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

Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine

This is going to be a tough one, so bear with me. Today, I blocked Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) and Eric1985 (talk · contribs) for two independent incidents in which they have been inciting people, through off-Wikipedia blogs, websites, and political magazines, to come to Wikipedia to correct what they believe is an anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia. I received evidence about their actions via e-mails from two separate editors, following a thread at WP:AE. In the case of Jiujitsuguy, I can't really point to the specific websites I'm talking about because they include his real name. In the case of Eric1985, the actions come from a website called WikiBias (the writer intentionally omits his name there); once again, though, I can't explain how the connection to this website was made because it includes exposing personal information.

You can see for yourselves the nature of WikiBias. It's not heavy on personal attacks and he also seems to caution potential recruits about violating Wikipedia's policies (noting what sockpuppetry, edit-warring, and the concept of NPOV are). However, the website is a clear violation of WP:MEAT, not merely expressing his views about Wikipedia in a general manner, but repeatedly pointing editors to discussions and asking them to participate in them (e.g. "View the discussion on the move, and chime in with your opinion if appropriate, on the discussion page." [1]). He also has a how-to guide that isn't just about getting started on Wikipedia, but rather about gaming the system.

With Jiujitsuguy, again, I can't post the particular websites, but it's more of the same. He's less systematic than WikiBias -- he's only got a couple of articles on various websites advocating disruptive behavior -- but his rhetoric is far more inappropriate, referring to Wikipedians as, for example, Islamofascists. Again, he provides a how-to guide for gaming the system on Wikipedia, with the intent to push his agenda. Further, Jiujitsuguy has a very colorful history on Wikipedia, one which -- trust me -- his block log doesn't fully express.

I'd like to get a review of the situation, but I'm not sure the evidence should be freely handed out to every single admin that requests it. Concurrent with this post, I have forwarded the evidence from Nableezy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), the two editors who sent me e-mails, to ArbCom. But at the very least, the concept of this kind of off-wiki canvassing can be discussed here. During the ArbCom proceedings for the CAMERA debacle (May 2008), there was the conclusion that simply being a meatpuppet wasn't grounds alone for an indefinite block, and that one's on-wiki actions were paramount. But in both these situations, it wasn't that they were the meatpuppets; they were the meatpuppeteers. Still, some might argue that these blog posts are outside of our interest, as people are free to hold whatever positions and opinions in real life. Surely, many of the editors in the Israel-Palestine area hold similarly firm views and may even be coordinating efforts over secret mailing lists.

However, I feel both of these cases are of very serious concern for Wikipedia. The Israel-Palestine area, as I'm sure you know, is still a minefield, with protections, bans, and blocks being doled out on a weekly basis and some bitter dispute always brewing (and the ArbCom proceedings of January 2008 not sufficiently putting an end to the nonsense there). I don't see any reason why editors who seek to bring additional agenda-driven editors to the equation should be permitted to edit in this area or, given the clear subversion of Wikipedia policies, anywhere else on Wikipedia.

Any and all remarks on the matter are welcome. -- tariqabjotu 18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget this quote from Eric1985s Wikibias: "So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." and his post at WP Israel: "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, people might also want to note the wingnut that posted a comment on the blog post you just linked to, who seems to be hosting training conferences for Zionist Wikipedia editors ... -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw the blocks and the report at WP:AE earlier. I believe that, assuming the blocked editors are responsible for what you say they are responsible for, then the blocks are within the terms of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. However, rather than relying purely on your own judgement, I think your best course of action is to submit all the evidence you have to the Arbitration Committee for review. CIreland (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I forwarded the evidence to ArbCom at the same time I made this post. I fixed a typographical error to clarify that. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work to protect the wiki. I applaud your blocks. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not directly related to the case above, but it is relevant. Perhaps ARBCOM and Wikipedia in general should, in the future, investigate if certain articles and areas should be restricted to edits made by a some sort of "board" comprised of appointed or elected individuals. While this goes against the mantra of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit", its blatently obvious that the current system has failed and attempts to "fix" it are only met by abuse of the system. ARBCOM rules are routinely circumvented, and enforcement of the rules are not consistent; that is to say, we currently have editors who have stated its their mission to bring for "such and such truth" to the situation, when in reality they are just battlefield warriors intent on making sure their own position reigns supreme (with numerous blocks, bans, etc..etc to their edit history). Assume Good Faith editing has failed, and while it is a main tenant of Wikipedia, its being used as a tool to promote agendas and can potentially open the door for all sorts of liabilities. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is actually an area where I had hoped that sighted edits/flagged revisions would be useful. The higher level of protection would mean that you and I and other users who have been around for a long time without getting banned or blocked can edit the articles without problem; constructive contributions by new users and IPs can get through after a little while; and trouble making socks don't get their material through without it being reversed without getting its publicity. In order to get to put stuff in directly, the sockpuppeteers would actually have to do a substantial number of constructive edits over an extended period of time which should mean that Wikipedia gets some useful work out of them before they can go to town with their POV-pushing.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking other editors is acceptable. Unfortunately, Jiujitsuguy did word it in a way that was asking for some inappropriate covert tactics. I think a indefinite is a little harsh but do understand how big of a concern it was.

I still believe Nableezy outing Jiujitsuguy on a forum related to all this terrible in a completely different way. It was not his place to do that. That could have led to harassment or something even worse. And he shouldn't have mentioned it on Wikipedia since it came across like he was asking people to dig out the information.

Hopefully we can put this situation behind us. If Jiujitsuguy does come back way down the road and request reinstatement it should be considered and watched closely.Cptnono (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I still believe Nableezy outing Jiujitsuguy on a forum... He did no such thing. Not here, not anywhere. I never suggested he did, and I don't think Nableezy has either. -- tariqabjotu 22:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes he did. I'm not the only one who has commented on this.Cptnono (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No I have not. Such a serious charge should not be made without evidence and repeating it without evidence should result in a block. nableezy - 21:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly have, and you are aware of this fact, so your denials ring hollow. Enigma^msg 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Some person wrote a piece in a certain online magazine saying that as a Wikipedia editor they did A, B, and C and that the reaction to that was X, Y, and Z. I, on a "bad site", said an editor who did A, B, and C which resulted in X, Y, and Z is editor D. That is not outing, even if outing applied to off-wiki actions. WP:OUTING requires me to post private information. The person who wrote the piece in this unnamed online magazine gave that information, I posted nothing that was not made publicly available by that person. Connecting dots that person freely provides is not outing. nableezy - 07:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the very definition of outing, actually. How do you think anyone's identity is discovered? Someone "connects the dots" and decides to inform everyone else of the editor's identity. Every outing case I can remember was like that. So yours is a textbook case. You can call it what you like, but it was certainly outing. Enigma^msg 12:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Id like to call it what it was, which isnt outing. nableezy - 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly was outing. Would you like me to conduct an informal poll? You have no protection here. Tariq apparently has decided he can block people based on comments on other sites, and you outed another editor on a widely-read Wikipedia related site. Feel free to connect those dots and tell me the answer here. Enigma^msg 22:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Outing requires releasing private information. The editor himself made all that information public, so it cannot be outing. I am not looking for "protection" here or anywhere else. If I did not release any private information then I, by definition, did not out anybody. Can you please tell me exactly what private information I released? If not, kindly stfu and take your inane threats to somebody who might be scared by them. nableezy - 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, we can conduct a poll if you disagree. Insulting me is not going to help your cause. Enigma^msg 23:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The very definition of outing is at WP:OUTING and involves "posting another person's personal information" which includes "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". Was that done here? I don't see it. Outing is a constant problem at WP:COIN and I deal with it all the time but I don't see it here unless I missed something. -- Atama頭 16:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that was not done. This is exactly what happened; somebody wrote an article on a somewhat well-known online magazine that was subsequently published in an Israeli paper. In that piece they said that they were a Wikipedia editor who made certain edits to certain articles and that those edits drew certain responses. I, on WR, wrote that an editor who had made those exact edits that had generated those exact responses was editor D. I did not post any information that was not publicly available either from the author's own words or from the edits here. nableezy - 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see any effective difference! Saying "JoeEditor is (click here for name)" , or even providing a specific means (say through Google Search) is no different than naming him outright. If you connect all the dots but one, and then put the pencil in someone's hand, guiding it carefully, you haven't done anything less than connect all the dots. Especially when Nableezy is asking for a very broad interpretation of policy to allow Tariq to keep the two editors blocked through AE, to ask for a very narrow interpretation of policy on outing seems, well, self serving. Especially when he is asking for people to be blocked for stating, or repeating statements, that he committed outing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not asked for anything, much less "a very broad interpretation of policy". I provided evidence to tariq and he made his own decision as to what the appropriate action for him to take was. To your first "point", the "effective difference" is that the editor himself provided all that information and made it public. Let me repeat that in case it you couldnt understand it the first time. The editor himself made that information public. It cannot be "outing" when no private information is revealed. nableezy - 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

n(edit conflict) Exactly. You connected the dots when it wasn't your place to. You made it known that editor x was the blogger (or whatever that stuff is) y. It was also a forum discussing Wikipedia so it was obvious that there were fellow editors there. Others might have been able to figure it out. That is fine. They weren't the ones to broadcast it on a forum as you did. And then you went on to discuss it on Wikipedia which JJG thought was in an effort to get people to start digging themselves. That makes sense to me. Also might just be over analyzing it. But at the end of the day, it was not appropriate for you to make a post with your findings over there. You should at least admit that it was a lapse of judgment. To assert that there was absolutely nothing wrong just isn't right. Cptnono (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

uggh. There was nothing wrong. nableezy - 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but if an editor publically says, "I made edits A, B and C," they've outed themselves. There's nothing to "connect the dots" with; pointing out the account name isn't outing, at that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. nableezy - 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said Hand. Enigma you should let this go. If you took a poll it would not come out in your favor. Maybe you should both disengage since this entire conversation is pretty pointless and is now just turning uncivil.Griswaldo (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love a poll. There is a chance that I am wrong so I would be curious to see what people think. Several editors have called this outing and I agree. And how has it turned not civil?Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is more than a chance that you are wrong. Can you, or anybody else say what private information I revealed? You can call it outing if you wish, that just makes you wrong. I am not going to respond to anymore of these bs accusations. Unless you or anybody else can say what private information I revealed there is nothing to respond to. nableezy - 06:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, if you really, truly want a community discussion about this matter open up a new AN/I. Regarding your question, Nableezy and Enigma started getting uncivil to each other just above. There is no productive discussion going on here anymore about the blocks the thread concerns. You and Enigma want to piggy back your poll request onto this discussion. If you stand by your assessment of Nableezy's behavior being wrong and you think a poll is appropriate start a new AN/I and suggest such a poll and see where it goes. The current discussion is pointless though.Griswaldo (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. More accurately, Nableezy started attacking me. I merely pointed out that "connecting the dots" regarding someone's identity is most certainly outing. Enigma^msg 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasnt an attack. If I ever do attack you it wont be asking you to either back your accusation or shut up. Can you say what private information I revealed? If there was no private information revealed it was not outing. You being an admin does not allow you to continue to make false accusations without providing evidence. nableezy - 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the attack was mild by your standards doesn't change the fact that it was an attack. If I make a false accusation, I'll be sure to let you know. The "evidence", as you well know, is the outing itself, which I understandably am not posting here. Enigma^msg 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Except, as we discussed just now, it's not outing in this instance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Except, as we discussed just now, it is outing in this instance. Or it at least might be. See how I did that? Several people think it is outing. Just because you don't... Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again feel free to start a new discussion about your concern if you really think you'll get anywhere. The current discussion is pointless. Let's see how many other people agree with you if you're so certain.Griswaldo (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Or it at least might be" means I am not "so certain". However, several editors agree it is outing. We cannot open up a discussion since it would lead to more outing. What we can do is ask that the admins familiar with this case (as it is all involved) to review the emails JJG sent explaining the possible outing to see if action is necessary to make sure Nableezy does not make the same mistake in the future.22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no outing by nableezy because Jiujitsuguy outed himself. On multiple websites. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Amendment?

