimedia Chapter isn't spam or canvassing. Fences&Windows 23:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Capsot is working on building a Wikipedia Chapter in Catalan-speaking places. Good for her- I didn't even know what a Chapter was until I got an unsolicited request for support from Capsot, and looked it up. Seems like a worthy enough goal. I noticed that a lot of people had gotten requests for support. People who've expressed an interest in Catalan, and people who haven't. Lots of identical requests. It seemed to me that this was not a reasonable use of user talk pages, since it seemed to be rather spamming for an organization which, while Wikipedia-related, isn't actually something that most of us can do anything to help with. Even if lots of English Wikipedia users do, as she asks, put supporting templates on their user pages, it won't actually get her any closer to her Chapter. I pointed out the rules on WP:CANVASS and WP:SPAM to her, and asked her to stop, but she isn't stopping, though I think she is trying to target users who are interested in Catalan for her messages now. My interpretation of the rules is that this is still spamming, and not okay. I left her a final warning to stop doing it. But I wanted to confirm with other users that my interpretation of the rules is reasonable, and that I will be correct in blocking her if she continues. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First, please notify them of this thread. Second, could you please provide some differences for those of us who are too lazy. Personally, I don't see anything wrong if a few top-editors are notified but sending it to many people who seem to be uninterested seems to violate the canvassing rules. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I notified them immediately of this thread, as any reasonable person would.  :) Recent diffs include [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]... they just go on like that for at least three pages of contribution history, though that's where I stopped hitting the 'older 50' button. Also relevant may be our discussion on my talk page, in which User:Capsot is concerned that I may be motivated by a failure to respect linguistic diversity, Wikipedia's glorious ideals, and freedom of speech, and thus be failing to see that it's best for Wikipedia that she continue to make these edits.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd certainly prefer not to see anyone blocked for trying to build up a smaller, sister project, unless there is genuine disruption and no other way of stopping it. Also, as there is no effort to affect the outcome of any decision-making, I don't see WP:CANVASS as a relevant policy here, although other policies of course may apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

She isn't trying to start a Catalan Wikipedia- that already exists- but a local, real-world organization of Catalan Wikipedia supporters in a specific region. The whole 'chapter' thing was a new one for me, though I'm sure everyone else already knew about them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with notifying people about setting up a chapter, but only if they live or may live in the area (which is in Spain and France). The first editor contacted for example, says on their user page that they live in Chicago, and therefore could not join a Catalan chapter. TFD (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the responses after writing the above, I really don't see anything wrong with it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I see why you were concerned, but this isn't spam as it is Wikimedia related, and it isn't canvassing anymore than an invite to a Wiki meetup would be. I think there's a consensus here that this is OK, so I'm closing this as resolved. Fences&Windows 23:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bear (talk · contribs · logs)

I've just blocked User:Sugar Bear for 31 hours for 3RR violation, however the last block was for a week, and the user unblocked on the proviso that they accepted and understood the 3RR rule and Wikipedia policy. Should the block be increased? If so, for how long? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How recent was the last block? If it was recent, then this block should (following the normal course of events) be longer than the last one.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see [67] his last block was for a week, nine days ago - and it wasn't reduced, he served the whole period. This block should definitely be two weeks at a minimum given his record. ~ mazca ^talk 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Mazca, though I think a longer block -- along the lines of three to four weeks -- would be appropriate. See his below pertinent block history.

• 17:06, June 20, 2010 SGGH (talk | contribs) blocked Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule)
• 22:35, June 10, 2010 Vsmith (talk | contribs) blocked Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule)
• 13:00, January 20, 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Sugar Bear (talk | contribs)" ‎ (agrees not to edit war or make PAs and edit from but 1 acc)
• 22:32, January 18, 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: edit warring, personal attacks, harassment, email abuse)
• 05:23, January 17, 2009 Luna Santin (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) ‎ (Continued block evasion, edit warring, sockpuppetry)
• 11:43, January 16, 2009 SheffieldSteel (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) ‎ (Block evasion)
• 15:12, January 15, 2009 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR at Mudvayne)
• 15:17, May 24, 2007 JzG (talk | contribs) blocked Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Disruption)

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This should be at least 2 weeks, maybe more. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Vsmith has extended it to a month, rendering this discussion moot. Thank you for your discussion, though. :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A month sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Treating first-time offenders gently is one thing, but I believe coddling repeat-offenders comes back to hurt the Project. Good result.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Delinking nationalities

Following along with the discussion above concerning Tony1, does the delinking requirement (or whatever you want to call it) require the delinking of nationalities? Colonies_Chris (talk · contribs) is doing just that. To me, that's wrong. It seems particularly relevant to indicate what country a person is a national of. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