I started to write an Arb amendment request and I still think that may be what's needed to deal with this. I think there's a number of troubling aspects about the situation:

1. You have the WP:ARBPIA decision and discretionary sanctions which were put in place to help control these types of disputes. It has clear guidance for admins on how to deal with these disputes (though It's debatable about how effective they are given the repetition of names on the log).
2. You have the WP:CAMERA decision (note: any reference I make to CAMERA is to the decision and not the organization) which is almost an extension of ARBPIA. Here it clearly covers the topic of canvassing and in this case it was on ARBPIA articles. However, CAMERA did not put forth guidance or discretionary sanctions like ARBPIA did and it doesn't offer much direction on how to handle the very sensitive issue of reviewing the outside wiki evidence. You get into issues of WP:OUTING so you can't really make it public but if it's not public then how do you determine who gets it and who reviews it? CAMERA says to bring it to Arbcom but I don't know if that is practical.
3. I have a growing concern of witch-hunts. Those who bring these accusations of off-wiki canvassing may not have the purest of motivations themselves. In this case those involved have consumed many admin resources themselves with warnings, bans and blocks for ARBPIA violations.

I think going to Arbcom requesting some guidance is what's in order. I think the CAMERA principles of dealing with external groups and collective guilt should be added to ARBPIA. This would bring those actions under the same process of sanctions. Then a method of dealing with off-wiki evidence should be set up and I think that's something Arbcom needs to facilitate given the sensitive nature of it. Perhaps a workgroup with a mailing list solely for that issue.

All in all I think you did the best you could with the guidance we've been given Tariq. I am a bit concerned we may be condemning by association or condemning for off-wiki acts without corresponding evidence of an organized campaign on wiki. --WGFinley (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the CAMERA Arbcom case, I think the more recent WP:EEML case is also relevant to the issue of off-wiki actions. CIreland (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by Tariqajotu's actions. First, I think he should have given the editors in question the opportunity to defend themselves. Second, if he was minded to do it, he should have consulted with other admins. Third of all, if he did do it, the thing to do is allow for actual review of his actions here, rather than shove it upstairs to ArbCom. I see no difference waiting a few hours would have made. Frankly, if we're dealing with off-wiki actions, I'm a lot more concerned with Nableezy's alleged outing of another editor. In response to Tariqajotu's offer to email the evidence to any admin, I do so request.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did Nableezy out another editor? Diff please? All I can see is his comment "There is unambiguous proof that Jiujitsuguy has violated WP:MEAT several times, though that proof requires linking to sites which contain his real name so I cant do that here." That seems to me like an explicit refusal to out another editor. The allegation that he outed another editor appears baseless, and should be withdrawn.RolandR (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the thread. I did not say it was on wiki. Apparently it was in a forum. Since I have not yet seen it (Tariq has not yet responded to my request for the evidence), I have added the word "alleged".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What editors (allegedly) do off-wiki is none of our concern. Are you proposing to start investigating and taking action against the many people (some of them apparently Wikipedia editors) who have identified and denounced me in countless forums? RolandR (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is when they're essentially saying: "Hey, let's cause shit on Wikipedia, but make sure they don't catch you: here's how..." HalfShadow 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah so. Does that apply to Jujitsuguy and Eric1985? If so, I suggest you remonstrate with Tariq, he's your go to guy on this. I have not proposed taking action about anyone, I have asked for more information and suggested fuller investigation of the circumstances. Something wrong with that?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But the allegation against them is not that they made comments off-wiki, but that they were actively seeking to recruit and guide people to edit Wikipedia in a tendentious manner. In the absence of any evidence, it is unacceptable to make such an accusation against Nableezy. RolandR (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but the alleged actions took place off-wiki, and you just said what people do off wiki is none of our business.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Members of the community who may have information regarding similar efforts by external groups to unduly influence our content are urged to forward that information to the Committee for review. -quote from ArbCom in the CAMERA case. The commitee is responsible for determining who did/didn't do what others accuse, Phearson (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, and that's just it. I have no opinion on whether it is a good or poor block yet, Tariq has not yet sent me the evidence as I requested following his kind offer to all admins. I am however very concerned by the procedure here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you seem awfully aggressive about this. I have a life; it's not a crime to not respond to you within two hours. You don't need to repeat in every post that you are waiting for me to respond to your request to forward you the e-mails. In that time, I wish you had reread what I said, because I did not offer to send the evidence to all admins. What I said was "I'm not sure the evidence should be freely handed out to every single admin that requests it." -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the need to involve ArbCom here? I think we are quite able to discuss a principle of "If you are found to be organising a large-scale campaign to undermine the neutrality of the project, you may be indefinitely blocked" just fine on our own. I don't see much opposition to Tariq's action, or why advocacy of this type is beyond our ability to deal with; generally speaking, the impulse to run to ArbCom at the first sign of drama is a worrying indication of creeping paternalism. Skomorokh 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tariq sent it there concurrently with his action. It might actually be wise to let them handle it in this case, if they are willing, as it is hard to judge Tariq's action without the evidence (still waiting) and so then then there would have to be a process of sending the info to admins who want to participate in the discussion. ArbCom has confidential listservs and other resources that we don't have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good points all, but I think there is enough publicly available information in this instance to make a call that does not rely on private correspondence; my main concern however is that the policy aspect of this is reflexively booted to the Committee without an attempt at hammering something out first. Skomorokh 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested starting point for the discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you are coming very close to imposing a ban on off-wiki criticism by WP users. I suppose that you guys can do that if you choose, but the description control freak comes to mind. If you choose to prohibit these things, it will not change anything for the better more than have past arbcom decisions on I/P issues. Can anyone who proposes these restrictions show that past restrictions have benefited WP by improving I/P articles, or talk page discussion? Simple observation indicates the answer is no. Just lots of WP users (on both sides of the issue) blocked over the years, without any improvements to show for it. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he expressed opinions about Wikipedia or even about deficiencies. In my initial comment, I tried to contrast the acts of these two people with what would have been okay. An article on how to join Wikipedia and some information about how it works and its policies is okay; an article on how to game the system is not. An article talking generally about perceived biases on Wikipedia is okay, but an article specifically telling people to chime in on a particular discussion so they vote a particular way is not okay. In this area, many people's political positions have come out in their comments on talk pages, and they have not been penalized for them, even if the existence of them inevitably leads to battlegrounds. We can't prohibit people who have some opinion on this conflict -- many people do, in one way or another -- but we can prohibit disruptive actions. And meatpuppetry, which is what this is, is clearly disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did they ask people to vote a certain way in discussions? And btw, you were going to provide evidence, I'd be grateful for a copy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems a control freak approach. Not to mention thought control. But all the trials I see occurring in the USA, of those accused of 'conspiracy' (essentially the accusation here too), strikes me as punishing those who might have bad thoughts, but have not actually done anything wrong. You have punished those you think have bad intentions, even though you may not be able to prove they have actually done more than talk. I am sure your intent is good, but think what you have done is more problematic than what those you call meatpuppets have done. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't called anyone anything. And that word "meetpuppet" is being thrown around awfully loosely here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you can read WikiBias yourself and make your own judgment, but yes, essentially, yes. If someone were to post this kind of comment on someone's talk page here, it would be unacceptable, as it's clearly intended to sway someone's vote a certain way. Also, I am not forwarding you the e-mails. -- tariqabjotu 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it meatpuppet is essentially an accusation of conspiracy against WP. But can an act be proved, or is the accusation just that there seems to be what might be a bad thought? 173.52.134.182 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The individual, if it is one of those blocked, which has yet to be proved (and it seems evidence will not be forthcoming to support the allegation) gave his opinion, and then wrote "View the discussion on the move, and chime in with your opinion if appropriate, on the discussion page." I do not see the problem. Is this Wikibias web site only frequented by those sharing the views set forth in the post? And as this discussion seems to be going nowhere, it would be nice if some arb would let us know if the committee is considering this, or not. I am frankly very troubled by the utter lack of opportunity to respond to what was clearly not an emergency situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Eric has already said it himself as posted above:"So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." and his post at WP Israel: "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." .. He has also called some Wikipedia users "anti-Semites" [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Called them anti-Semites, hmmm? Sounds to me the focus of argument is shifting. He is free to call anyone anything he wants, off the wiki. Come on. I've probably been called a few choice things in my time by other Wikipedians! But off the wiki, it is no harm no foul.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What shift? "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts" What is this? Explain this to me. "I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site" In that entire blog he is wikistalking me and presenting his biased opinion and pushes his pov about my and other peoples edits and then redirects his followers to the talkpage and gives them a guide on how to game the system --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know it is the same guy. How can he wikistalk you off wiki anyway? The mind boggles!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Game the system"!? It's a guide on how to not get banned, which includes recommendations such as: don't edit just one controversial topic, don't edit-war, keep cool and civil. How is that "gaming the system"? --OpenFuture (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I've got other things to do. I can't tell if this is a good block or not, but I am appalled by the procedure. I urge Arbcom to step in.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, it's about gaming the systems because it gives advise how to act in a way that improves the chances of having edits stay in the encyclopedia that would otherwise be deleted, and to create the appearance of being a encyclopedia-oriented editor, while actually staying ultimately focused on the partisan agenda.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cs32. This is but a more subtle/sophisticated version of POV-pushing techniques that have previously been addressed by policy. By instructing an incrementalist approach to concerted advocacy editing, these partisans mean to slip POV edits under the radar. It is agenda-driven, it is gaming the system. RomaC ^TALK 00:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Of course with CAMERA we also had the Wikipedians for Palestine group, which never saw any consequences and for which no one was ever investigated. It is obvious that the CAMERA group and these pro-Israeli groups were simply more niave than the Wikipedians for Palestine. At the time of CAMERA, WfP was a secret group of about 12 members, whose membership was sanctioned by requirement of Wiki-name and evidence of acceptable edits. *This group disbanded almost immediately upon discovery. As far as we know, these 12 undiscovered members are still right here at Wikipedia (in whatever capacity). There is no reason to think they are not. It is also forgotten by many that the mailing list was brought forward by a Wikipedia editor who was also an employee of Electronic Intifada, who has since changed his name. If you can't act in a fair and evenhanded way across the I-P conflict area, you should do nothing. 66.186.163.30 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not having access to any of the evidence against JJG and Eric, I will take Tariq at his word with regards to the nature of the evidence against them, though I am disappointed by his refusal to provide the evidence to administrators who asked for it. With regards to the publicly available information, I must say I am underwhelmed by the nature of evidence brought forth against Wikibias. I do not share the characterization of the how-to guide as a guide to 'gaming the system' - is seems like a straightforward guide for new users, providing tips on avoiding disruptive actions that may lead to blocks. I also fail to see a big difference between Wikibias, and a site such as Wikipedia Review, where multiple Wikpedia editors (including administrators) regularly participate. That site, too, has wiki editors calling upon other editors to edit Wiki articles in a manner that could be described as recruiting meatpuppets - see this as one such example. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Question - I would like to know why Jiujitsuguy's off wiki activity produced no action when it was reported to the functionaries list/oversight team by nableezy in July but resulted in a 1 year block when reported at AE. nableezy was told to contact the oversight team. He did that. Nothing happened. I want to know why. This seems like an important matter to me. The lack of action by the oversight team after that report and lack of clarity on these off wiki issues (together with some email discussions I had with Jiujitsuguy about these matters) played a large part in my decision not to pursue the matter myself. Apparently, assuming that the 1 year block is the right decision, I made the wrong decision to not follow up on the report based largely on an assumption that the oversight team would act if action was necessary. Something has gone wrong somewhere. It would be good to know what went wrong, why and do something about it. Inconsistency in the I-P conflict area isn't helping. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the answer you're looking for, but maybe the Oversight saw noting egregious that was worth following up on.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps but I would expect them to say that if that is what they decided. Having seen all the evidence that isn't Wikibias related it wasn't until I saw new evidence that I decided to take the matter up directly with nableezy and Jiujitsuguy. Even with all the evidence there is, in my view, a lack of clarity on how policy applies. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question 2:

Has anyone thought of simply asking the editors under question to cease whatever they are doing wrong?

Like everyone else here, I don't the extent of the evidence against the two editors, but a basic perusal of Wikibias.com does not reveal any blatant meatpuppetry or policy dogding. If anything, [3] how-to-guide is a pretty good instruction manual for editing Wikipedia and should perhaps be incorporated wikipedia's how-to pages.

The unilateral and drastic nature of user:Tariqabjotu's blocks are certainly questionable, at best, as noted above by User: Wehwalta and other editors.

I also note the inconsistency with how other alleged meatpuppetry groups are treated. As noted above, Wikipedians for Palestine is ignored. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive557#Facebook event to recruit Arab and Muslim editors to contribute to the Gaza War articl, where zero action was taken.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But I really have one question that nobody seems to be discussing. Why can't we just ask the editors to stop doing whatever they are doing wrong? What's with our obsession with blocks and bans?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Brewcrewer and the one real question here is why Tariq chose to block indefinitely when ArbCom has seen the same information and chose not to act? Poor judgment to go ahead and block without first seeking input on a issue he had to know would be contentious. Enigma^msg 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is a serious offence and experienced users like Juijitsu have no excuse if that is what they have been engaged in. Since I have not seen all the evidence, I won't make a judgement, but for a clear case of meatpuppetry by an experienced user that would certainly be grounds for an extended ban in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The relentless efforts of outfits such as the Jewish Internet Defense Force to alter the fundamental tenets of fairness on Wikipedia makes any organized offsite meatpuppetry unacceptable. Meatpuppetry in defense of an article on a fictional character at AfD pales in comparison. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything sinister about a "how-to-guide." "Don't edit war," "Keep your cool," "Do not accuse editors of bath faith..." I'm sorry but this does not look like gaming the system. Also, how do we know the editors behind this scandal are Eric and Jiujitsuguy? No mention of wikibias is made by either, it seems the administrator made the inference. An indefinite block should require more concrete evidence. Since there really isn't an historic precedent for something like this, and clearly it is a big problem - I don't understand why the admin made a block unilaterally. I also think the offending editors should be given a forum to defend themselves, why they haven't is suspect. I imagine many editors here are afraid to say anything for fear of being lumped into the wikibias movement. I don't blame em'...Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is concrete evidence, but I'm not going to present their personal information publicly to show it to you. Obviously, they're not going to say "Oh, I edit this site" on the user page, because they know it's a problem. The author of WikiBias, who, again, I'm sure is Eric, says the same on the website. You quotes of that page are highly selective. Here are some others:

• "So you want to become a Wikipedia editor and join the fight for truth and fairness? Excellent, we are looking for a few good men (and some great women)." Not even hiding the fact that he treats Wikipedia like a battleground; he's even using a battleground metaphor.
• "A simple piece of accurate information works. Just add it. Don’t use a proper footnote, genuinely new users rarely do." He could just tell people how references should be written, but he doesn't. He wants people to feign ignorance on how to edit properly, so they don't appear as meatpuppets, people instructed to come to Wikipedia for some purpose.
• "Sooner or later you will notice that something that you regard as a simple fact, like the fact that Mt. Hermon is located in Israel, will be deleted by an editor who doesn’t agree with your worldview." He knows his audience.
• "Keep in mind that there have been lengthy edit was over the monumentally trivial topic of hummus. An edit war can break out on any topic at any time. Some anti-Israel editors will start an edit war with a pro-Israel user with the intention of making the pro-Israel editor so angry that he will do something stupid and get himself banned." Right. And this is why he advises against edit-warring and accusing others of bad faith. Blocked and banned users can't win content disputes.
• "While you are making a lot of effective edits, the anti-Israel gangs may take it to the next level." Again, he knows his audience. It doesn't matter if he, in reality, gets readers from across the political spectrum; the point is he intends to bring people to Wikipedia solely to advance his pro-Israel agenda.

Frankly, I'm not sure what's unclear about this. The fact that he may not be the leader of an influential organization shouldn't matter. The intent is still there, and the effects are impossible to measure. We shouldn't be sending the message that it's okay, so long as your website isn't very popular, or it's okay, unless we can prove that people are following your commands. -- tariqabjotu 11:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Tips and suggestions on how to avoid getting banned is not illegal nor against policy. Reference to Mt. Hermon is irrelevant, if anything it is positive because it tells article x is an article that is often vandalized, watch out for it. We have wikipedia projects that do the exact same thing. The comment about hummus is accurate, editors do often bait other users with differing POVs into an edit-war, often stirring up the pot and provoking conflict, then editors go to enforcement boards to get their opponents banned. It happens all the time around here. The only real problem with the guide is the 1st bulletin, telling users that "we're looking for a few good men." But this isn't the same thing as meatpuppetry, you inferred there is some conspiracy going within wikibias, grouping like-minded editors to attack articles that aren't considered pro-israel. I see no evidence to support such a conclusion - you made this inference. I'm not defending wikibias, but you are exaggerating the crime. IMO I don't see anything wrong with referring users to articles that are problematic, even if it might have a pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian slant. We have wikiprojects that group articles based on their quality class, and alert fellow members of problems and issues that should be corrected. This isn't 1984, we don't know his "intent" other than your own interpretation. For all we know wikibias was created in good-faith. I'd imagine most meat puppetry occurs behind the scenes, in a private yahoo group or something less obvious as "wikibias." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I advised Jiujitsuguy that he and anyone he recruited to edit on Wikipedia was expected to edit appropriately. The question is whether he has done so, and whether there are other editors, meatpuppets, which mirror any inappropriate activity. I'm going to take a look at his editing, and at the editing of others editing the articles he has been editing. When I've done that I'll have a better idea of whether we are actually dealing with extreme POV editing by either him or others. His actual role in the "call" for editors is not that clear and he denies a central role. That is why the emphasis was placed on how he, and possibly others, edited. There is no license to engage in systemic POV editing, but that is the offense which would justify a ban, not suspicion of off-wiki plotting. Fred Talk 09:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I imagine that at this point arbcom or an otherwise select group have the evidence in question and is reviewing. For obvious reasons most of us will not be able to review the evidence or make any particularly insightful comments about it. un☯mi 10:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen the evidence, but I trust Tariqabjotu to evaluate it competently. Under the assumption that the evidence linking these editors to offsite meatpuppetry activities holds up, therefore (and they do not appear to deny that it does), I entirely endorse the indefinite block. Engaging in covert and systematic activities to make others edit this site according to a particular POV is incompatible with the position of editor of a neutral encyclopedia, whether in the I-P conflict area or elsewhere.  Sandstein  11:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would again like to remind people that the Wikibias website is the sum of the meatpuppetry I'm talking about. You can look at the website and comment on whether you believe the person running the site should be indefinitely blocked (even if you don't yet believe Eric is behind that). It is merely how I know it's him that I'm not publicly sharing, because it requires exposing personal information.