When questioned, Colonies Chris quoted the manual of style, but he left off the first clause of WP:OVERLINK: "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article..." The full quote is "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, and dates." The caveat surely is important and requires editorial judgement, not mass delinking. There seems to be a persistent problem that those who want to remove these links en masse refuse to discuss concerns with this approach. Fences&Windows 23:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I have already suggested that an RfC may be the way forward, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)#RfC?. Fences&Windows 23:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be some editorial judgment called for here in the application of a script, and of the rule. I think it completely within the intent of the rule to de-link "Ted Williams, an American baseball player". This goes to the core of the rule -- readers of English WP can be expected to know what American means, and are aided little by a link. This contrasts with "Person X, an citizen of Niue". There, a link makes sense. In any event, this page is not the correct forum for this discussion -- the wikiproject page, where it has been discussed at length, is a good first stop. RfC may be appropriate at some time, but at this point there is no consensus on that page for linking all countries.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean there is no consensus for delinking all countries. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• My names not Shirley. And no, if you read the talk page discussion, the opposite issue is discussed and failed to garner consensus support. But again -- this is not an AN/I issue, but one as to which discussion is best engaged in, IMHO, on the appropriate wikiproject page.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• There is consensus that well-known countries' names should not be linked. As such linking is not mandated by MOS, it follows that the delinking of same does not contravene MOS. On another matter, I find it highly surprising that a user who made his first edit only two weeks or so ago would know his way around WP to such an extent. Notwithstanding, his coming ao quickly to ANI – merely running here to Papa when he does not like the response – is a rather aggressive move. I wonder if by any chance this could be an 'alternative account'? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not an alternative account, but a starting over account. And I didn't "run to Papa", I had been following the above discussion concerning Tony1 and though this issue was a continuation of that one. And I've been using this account for six weeks, not for two. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit heavy-handed to take someone to ANI three minutes after you post on his talk page (46 past the hour, after 43 past the hour). I think we have a right to know the previous incarnation of your account. Tony (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the Right to vanish is not the right to start afresh. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But RTV is not the same thing as WP:CLEANSTART, which is perfectly allowed, and by no means do we have a "right" to know his old account. The policy says only Arbcom needs to be informed, and that's only if he runs for sysop. SheepNotGoats (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For these sorts of things the option is to either roll them in with general editing, or to try and make a clean sweep. Clearly there are big advantages to the former, both in terms of editor time taken and "watchlist alerts", but the latter has the advantage of making the cultural change - i.e. new editors don't pick up the old habits. Of course this is not clear cut, the question of boundaries is thrashed out elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 09:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Sheep, I'm glad to learn that such previous accounts have to be disclosed to ArbCom before an RfA. Good move. However, bringing an editor to ANI without giving him a chance to respond on his own talk page puts a question-mark over the identity of Mr Proudfoot. Assuming good faith, one of the pillars of the project, suggests a different course of events. Tony (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick qu on the linking point, since we're here again (not expecting admin involvement on this point, as before): where is the consensus to remove effectively all links to certain countries, which OhConfucius refers to above? This is commonly claimed, but despite repeated requests, no one has ever shown me a link to where any such discussions have taken place, or to where it was agreed which countries fall which side of the threshold. As F&W notes, and is also regularly pointed out, the guideline appears to have a very explicit "relevance" exemption. On what basis is this being ignored? Where's Jeremy Paxman when you need him?. If relevant links to the pages on for example England or Spain are so useless, even to the occasional reader here, since "everyone knows what/where those countries are", why bother having pages on them at all? N-HH talk/edits 12:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

SamEv

I tried to step back from what seems to be a constant edit war with SamEv. I even created an article Dominican Republic National Beach Volleyball Tour but everytime I try things seem to escalate.

He has constantly accused me of being a sockpuppet and an investigation is going on. I am fine with it, but he is also personally attacking me. He reverts my edits on sight even when they are properly cited. He only corrected one of them after I made a big deal about how he put the wrong information in. "I made a contribution and you basically did a revert and didn't bother to read what I wrote [68]! I know you didn't read because you placed Gabriel Mercedes as a Judo player rather than a tae kwon do player [69]. You think I have some kind of weird prejudice about Dominicans and you've stated this. If that were the case why would I even put in a silver medal olympian? I complained about it [70] since you have a history of reverting whatever I place in. It was after I complained did you bother to fix it! [71]. If I had made that type of mistake you would've labelled me a vandal! CashRules (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)"

This is the second incident I am reporting. [72] CashRules (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He is fishing [[73]] and creating a distraction on a few pages. [74]

What should I do? CashRules (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been the main editor of the Dominican Republic article since December 20, 2007. That's why I edited the DR article today. It's the one I edit the most.