I would love to share the evidence with more people, but I don't want to step on ArbCom's toes. I've specifically asked them whether it is okay to send the evidence to any admin who wants it, but they have not responded yet. I'd prefer to wait until they do, and I hope they allow me to do so (or do so themselves), as it seems a large number of people are withholding judgment until they see it (even though I think Wikibias provides the basis behind the meatpuppetry I'm calling Eric out on). -- tariqabjotu 11:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can share some of the content that is linked to Jiujitsguy, because it doesn't seem to show any personal information about him (the two other websites mention his real name). This comes from a website that I'm confident is owned by him. Once again, it's a guide to gaming the system. I'm confident he personally wrote it, considering it mirrors what was said in other articles clearly written by him (including one where he admits that he's Jiujitsguy on Wikipedia). -- tariqabjotu 11:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are three problems that I think people are clouding people's views of your actions. First of all, yes, that you are withholding much of the evidence under which have handed out a severe penalty from fellow admins, who are given the function under ARBPIA of reviewing an AE block. Second of all, the Wikibias blog, while containing criticisms of Wikipedia, is facially neutral when asking people to look at the discussion. What you are saying is that by putting this up there, he's hinting what he wants. Maybe so. Facially neutral semi-canvassing goes on all the time on wiki. People ask other people directly on here to comment on an issue. That's considered acceptable, because of the fact they aren't actually asking for support, although they are, by posting at a friendly wikiproject say, really hoping for it. Even if someone went too far with that, the result would be a note asking someone to be more cautious. Third, you handed out an indef block as an arb enforcement sanction, and when it was pointed out to you that wasn't allowed, you said, OK, one year is the arb sanction, the rest is on me. That seems very result oriented to me. It strikes me that a far more balanced approach would be a request to take down the offending material, assuming identity was satisfied (and as I haven't seen the evidence, I cannot say that it has been. Note I do not accuse Tariq of bad faith, I merely say he is capable of being wrong, and would more readily trust a checkuser on this), was a block until the offending material was taken down. After all, your instant-reaction sanction has done nothing to stop the evil complained of. The blog, after all, is still out there, and the editors can sneak back with new IPs and names. I would rather see the blog down, if it is such a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to think it's so difficult to comment on these websites without seeing the proof of who ever is behind them, I'm tempted to just give the information to you (along with Sandstein and the couple other admins who have requested it) -- I'm not the only one who has seen it, for sure -- but your attitude is extremely abrasive. You can't even recognize why I might to wait until hearing back from ArbCom, even though you yourself said earlier I should have doled it over to them in the first place? What are you suggesting? That I should leave to ArbCom... and also just you? And yes, my explanation for the indefinite block despite the one-year piece on the ArbCom ruling was result-oriented. Why does it matter what it's called, whether it falls within the scope of the ArbCom decision or not? People hand out indefinite blocks for any number of reasons. I am entitled to do so as well. And what does checkuser have anything to do with this? There have been no allegations of sockpuppetry. -- tariqabjotu 12:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the apparent intention of Wikibias is to sway results to one side, doing that on a publicly available blog can hardly be called (as Sandstein does call it) "covert". Since those on both sides have read the blog, the accusation of "meatpuppet" seems absurd. Not only is the accusation unsupported, it is unsupportable. Wikibias is just a blog where someone discusses what he/she thinks is wrong with WP in general, and a few articles in particular.

In my view the administrators responsible for indeffing the user (assumed) responsible for the Wikibias blog, without supplying any evidence that WP rules have been violated, should be desysoped. In that I see rules have been violated. 173.52.134.182 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(to Tariq)Please feel free to do so, if you feel inclined. Possibly you should have followed one of the above procedures I suggested. Possibly, since there was importance, but not actual urgency in the matter, you should have communicated with ArbCom immediately and let them handle it. I am also struck by your comment here where you dwell on the difficulties of someone else undoing your AE block. I believe in fairness to everyone here, possibly I have been overfair from time to time. But what I see is an admin hand-selected by parties to an AE (Yes, I saw the initial skepticism you stated), that admin acting quickly to block two editors without giving them the chance to respond, despite ARBPIA, which urges admins using AE sanctions under ARBPIA to consult, use blocks as last resorts, etc. The "secret evidence" is an issue, as it makes it impossible for anyone else to review the justice of the block, including the question of identity. I continue to express no opinion on the whether the block was warranted. The procedure I strongly denounce.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean, look at it like this: If you had gotten the email, and been convinced by it, what harm would have been done by either asking the editors in question for their views or just asking for advice from ArbCom or a member thereof? What harm would have been caused by waiting? I will put it this way. People are sufficiently annoyed about the reports out of Israel, in my view, that if this had been handled well, there would not have been one word of dissent.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

( Housekeeping: My comment below is out of temporal sequence because I originally top-posted, recognized the error, and couldn't insert it back into strictly correct temporal sequence because doing so would have interrupted the continuity of a discussion re meaning and indenting. This was the end-of-thread location when I placed it here. But I've evidently disrupted the space-time continuum! Sorry! - OhioStandard )

I want to express my thanks for the blocks you've made. We need people editing here who are willing and able to subordinate their own political beliefs to the higher goal of working cooperatively and openly to create a great educational resource for the benefit of the entire world. Those who come here to champion any particular political agenda just subvert that goal, and that damage is multiplied by orders of magnitude when they do it in covert groups organized for the purpose. I have nothing but respect for your decision to defend the encyclopedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Many editors view Wikipedia as a battleground. This is very clear to anyone who was closely involved in any articles on Israeli-Arab conflict. I think it is very important to view this indefinite block (the wiki capital punishment) in this context. There is a wide range of behaviours of these 'warring' editors, and these two editors have been punished because they have been caught in action which apparently violates WP polcies. So the editors on the other side (who actually exlosed this behaviour) can claim temporary victory. It is possible that Tariq's actions have been technically correct and made in good faith. However they do ignore this wider picture of the battleground. I also recognise that Tariq is not some kind of god who can solve a fundamental problem of Wikipedia. But he needs to think if his actions are in the broader interests of Wikipedia. Just like in criminal law in many cases charges are only laid if it is 'in the public interest', even if the particular action is technically illegal. I also think the lack of consultation BEFORE the indefinite block is very surprsing and will inevitably be viewed as suspicious. Sincerely. - BorisG (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now briefly reviewed the evidence, sent to me by Tariqabjotu. The evidence identifying Eric1985 (talk · contribs) as the author of http://wikibias.com is convincing and, in my opinion, sufficient to support the indefinite block. On the other hand, I am not absolutely certain that the evidence linking Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) to various offwiki publications is compelling enough, and/or these offwiki publications problematic enough, to warrant an immediate indefinite block. While the evidence is substantial, and the offwiki publications are clearly of the "go forth and edit Wikipedia from a pro-Israel POV" sort, I am not sure that the border separating mere offwiki advocacy and exhortation from active offwiki coordination and meatpuppetry has been crossed. This would probably benefit from a more thorough discussion. The block may still be justifiable, but the situation is not entirely clear-cut and, as such, I think that a more thorough review of the case by the Arbitration Committee would be helpful.  Sandstein  13:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also seen the evidence and agree with Sandstein's take. I still think we need to go to Arbcom for some clarification on how to act on it though. --WGFinley (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that User:Shuki has removed the block notices from both user's pages, claiming that Tariq has no authority to issue such blocks. I have asked them what they're playing at (though having the indefblock tag on the userpage is fairly trivial in itself). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it comes from my past involvement in the Israel-Palestine area (e.g. Israel and Jerusalem), but this has long been ignored by them, and basically everyone else in this area, until they don't like the action. Then they bring it up. I don't care about the talk page notices, so this angle of disputing the block. The block ought to be discussed on its own merits. -- tariqabjotu 18:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

After much digging, and without access to any evidence other editors may have collected, I was able to independently discover who Jiujitsuguy is. I've read the off-wiki material they've written, and while it's highly critical of Wikipedia, and extremely biased, I didn't see anything that warranted an indefinite block. Unless other editors found something more damning that the materials I myself did, I don't think anything harsher than an indefinite topic ban (on topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict) is called for. ← George ^talk 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Both blocks should be reverted. There was no urgency in blocking two users by an involved administrator. --Broccoli (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to re-read what involved means, none of your diffs constitute involvement. --WGFinley (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course all the differences I provided clearly demonstrate the involvement of the administrator in content disputes. He didn't revert vandalism. He reverted the edits and in the process changed the content of the articles in the area of the conflict. Broccoli (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that he shouldn't have reverted this? I think you have only skimmed the revision without looking at it closely at all. un☯mi 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, and the first edit was followed by this one. The third -- frankly, I don't even recall performing that edit -- but I'm confident it stems from the deficiencies of the pending revision system (is someone not approving an edit engaging in a content dispute?). Notice how I didn't follow up on any of the reverts you mention -- because I don't care about them. -- tariqabjotu 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now spent almost two hours reviewing the three edits that tariqabjotu reverted, including following and reading all the refs that they introduced. Here's what I found about the three:

(1) Made by an obvious sock with only two edits in his history. First two changes it included contradicted the sources they ostensibly were based on. Third change was nowhere supported or even mentioned in the source. Fourth and fifth change were original research based on the editor's interpretation of the Law of the Sea. The sixth change introduced a section entitled "Israel's Stand" (sic.). That short section had some potential in that it cited a ref to a French news site that gave an account of the Israeli Prime Minister's statements to an Israeli commission formed to investigate the boarding of the Gaza aid ship. But its first sentence was garbled, the vertical spacing was off, and the section also was surrounded by original research. Further, the editor misrepresented the French article's title in filling out the "cite news" details in such a way as to give a false impression. The seventh change introduced a new section about rockets fired into Israel. That content could be useful elsewhere, but it was entirely out-of-place to introduce it into this Gaza flotilla article.

(2) Pure racist vandalism. Anti-semitic crap calling Israelis "pigs", etc.

(3) Consisted of four simple factual errors introduced by an account with just two edits.

@Broccoli: did you mean to suggest that tariqabjotu is "involved" in a biased or negative way? If so, the three reverts you cite demonstrate precisely the opposite. They show a diligent editor just doing his job. Any responsible, neutral editor would have done exactly the same thing with these three edits. Disagree with him if you like, by all means, but you owe him an apology for introducing these three reverts as evidence of any improper motives or involvment.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

( Please note that by "you", below, Broccoli is referring to tariqabjotu.  – OhioStandard (talk) )

Well the differences speak for themselves. One will never find something like that by Sandstien for example. The fact you did not follow up on your reverts does not really matter. You are involved in editing the articles and you should not have blocked two users. There was no immediate threat to Wikipedia by any of them. The blocks should be lifted.-Broccoli (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Broccoli, I might feel the same way you seem to if I were in your shoes; I probably would, actually. I'm sorry that your people have been through such intense suffering in the past, and that Israel has enemies all around. I mean that. But not everyone who disagrees with you here is your enemy, and I'm afraid your feeling of being attacked has blinded you a bit to that. That's understandable, but please look more carefully at the three edits that Tariqabjotu reverted. I spent almost two hours reviewing them; it wouldn't hurt you to spend half that long yourself. The diffs do speak for themselves, but only if you'll actually read them, and compare them to the sources they cite. For example, Tariqabjotu was defending Israel from a racist attack in the second revert: How can you possibly object to that? He's earned your thanks for that one, at least, not your scorn. If you'll carefully review the other two edits he reverted, made by socks, btw, and read all the sources the first one relies on, I trust you'll come to a better opinion of his reverts. I hope you can accept this recommendation in the spirit it's offered, but you really do need to take a closer look at the three. This isn't the place for content disputes, but if you'd like help putting back what's legitimately admissable in the first revert, let me know on my talk page. I'd be glad to help. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Application of EEML

Per another editor's suggestion I went and looked at the more recent EEML case and it has the following: (bolds are mine)

Off-wiki conduct

11) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the evidence I'm not sure if the action of either of the editors meets the level of the bans imposed because I'm not certain we've established a "direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community." Thoughts? --WGFinley (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

From what has been made public, I agree, and would unblock, my opinion subject to what is disclosed down the line. I believe ArbComm's language to mean conduct that almost rises to abetting harrassment, such as posting sensitive personal information, such as their phone number. At worst, this was hoping his readers would help him out. He could have tossed a message in a bottle with about equal effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikibias website is indeed the work of Eric1985 (and it appears that it is) then an indefinite block is absolutely correct. Having not seen the evidence on Jiujitsuguy, then I cannot make a judgement on them. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Grave acts of overt and persistent harassment... -- No, I don't think so. But direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia -- I certainly think in the case of WikiBias, that is the case, unless the ruling is saying that the conduct must have both the intended effect and the actual effect (as the former exists, while the latter does not necessarily). Regarding the websites pertaining to Jiujitsuguy, it is less so the case; it was less systematic. In Jiujitsuguy's case, though, his past conduct on Wikipedia did come to mind when blocking him. -- tariqabjotu 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Wikibias website constitutes, or describes, the sort of serious misconduct the EEML decision outlines. Whether this is also the case with Jiujitsuguy is considerably less clear to me. This requires closer review, which ArbCom is best qualified to do (either sua sponte or on appeal).  Sandstein  19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A "direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia" is relevant for what Eric did. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In what way?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Wikibias website should answer that question very simply. Linking to discussion pages and suggesting that people chime in there (i.e. canvassing); repeatedly referring to other editors (and naming them) as anti-Semites and racists; a "how-to" guide on how to appear to be a "good Wikipedian" by inflating your edit-count in non-controversial area before hitting the IP articles; "It is possible to fight and win edit wars."... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the worst post from Wikibias is his first one, that's clearly out of line, no doubt. The one you cited about becoming a "good Wikipedian" has things about what edit warring is, explaining revert rules, a lot of it I actually would like to see among many of the participants in these articles! There's issues there, no doubt, but are they indefinite ban issues for off-wiki activity? I don't know about that and it's probably why we need to strongly consider how off-wiki content is handled in these types of instances. --WGFinley (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it was worth an immediate indefinite block under AE provisions (modified when it was pointed out the admin had erred, but emphatically retaining the AE provisions), with no opportunity for defense. After all, where was the fire?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree on that. Indef doesn't mean infinite. My take on it is that he's only explaining those things to people so that they don't get blocked. I can imagine that new IP editors with a particular POV might get blocked very quickly if they weren't cautioned how not to behave. If you're recruiting people with a certain POV into an already controversial area on Wikipedia, and then telling them how to game the system, I don't think we need editors like that. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, blocks are not irreversible. Admins come here all the time asking for reviews of their blocks. Sometimes they're approved, sometimes they're not (and then they're reversed). The same exists here. If there is consensus that the block of either or the both of them was not appropriate, it'll be reversed or shortened. Calm down. I understand you're big on this process thing, but I don't think you're adding to the conversation by harping on certain points over and over. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, "In what way?" how many times do I have to bring this up? What Blackkite said above, his "how to guide" which is really a guide for gaming the system, all the canvassing posts and: "So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." At WP Israel: "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of it is facially neutral, good advice for getting along on WP, as has been pointed out by several editors. The fact that you had to characterize it as a "guide for gaming the system" means that there should have been the opportunity to defend, rather than a block out of the blue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How come you don't comment on the two quotes above where he straight out says that he is meatpuppeting? In his "guide" he has a plan for the editors on his side, and its obvious who his side is by reading all the canvassing posts in that blog and texts in that "guide": "So you want to become a Wikipedia editor and join the fight for truth and fairness? Excellent, we are looking for a few good men (and some great women)"...."Some anti-Israel editors will start an edit war with a pro-Israel user with the intention of making the pro-Israel editor so angry that he will do something stupid and get himself banned"..."There are roving gangs of anti-Israel editors looking to pick a fight.".... So we know now that he wants to recruit editors to edit articles in a pro-Israeli way, and then he gives them advise on how to at the beginning appear to be normal editors who later on in they're Wikipedia careers just stumbled upon some Arab-Israeli articles. The sole intent by this is to build up a false image for these new pro-Israeli editors when they're real goal from the very beginning is to embark on the Arab-Israeli articles pushing a pro-Israeli view. "Sooner or later you will notice that something that you regard as a simple fact, like the fact that Mt. Hermon is located in Israel, will be deleted by an editor who doesn’t agree with your worldview." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Question, have you read through all of the posts on wikibias.com? un☯mi 18:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there more that have not been linked to?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

By my count there are 14 blog posts there, perhaps you would care to review them so we can move beyond "facially". un☯mi 18:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think we should simply leave it to arbcom to decide at this point, but as you are obviously keen to continue discussing it then perhaps it would best to do so after being able to commit to having read through the whole site, 14 posts aren't that many. This would hopefully work towards a better heat / light ratio. un☯mi 18:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Will you help me with any big words? Why don't we make an agreement to agree on the waiting for Arbcom bit and agree to slowly put down the sarcasm and back away? I will if you will.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deal :) un☯mi 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the role of WP:COI in all of this ? It says "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The statement is crystal clear and yet it isn't a policy, it apparently doesn't have any teeth and it's ignored in the I-P conflict area where many editors have a transparent conflict of interest and either no interest in policy compliance or no real understanding of what that means in terms of content decisions. If editors complied with WP:COI and admins were able to sanction editors for failing to comply with it we wouldn't have this mess. We can argue about details and nuances of policy and how they apply to these cases but a good start would be for Wikipedia to take conflict of interest seriously and act upon it. Tariq's actions are consistent with the kind of Wikipedia that takes COI seriously. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:COI, "if you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in [an] area, you may have a conflict of interest." So I'd say that POV-pushing for purely personal ideological reasons does not constitute a COI. COI only exists if one is also personally involved with an advocacy organization, but in practice I think the point is not very relevant: POV-pushing, especially of the organized sort, is bad no matter whether a COI is also involved.  Sandstein  19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects exist that refer users to problematic articles. Editors can post articles they feel have issues, including bias. The fact that the website may have been pro-Israel doesn't matter. Editors are allowed to advertise their opinion on their userpage, including boxes that say they support the actions of Hezbollah, Al-qaeda in Iraq, Hamas (excuse me, right to "resist"). Editors can also announce their status as a hard-core Zionist and makes no differentiation between antisemitic and anti-Zionism. These editors can still edit articles, as long as they don't violate rules. Until there is evidence that edits are being made by behind-the-scenes groups with real wikipedia editors, collaborating as a unit and design strategies on how to violate the rules without breaking them, rather than explaining the rules and say don't break them - which is what the guide ultimately says - I don't see grounds for an indefinite block. I also have issues when editors are banned for alleged-actions offline or on actions made on other websites. Admins have jurisiction on wikipedia, they shouldn't take it upon themselves to battle other editors off-line without a serious discussion here or with other admins. Unilateral blocks like this should also be treated like a grain of salt.

On another note, I've witnessed plenty disputes that start from 2 or 3 involved editors trying to gain a consensus, and then a day later 20 editors with no involvement in the article show up to support their buddies. This is a real problem that should be stopped. I think this scandal has been turned into a lightening rod to distract from the real issues on wikipedia. I personally don't feel victim to an Israeli conspiracy. Many editors, who will remain name-less, have a vested interest in banning users they don't like for ideological differences. We all know this happens so let's not kid ourselves.Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the good old anti-Zionism = anti-semitism and 'they support the terrists!' canards. I was wondering when somebody was going to pull those out. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Martin Luther King, Jr. "Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism". Martin Luther King repeated the same thought at least one more time Martin Luther King responded to a black student who harshly criticized Zionists "Don't talk like that! When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism."--Broccoli (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you or are you going to apologize to Tariq over your misunderstanding regarding the reversions? By the way the MLK quotes are regarded to be a hoax see here. un☯mi 14:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Only by some. Whether King actually said it is still open to debate, I beleieve. See Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said that. Editors can openly advertise their political agenda on their own userpage. You have this userbox on your page:

This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation.

.

RolandR makes no differentiation between Zionists and Nazis on his own page.