The accuser would like to get me out of the way because I'm pursuing an SPI against him. He figures that the more he opens this kind of thread, the more he'll somehow distract from his own actions, or drag me to his level and cause me to get blocked.

My contributions history speaks for me. Please see his. Please see this: he doesn't want it on his talk page for obvious reasons. It is rank disruption what he's doing by restoring that section there.

Now if I may, I'll continue with my editing and try to forget this distraction. SamEV (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have commented on his disrputive behavior as well.

BilCat (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [75]

BilCat (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [76]

BilCat Revision as of 22:47, 19 June 2010 (edit) (undo) [77]

FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [78] CashRules (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the sequence of relevant edits, in chronological order: 17:00, 20 June 2010, 17:32, 20 June 2010, 18:57, 20 June 2010, 20:17, 20 June 2010, 20:37, 20 June 2010, 20:32, 20 June 2010, 20:34, 20 June 2010, 20:37, 20 June 2010, 20:38, 20 June 2010, 20:41, 20 June 2010, 20:42, 20 June 2010, 20:52, 20 June 2010, 21:00, 20 June 2010, 21:26, 20 June 2010, 22:12, 20 June 2010, 22:24, 20 June 2010, 22:35, 20 June 2010, 22:35, 20 June 2010, 22:38, 20 June 2010, 22:40, 20 June 2010, 22:49, 20 June 2010.
SamEV (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, user CashRules: The matter of the tae kwon do guy was a mistake, and I corrected it soon after.

You say I've been reported before: yeah, by you, a few days ago. And your report was declined, with these words for you: [79].

Fishing? How? What is it? SamEV (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC); 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

KiK Again

Another Karmaisking sock that should be blocked right away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KeynesianEndPoint 70.210.29.99 (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yodel Australia

Hello All, A few times I have written an article on Yodel Australia, however it has been speedily deleted. I was unaware of all the processes and requirements of a new article because I have only just joined Wikipedia and this is my first article. I have had the help of some Wikipedia users and have re-written the article User:Natkolk/Yodel_Australia, I have quoted numerous sources and made the article as neutral as possible. Could you guys please review and let me know what you think. Any changes that I need to make, or a way that I can get this reviewed and put live?

That would be so so appreciated as I have spent hours creating this article. I have tried very hard to make it properly sourced. I am now quite proud of the end product and would love to see it live. Thanks so much for your help. Natkolk (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the usual place for this sort of request, but since you're asking, I'll take a look at it and leave some feedback at your talk page. Shimeru 08:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Elockid up to?

Elockid has just blocked all the computers in the London Borough of Sutton for "persistent vandalism". There has been no vandalism since this: [80] which is over a year old.

This administrator seems to be running around like a bull in a china shop. In a rambling post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community ban on Swamilive s/he says that where no ban discussion has taken place that gives him/her the right to impose a ban unilaterally. 78.149.161.38 (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't look very salubrious to me... ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 10:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Guidance states, "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." 78.149.161.38 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody block this as an IP sock of Vote (X) For Change? I mean Greater London address? Continuation from the IP they're complaining 212.85.13.143 about. The reason for blocking can also be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change.

Furthermore, blocks are not only implemented for vandalism. Everybody knows that. Yes, the block is intended to reduce further problems. Given the long block history, coupled with no legitimate edits from users at the time of the unblock, as well as being used by a sockpuppeteer, it's clear that the block was intended to limit disruption. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

78.149.161.38, thank you for bringing your concerns to AN/I for discussion, but please be careful to comment on actions, not on editors. Accusing an administrator of "running around like a bull in a china shop" and "rambling" is getting a bit close to WP:AGF and WP:NPA in my opinion, especially if you are not aware of policy on the matter. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

edits by 'Scarlet Johansen'

Apart from the names similarity to Scarlett Johannson (possible coincidence), editor Scarlet Johansen (talk · contribs) appears to be trying to perpetrate a hoax centering around the number 808. See their now deleted first edit—diff to Internet meme, which mentions 4chan. They also edited 808—diff, 808 State—diff (both deleted) and Area code 808—diff which I started at and marked as unreferenced, before following the edit trail back with growing 'concern'. Before I investigated, I was tempted to report to UAA as a username violation.
Opinions please? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1st diff corrected --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left her a message explaining that she needs to verify her edits with references. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)