Of course I distinguish between Zionists and Nazis. It is an unwarranted smear to insinuate otherwise, and I request that you strike out this comment. RolandR (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This user advertises his sympathies with Hezbollah. Does this mean they cannot edit articles even though they clearly have a POV that is obviously not neutral? No, of course not. Just like editors who openly profess their gushing, unconditional support and obsession with Israel are allowed to work on articles regardless of whether they are about Palestine or Israel. The fact that Wikibias is inherently pro-Israel does not necessarily mean it is criminal. what if wikibias had no political agenda, but still referred editors to problematic articles? I have a feeling users would be less blood-thirsty for bannishment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Openly advertising" your political beliefs on your user page, is not the same as saying that you have a political agenda for editing Wikipedia. Wikibias, Yesha, et al. have specifically said that they want to inject their Zionist bias into Wikipedia (see [4], for instance). This is not the same as saying they are Zionists, but want to try to neutrally edit Wikipedia without a POV. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is about wikibias, not some settler Zionist fringe organization. I don't see anyone saying they want to "inject their Zionist bias into wikipedia." That's just you talking, and that's biased. No evidence has been provided that any meatpuppetry going on. It looks like a pretty honest website directing anyone interest towards articles that are considered to be biased (hence, wikibias). I don't see a forum or a place where people can apply for membership. It doesn't look like an organized movement, other than the reference to "we need more people like you" but that's vague and shouldn't be interpreted by Israe/Palestine admins. My main beef is that an admin acted unilaterally beyond his jurisdiction. Wikipedia admins are not supposed to police the internet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"No evidence has been provided that any meatpuppetry going on.".. Amazing how some people read only what suits them: [5][6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reading through this thread and the sites in question. They are certainly disturbing, and certainly a matter for Arbcom. Blocking the accounts involved for admitted meatpuppetry is probably necessary to protect the project at this stage, although I do believe the final decision should be arbcom's. To Wehwalt (and anyone else who is concerned about the indefs), would you be satisfied with a reduced-length block that would nevertheless keep the accounts blocked until Arbcom could issue a ruling? It may be more semantic than anything, but at least it's not an indef handed out against an AE guideline. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, were it understood that if Arbcom chooses not to take the case, any admin can unblock the usual way in his discretion. I suspect that the ominous silence we hear from Arbcom right now means something is up, but I'm fine with that. Say thirty days on each account, AN/I to consider a topic ban if Arbcom doesn't act?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something very similar. I like that approach better than leaving the current indefs in place. The topic ban would undoubtedly be a necessary consideration should Arbcom decline to act. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I still believe, based on what I've been able to personally find from the person I believe to be Jiujitsuguy, that a topic ban would be more appropriate than an indefinite block. However, whoever the author of Wikibias is was clearly trying to organize a campaign to subvert Wikipedia's neutrality (per tariqabjotu's analysis above, at 11:46, 22 August 2010), and deserves a full an indefinite block. ← George ^talk 03:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that in Jiujitsuguy's case it isn't clear from the evidence and from what policies actually say right now that there has been a violation. Furthemore, the full story can't be obtained by simply looking at the evidence out there. Jiujitsuguy has his version and interpretation of events and that information does impact on what the evidence means and the conclusions that can be reliably drawn from it. There are already ambiguities here in terms of how policy applies based on the evidence but those ambiguities are magnified when you add in J's version of events. Now, I personally don't think J should be editing in the I-P conflict area because I consider his objectives to be in conflict with Wikipedia's but from his perspective his objectives are entirely consistent with Wikipedia's. Arbcom do need to look at this case because it's not straightforward. I can understand why Tariq would block J given the nature of the I-P conflict area here, the nature of the evidence and exisiting policy but there are lots of grey areas here. It would be better if there were simple bright line rules but there aren't. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll also add that while I personally favour the merciness crushing of persistent POV pushing beneath the full weight of an Israeli targeted killings-like approach to dealing with partisan editing here (and I applaud the recent efforts of both Tariq and WGFinley in acting to reduce conflict in several flashpoint articles by imposing editing restrictions quickly in response to trouble), the existing policies and sanctions don't really seem to support my views. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a thought that we should see if there is consensus on Throwaway85's proposal?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Keeping the current block in place, which can end at any point by nature of being indefinite, and then modifying it if there is consensus or ArbCom decision to do so, produces the same effect. -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are willing to drop the AE part of it and leave it as an indefinite block for violation of WP, that is not unreasonable. However, if you are insisting that your block is AE-related, then I think we should discuss whether to move ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. It really makes no difference to me. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as I am concerned, I'm satisfied with that and the unblock. The indef block is within your discretion, and if someone else (I'm not doing it, in case you were wondering) wants to unblock, they can consult with you and move from there. As far as I'm concerned, we can put this one to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Jiujitsuguy there is a pattern of poor editing (By which I mean less than stellar in the I-P context) but not the sort of sustained aggressive POV editing that is required to support an indefinite block. I think Tariqabjotu's closing of the Arbitration Enforcement debate, which was quite inconclusive, and then adding on an indefinite block in addition to the permitted one year block was over-reaching. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is very much an involved party and should never have closed the discussion or blocked anyone. Fred Talk 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has followed Jiujitsuguy's edits from the start, I fully agree with Tariqabjotu's assessment of Jiujitsuguy. I know I speak for many fellow Wikipedia editors when I say that encounters with Jiujitsuguy has been very frustrating as Jiujitsuguy's editing patterns has been marked with aggressive POV-editing from the very start. Tariqabjotu has shown great integrity as an administrator and he should be applauded for that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That, if true, would support the block, even a ban. I'll keep looking at his edits. Fred Talk 19:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It could. However, we should deal with this block first, not look for alternative justifications, then consider what is to be done through the usual processes, if anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred, I did not close the AE debate; in fact, it's still open. Unless by "closed" you meant "blocked one of the editors in question for a charge completely unrelated to the one the initial report was about". Also, please check your e-mail; I sent you an e-mail more than twelve hours ago, which you have not yet responded to. Or at the very least, look at Jiujitsuguy's talk page.

Secondly, I'm really tired of this "I disagree with the block; therefore you are involved" conclusion. Aside from this being a non sequitur of epic proportions, I have not, insofar as I can remember, had any involvement or disputes with Jiujitsuguy. I would expect that kind of attempt to make things personal from one of the editors who has traditionally sided with Jiujitsuguy on content disputes, but I certainly didn't expect it from you (and, for the record, Jiujitsuguy's own responses to me on his talk page and via e-mail have been nothing but cordial, avoiding suggesting any personal reasons for the block). You are entitled to disagree with the block, but it's borderline insulting to see you join the attempts to divert attention away from the merits of the block and toward the merits of me. I can see reasons to oppose the block on its own merits; stick to talking about those. But regardless of whether the block is overturned, and it's increasingly looking like it will be (I offered to do so myself on Jiujitsuguy's talk page, pending your response to the e-mail I sent you twelve hours ago), this shouldn't come down to "oh, the fact that his action was disputed by the community indicates he has a bias in this area and should never involve himself in Israel-Palestine issues again". Really, Fred, I expect better from you. -- tariqabjotu 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And, as a follow up, I have unblocked Jiujitsuguy. -- tariqabjotu 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred, I agree with Tariq, he's said nothing about closing the AE that I've seen and in fact I think he put this on AN/I in a good faith effort to have peer review of his action so I think you have misread something here. However, I think there is little to be gained from going on like this, we have the usual names on each side of the debate and a few people that are trying to give honest opinions but end up getting drowned out by the partisan sides. I started to work this up for an Arbcom amendment request and I think that's the route to go with this. --WGFinley (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable, I would say, do you think asking for a full case would be better?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I really loathe the drawn-out process of a whole ArbCom case, I have long argued that this area needs another ArbCom case. First, the conflicts on Israel-Palestine issues are pervasive and never-ending; the first case has done nothing, it seems, to put an end to them, although perhaps it's just a reality that there isn't a whole lot we can do. Many here, including myself, seem to agree there are a lot of editors who treat Israel-Palestine articles as battlegrounds (not to say all editors who edit in this area do). And it seems we're tacitly, if not explicitly, agreeing that we ought to tolerate it to some extent (what that extent is is a matter of debate). That we are agreeing to compromise on one of our five pillars (and a point that has repeatedly been upheld as a principle in ArbCom cases) is a point that should be addressed, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you be happy skipping Arbcom and simply starting an RfC/U in support of a topic ban? Alternatively, as the issue doesn't seem to be going anywhere, we could start an arbcom case asking for a ruling that *any* offsite canvassing/astroturfing/meatpuppetry of this nature is grounds for a topic ban, of a length to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Between Camera, this, the JIDF, DailyKos, and the inevitable future cases, we really have a pretty well-established pattern. If we can get a clear ruling so that each new case need not go through Arbcom, that would clear things up a bit.

As I have said, I'm personally content with the outcome, while not applauding the actions that were taken to get us to this point. If Eric asks for an unblock, that should be considered on its merits. After giving it some thought, if the only thing an Arbcom case gives us is a set of rules that both sides immediately start wikilawyering around, it's kinda pointless. Still, the question of offline conduct is going to be a continuous problem, if ArbCom can come up with a bright line test, it would be worth having.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Eric editor is an inactive as well as the jump to block, judge, jury, and executioner with no discussion from the accused shows the absurdity of tariqabjotu's actions. --Shuki (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to strike this statement, or reword it, to avoid being uncivil. This is not a trial, and no one has been "executed." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Eric posted a reaction to this ANI at wikibias. Is it legal to broadcast names of wikipedia users? While I don't mind people citing my account off wikipedia I feel sort of violated that someone would use my statements in this way and without my permission. I'm not Eric's lawyer. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility / harassment by User:7mike5000

Resolved

 – 7mike5000 indefinitely blocked by User:SarekOfVulcanDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats

Hello. I've posted links and diffs regarding a problem between another user and myself on the Wikiquette alerts page, but nothing has come of it (See: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Incivility_by_user_7mike5000). I've tried to determine what board is best to report this problem, but the chain of command isn't clear, so I'm posting here. Would an admin either direct me towards a functioning committee or group which covers this sort of thing or bring other users into handle this? Since I'm not sure this is the correct page, can someone else notify User:7mike5000 of this comment if it's appropriate to do so? Thanks. TeamZissou (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC) He's been informed. - Donald Duck (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC) The diffs from WQA The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I'm not quite sure how to go about reporting this as the instructions were a bit confusing, but I'm running into a conflict with user 7mike5000. This began when I undid a significant amount of text he added to the Smoking article. The edit he made was this: [7] I undid this and in my edit summary pointed toward the talk page of the article (I wrote, "undone -- see talk page"), providing an explanation here: [8] 7mike5000 then reverted to his edit, stating "Something called an edit summary/ try using it": [9] I then reverted that here: [10] , stating "The edit summary is on the talk page -- I'm invoking the 3-revert rule until issues resolve." 7mike5000 replied then replied to my explanation with this: [11] , a somewhat less-than-civil tirade. Notice the part at the bottom which reads: Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC) The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page (Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user. I then responded with this incensed reply: [12] 7mike5000 then responded with some taunting and insults: [13] He also added that I hadn't included an edit summary on my first removal of the text, which I had -- I even preserved a copy of said text for discussion on the talk page. I did not respond. 7mike5000, not content with this latest tirade follows up with this: [14] which included more personal attacks. I did not respond. 7mike5000 then decides to continue ranting on my talk page, here: [15]. 7mike5000 has repeated demonstrated such behavior on other articles and towards other users. A history of just that which has been reported could be found on his talkpage, before he deleted it: [16] and replaced it, ironically, with this: [17]. That's what has transpired since this began. The details of the dispute are covered in uninterrupted form here: Talk:Smoking#Section_on_Depression_vs._Suicide and here: User_talk:TeamZissou#.22_consider_keeping_your_edit_summaries_a_bit_more_civil_instead_of_venting_your_anger.22 TeamZissou (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 1: I added a notification template to 7mike5000's talk page, per the WQA rules at the top of this page. TeamZissou (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 2: I added a notification of this WQA to the bottom of the discussion on the Talk:Smoking page, here: [18] TeamZissou (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 3: I just learned 7mike5000 nominated an article I started ( Sherman Trap) to be merged into Animal trapping (here: [19] and here: [20], though he didn't sign this. The article was one of my first back in 2006 and therefore wasn't done well, but it's been there for 4 years, and it is significant in that the Sherman trap is used and mentioned in the majority of small mammal studies and ecological surveys involving small mammals. My hasty links to sources added to that article in light of this are to demonstrate this trap's unique place in its own article just like Pitfall trap and Malaise trap. Given the timing and his comment on this article, 7mike5000's nomination for this article would seem to be motivated by our recent conflict. TeamZissou (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 4: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page: Bulliform cell (changes here: [21]) Plastic Utopia (changes here: [22]) Geomys (changes here: [23]) George IV Bridge (changes here: [24]) Henry E. Dixey (changes here: [25]) Norderoog (changes here: [26]) While further references and citations are always good, all of those articles are legitimate and have been in valid, verifiable standing for a long time. Other editors have expanded articles like George IV Bridge, Norderoog is a place mentioned in North Frisian Islands and Brown_rat#Diet (it's the site of several important animal studies), Bulliform cell has been rated as High-importance by WikiProject Plants, etc. -- It is obvious the 7mike5000 is only doing this to harass me in light of his false claims that I deleted his contribution without an edit summary -- I gave him much more than a summary, and now he's merely retaliating. Can I please get an Administrator to look at this? TeamZissou (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Update 5: User 7mike5000 has gone through and done the same to these articles I started as well to harass me: Acylglyceride linkage, Bathyergus, Dear enemy recognition, Robert Linssen, Lupinus nootkatensis, all given "verification" tags -- he's likely doing this to set up moves to delete all these articles. Many of these have been reviewed by their respective WikiProjects, verification is easily done by doing a quick google search -- 7mike5000 is not tagging these articles in good faith, and it's clear he's not doing it to improve Wikipedia. TeamZissou (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I've brought the diffs from WQA here and dropp them into the above archive box for ease. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Although he is correct in his tagging of the articles (i.e. they do need references or whatever) that doesn't mean he is necessarily tagging them for the right reasons. I would say that mass removal of a section is a bit of a decisive application of WP:BRD and you might want to have tempered it a bit with discussion first, but the other user's comments are completely dickish. I draw attention to the initial response of "People like yourself crack me up, with your twisted logic and your rude mouth"; "Tell you what mouth, out of the millions of people who access Wikipedia the fact that you run into know it all, trouble makers like yourself is pretty much a given, it's like you people flock to Wikipedia, what is it not enough love from mommy?"; "Displaying bravado and wise comments are easy to do when you sit behind a computer screen. Nobody died and left you boss, and if you want to try and belittle somebody, try harder" and so forth. I am especially interested in why he signed himself "Saddhiyama" [27] I'll ask User:Saddhiyama. --S.G.(GH) ping! 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC) In this thread on his/her talk page, I pointed out that trawling through another editor's history and tagging their stubs is combative - though in my case, most were justified. Having done it again to TeamZissou, let me just say explicitly 7mike5000, it's inappropriate. In this thread I recommended 7mike5000 refrain from calling people names and instead "politely argue your case on its merits." In this post on TeamZissou's talk page, 7mike5000 said, "I myself am going to control my temper. I can state my case in a rational manner without resorting to calling people J***-off" 7mike5000 has admitted here that "I have a tendency to lose my temper and respond with infantile vulgarity" and here that "I tend to overreact so I apologize." So 7mike5000, you are aware there is an overreaction problem, and you want to modify that behaviour. Please do, because you have a lot to offer. Please thoroughly familiarise yourself with WP:AGF and don't rise to perceived bait. Polite argumentation wins the day. I also suspect you need a firmer grip on WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS. Following these as well as (given your comments about a tendency to overreact) WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, should make your time spent here peaceful and productive. Anthony (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I made a good faith edit/addition to Smoking. It gets deleted without commentary by TeamZissou. I reverted and state just to use the edit summary. Deleting someones' edit without commentray is rude. He then deletes it again. And leaves this uninformed tirade; think that there's some bias and misreporting going on here, in that smoking is far more common among people with mental heath issues ranging from depression to schizophrenia, but that the affects of tobacco smoking serves as a "band-aid" for the underlying issues. Also, this entire section was tobacco-centric, and we've gone rounds on this talkpage reminding contributers that there already exists a tobacco smoking article. Indeed, there's already a mental health section in the Health effects of tobacco article. Beginning a section with weasel words like "There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression," doesn't make for factual articles. The lay reader would interpret that in the same way a non-scientist would interpret a wording such as "Evolution is just a theory." The point I'm trying to make is that this is not the tobacco smoking article -- this article is on the practice, culture and history of smoking in general, and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project. 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Using comments like; there's some bias and misreporting going on here and like this: and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project is enough to gey anybody incensed. If that isn't condesceding, rude, impertinent and uncivil I don't know what is. The audacity to instigate an alteration, then receieve a like response to go complain and try to twist facts. The fact is that he another user asked this individual to tone done his wise comments concerning others twice. Complaing about this: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page: Bulliform cell (changes here: [28]) Plastic Utopia (changes here: [29]) Geomys (changes here: [30]) George IV Bridge (changes here: [31]) Henry E. Dixey (changes here: [32]) Norderoog (changes here: [33]) They were tagged with appropriate tags. To delete other people's edit and talk down to somebody, then preach what Wikipedia is or is not, and your own "contributions" fail to meet even the most basic tenets, such as a reference. I failed to notice where it states anywhere, that you can't place an APPROPRIATE tag on somebodies article if there has been some disagreement. This comment:Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC) The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page (Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Its from TeamZissou contributions page, its kind of funny because now its not there, that's convenient, is it possible for someone to alter or delete user contributions from their history? Of course it is, if you know an administrator or are one. There was a problem with a pictures uploaded at Wikimedia, an adminstrator in Germany fixed the issue, and cleared up the upload summary. So that's what happened here. That's a little disurbing to go through that effort. Forgot to take care of this though: 19:12, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:TeamZissou ‎ (→Question about my history: oh you silly goose) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Saddhiyama ‎ (→Re: Question about my history) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) Talk:Enlightened absolutism ‎ (→Benevolent dictatorship: some people just like to cause problems.) and this: I would have preferred not to be dragged into that conflict, for my part any disagreement I might have had with TeamZissou is a closed chapter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Intitiating rude behavior this is all from his contributions page, cur | prev) 20:07, 7 May 2010 TeamZissou (talk | contribs) (9,574 bytes) (added photo (again) -- it was removed by some zealot with a vague comment about it being (""out of context""). Hopefully that user is no longer active, and this useful image remains this time.) (undo and this one 19:46, 2 September 2009 (diff | hist) History of Icelandic ‎ (I came here looking for sources, and found not one.) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (diff | hist) List of punk films ‎ (→U: not even a hint of tangibly relating to anything punk, either in the film or in any element of culture inspired by it) 06:19, 17 July 2009 (diff | hist) Meadow jumping mouse ‎ (Removed poorly written, unsourced material. Ref to Smith was a little distorted -- Good idea for a section, but a very bad section without better language and accurately cited statements.) 18:44, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Scythians ‎ (Undid revision 361068696 by Gabhala (talk) The pro-Iran rewriting is annoying. Undid revision--look @ previous page edits.) Someone who has a history of initiating altercations with rude comments, deleting the contributions of others and is obvioulsly on an infantile vendetta. A simple comment in the edit summary on his part would have avoided the issue, to follow it up with rudeness and condescension just escalated it. To go out of his way to alter or ask somebody to alter his user contributiion log, is, and there is no euphemistic way of putting disturbing. 7mike5000 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC) And yet you were quite uncivil yourself. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I specifically said in the original revert AND the second revert that the complete edit summary was on the talk page of the smoking article, and that I not only included the entire section but also outlined what I found wrong with it's content and placement. How long are you (7mike5000) going to continue this? Pointing out another example of my bad behavior in the past isn't helpful. Just drop it, and know that I'll be surveying my watchlist everyday for when you nominate my articles for deletion. Saddhiyama is right in that whatever we were arguing about IS a closed chapter, but it seems prudent that I have to now watch closely for nitpicking and juvenile retribution -- no, that's not meant to be insulting, rather it's descriptive. There's no other reason for doing what you've been doing than bullying. I don't want to be back here in a month when you start nominating articles I've started for deletion or moves simply to feed your issues. Also, stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome. It's working, but if that's your agenda, stop. If not, what gives? TeamZissou (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I type one finger at at a time so it's getting a bit annoying now. The succinct version: YOU initiated a confrontation with somebody else by arbitrarily deleting a well referenced appropriate contribution in an appropriate section.* In response to being asked to use the edit summary, you leave a condescending and insulting reply in the Smoking talk page. Considering that this is an administrator complaint board and I'm being called a "dick" "but the other user's comments are completely dickish". Anything I have said doesn't seem so egregious. You brought attention to yourself and to articles you "created". The fact is a majority of them are woefully inadequate, and that you are content to leave them like that, so I placed appropriate tags on them. This:I have to now watch closely for nitpicking and juvenile retribution -- no, that's not meant to be insulting, rather it's descriptive. There's no other reason for doing what you've been doing than bullying. I don't want to be back here in a month when you start nominating articles I've started for deletion or moves simply to feed your issues. Also, stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome. It's working, but if that's your agenda, stop. If not, what gives? TeamZissou (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC) IS FROM WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD, if you you are not capable or are too lazy to create an appropriate article, that's your personal problem not mine, I merely place the right tags on them. Placing this on the "article" Sherman Trap shows your maturity. Thats not the way you reference something: Numerous scholarly articles[34] Numerous academic texts concerning small mammals and ecological surveys[35] Placing this on the Talk page of Sherman Trap [36]; again shows your maturity. "stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome" not for nothing that is pretty wacky comment considering you seem hell-bent on creating an issue in the first place and then perpetuating it with this bogus complaint. It seems you thrive on a being part of a "bitching fest" Dealing with people like yourself is getting " wearisome" to me. You detract from Wikipedia by initiating anomosity, and when you can't deal with what you dish out, complaining about it. I don't appreciate being slandered and maligned on the internet, unlike yourself Mike is my real name, it doesn't take to much effort to see that I don't look like Mister Bean, because my picture is on the Internet. And trying to make me look like a jerk-off is getting "tiresome". My nature and my character are self evident by what I write and what I have contributed to.[37]. So enough already, I have things to take care off, and wasting time with an adolescent on a vendetta isn't part of it. I have no intention of doing or saying anything else in regards to this nonsense. If others feel this B.S. warrants otherwise, your prerogative, do what you got to do. I won't be responding for quite a while because I wont be on Wikipedia or the internet in general.7mike5000 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Half of your justifications for your actions comes from completely unrelated material I was involved with a while ago. You're not being slandered or maligned, but you are doing quite a bit of that yourself. The original and only problem you've ever had with me that's anchored in something directly related to you was my revert of your edits to the smoking article. You accused me or removing your text without explanation, which was false. You went out of your way to insult me instead of discussing the problem or recognizing that there was a perfectly good spot for your content on the appropriate page. You then came to my talk page and continued insults as well as pointing out everything you could find disagreeable about my history on Wikipedia -- in no way relevent to your problem with my revert, which could simply be overcome by placing your contribution on another page. You've focused on my character over and over without discussing the actual problem, merely to emphasize a personal attack on me, rather than move or fix your contribution. You've invoked the same rhetoric and played the same baiting games this whole time, and a copy of your content still sits on the smoking talk page waiting to be amended and/or moved by discussion of its merits and proper article place. If you're afraid of people thinking poorly of you in real life, Mike, then don't act like you have here in real life and hope others won't act that way either. Because, if this were real life I'd be like the neighbor who told you that you couldn't park your car on the boulevard, and you'd be the neighbor who yells at me over the fence, throws my newspaper away, and then addresses the city council on the finer points of how I haven't shoveled or cut my grass by the rules every time. How could I not view this as "wearisome"? And, using your own words written just above, who is the one making you look like a jerk-off? PUT THE SECTION YOU WANTED ON THE GENERAL SMOKING ARTICLE -- THE LENGTHY, IN-DEPTH AND WELL-CITED ONE ON HOW TOBACCO SMOKING CAUSES SUICIDE AND TOBACCO SMOKING CAUSES DEPRESSION -- OVER ON Health effects of tobacco, IT'S NOT THAT HARD, AND STOP ACTING LIKE A WP:DICK ABOUT IT. TeamZissou (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Awesome, "IT'S NOT THAT HARD, AND STOP ACTING LIKE A WP:DICK ABOUT IT." I sincerely do appreciate the advice and since were pals now, I have a few helpful pointers, if you need help on writing articles, expanding them beyond a sentence or two, or the finer points of adding a reference I think you can find help here: WP:Mentor or here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, I found this to be helpful as well Wikipedia:Your first article. I feel so much better now that we are giving each other useful advice, maybe we can exchange recipes some day, or go get our nails done together or even do each others hair. I've been to South Dakota, I was at Pine Ridge and Rosebud, maybe we can hang out together someday and sing Kumbaya, or any song you like, I think that would be groovy. Have an excellent day TeamZissou, your a real swell pal. 7mike5000 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The best thing that's coming out of this is that every single comment you make will make it all the easier to have an admin ban you the next time an editor does something you don't like and you feel compelled to spend the better part of a week being an internet tough guy. TeamZissou (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Yelling at people in caps and calling them names isn't going to win you any sympathy from admins.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC) After reading through everything 7mike5000 has said, how he has said it, and in consideration of why he has said it, how would you respond? It makes me angry that after making a legitimate edit and criticism about text placement, all I've received is a stream of insults and jeers irrelevant to the origin of the dispute, which (as far as I know) still hasn't simply been placed on it's appropriate page. And, I think the tactic here by Mike is to draw this out as long as possible until the original problem is obscured and the argument comes down to who's doing more of the insulting, which is precisely why I'm claiming that he's baiting me. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away -- if he's continued to pursue this as roughly and tenaciously as he has over something he could have simply taken care of by three mouse clicks, I have little faith that he'll stop here and continue to target my edits and contributions for no other reason than spite. Because of this, I encourage anyone who comments on this issue to review the problem and the exchanges starting as the very beginning -- the evidence will speak for itself. One editor reverted an edit in good faith and reason, and another decided to take it personally and spend their time spitefully harrassing and taunting that editor. The issue here is will this stop, and if not what are the solutions? Given the length of time and the depth of retribution over reverting one chunk of text in good faith, it isn't unreasonable to expect further harassment in the future, and so what solutions can be considered there? I posted to the admin board seeking such solutions, and the old "don't say anything" doesn't appear to be a good one. I've personally been banned from editing for half an amount of hot-headedness as what Mike's done. Returning to the possibility that I've not seen the end of his disproportionate animosity, this record in the very least provides a foothold to address future attacks. 7mike5000 has clearly been wikihounding me, and I've asked the admin community to review the situation and offer guidance regarding Wikipedia:Harassment#Consequences_of_harassment. My only other option is to go to Wikipedia:Admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks, but jumping on that option isn't very Wikipedian. Other than "ignore him", input? TeamZissou (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (outdent) 7Mike5000, has been causing problems elsewhere, including repeated unprovoked abuse on the ADHD talk page to Doc James and other editors, see this for example,Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_19#Congratulations and only a week or so ago he injected himself into a dispute which had nothing to do with him on Tom Cloyd's talk page where he character assassinated SandyGeorgia and he has now likely escalated a dispute between Sandy and Tom out of all proportion which I was hoping to try to resolve.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I have notified both Doc James and SandyGeorgia of this discussion incase they want to contribute their thoughts on these issues with 7Mike5000.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the notification; I agree with LG's and AnthonyCole's characterizations of 7Mike5000's problematic edits and behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Definitely Mike needs to be more open to feedback. I concur with LG and Anthony.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC) My response I wrote a response that was in the same vein as those above then deleted it, I don't to stoop to the baby name calling... anymore, because I know how to write and I don't need to use specious allegations and Doublespeak. My character is right here:[38]. The old man who went flying out the rear window of his car didn't think I was "DICK", when I helped him. The other old guy who hit a tree in the same accident didn't think so either. The day before my "behavior" got my picture on the front of the Merced Sun-Star, holding a missing child's poster and talking to the mother, because I care. Which is why I'm responding because to reiterate: I think knowledge can be useful and can help people and Wikipedia by virtue of it's rankings in the search engine and it's extensive hyperlinks can help disseminate that knowledge. And untalented penny-ante people are using Wikipedia for there own ego-strokes, which is what initiated this nonsense in the first place, and the replies from the peanut gallery. My character is also self evident in what I have written on here: Depression (differential diagnoses), Terrell Peterson, Foster care, Bullenhuser Damm, Anorexia nervosa, Maudsley Family Therapy I think it's self evident that I don't suffer from Anorexia nervosa, and the differential diagnoses of depression, alot of people suffer and die because they don't know what the differential diagnoses are, and even that article, became the target of the same B.S. I have to go out of my way and type my one finger at a time response, so useful information doesn't get deleted, and I have to deal with comments like this,Should we examine people carefully? absolutely and this is what the other article already states. 'nuff said. User:Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Talk:Depression (mood)#Merge discussion A topic that affects the lives of millions, and of all the "medical experts" on here, I happened to be the one who addressed the issue and started the article. Only a few people on here have tried to improve it and expand it's information like:User:Anthonyhcole/Differential 7Mike5000, has been causing problems elsewhere That's funny: I've tried keeping to myself and doing the right thing Have I improved the content on Wikipedia, I think so:[39][40]Wikimedia:[41] Articles I have entirely reformatted and contributed to, like New York City, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Auschwitz concentration camp, Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, Empire State Building and rewrote entirely like Central Park, Wounded Knee Massacre and Anorexia nervosa. Collectively get way over 1.3 million hits a month. Alice in Wonderland allegations This little gang-bang started because of a good faith edit on Smoking, referencing the fact that smoking is linked to depression at least doubles the suicide risk. The article mentions the I.Q. of Israeli soldiers that uses only one reference, which if you people want to preach, violates WP:MEDMOS in relation to primary sources, but a few paragraphs about Smoking, depression and suicide using multiple such as listed below are deemed irrelevant: Increased Depression Risk / Medscape[42] Cigarette smoking and completed suicide among middle-aged men: PMID 15780776 Cigarettes and suicide: a prospective study of 50,000 men.PMID 10800427 Smoking and suicide among nurses. PMID 8427332 Cigarette smoking and suicide: a prospective study of 300,000 male active-duty Army soldiers PMID 10873129 And for putting that there some guy who is capable of writing little more than one line articles about a rat and an unreferenced "article" on a brand of rat trap Sherman Trap, tries to make a fool out of me by among other things leaving a comment like this Beginning a section with weasel words like "There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression," doesn't make for factual articles and this and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project., anybody would find that insulting, but he can't handle himself in a verbal confrontation, so he starts crying, slinging allegations and tries obfuscating the facts with verbose nonsense. Pointing to this: Talk:Smoking#Section on Depression vs. Suicide is supposed to make me look bad? If you can't handle sarcasm don't dish it out, and don't cry when you get a response spend the better part of a week being an internet tough guy. you (User:TeamZissou) initiated the whole thing and won't let it rest The content of my character is self evident, and you people want to sit here and gang-bang me. If somebody is lacking in intellectual and creative ability that is not my problem. All this geeky B.S and the comments from the peanut gallery are from people who have a history of INITIATING confrontation by being rude and obnoxious, and when their ability to defend themselves verbally is as deficient as their other abilities they throw a temper tantrum, try to put a spin on the facts and get the other person banned. Preaching People want to preach what Wikipedia is to others, Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for intellectually and creatively challenged people with bruised and damaged psyches to dictate to the rest of the English speaking world what is and is not allowed, especially when they have no innate ability. All you have to do is look through the user "contributions" of the people slinging allegations, it's mostly TALK, why don't you try writing and improving the content starting with your own, and get off your high horses. It is also somehow ironic that everybody with a comment has been involved in conflicts with more than one person that they initiated. Go through every single edit summary, I do not leave rude comments, any words I have had with anybody, I have not initiated, I try and keep to myself. Comments to the commentators User:Literaturegeek: I went through your recent contributions[43], after a couple of months worth it seems likes it's all talk. The last time I checked Wikipedia wasn't Facebook. It seems like you have elected yourself bureaucrat. Mentioning this:Tom Cloyd's talk page. You have the audacity to state "injected himself into a dispute which had nothing to do with him"... and what exactly did you do? Is your permission required? And your self righteousness is on display with your long drawn out dissection of Tom Cloyd's "behavior". As for "escalated a dispute between Sandy and Tom out of all proportion", either that is an irrational comment or I must have amazing powers I was not previously aware of. The content and quality of Wikipedia isn't your prime motivation, the evidence of that is you have all the time to Talk yet most of the "articles" you have "created" consist of one line:[44] User:SandyGeorgia, anybody who does not find your comments and behavior here: :User_talk:Tomcloyd#Your behavior and personal attacks, disturbing, is either being disingenuous or irrational. You excoriated a professional who is using his real name, face, and who is also self employed, for a comment he made to another user. Your haughty and imperious manner is self evident. You are slinging all these accusations against the guy. I was wondering why there is a paucity of medical and mental health professionals contributing content here, it is precisely because of that behavior. The most altruistic of professionals wouldn't want to deal with that lunacy. I think Tom Cloyd answered you and brings out your true nature and motivation To suggest that my rejection of shoddy claims about EMDR promotes anything personal is nuts, here lets all have a look:Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder#COI Was I too far off the mark? Obviously not: agree, in essence, with your points. I found the repeated posts by SandyGeorgia, into the wee hours, browbeating. This was overkill. User:MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC) User:Jmh649: Nothing personal but you really should not be commenting on anyones character, when your own is open to considerable debate. And quite frankly the fact that you were made an administrator detracts from Wikipedia's credibility. Some case points: A laymen like myself should not have to explain to a physician, why: You don't put pictures that romanticise death on an article about Suicide. Talk:Suicide#Picture. You are a physician you should be aware that posting pictures of emaciated girls suffering from anorexia nervosa is unprofessional and psychologically harmful. Talk:Anorexia nervosa#No picture? I also pointed out to you previously that posting a surreptiously taken photograph of someone's child on the internet as you did here:Childhood obesity is unethical and potentially psychologically harmful to the child if they should become aware of it. You originally concurred, but I notice there is a picture there of someone elses kid now. Nobody with any degree of common sense or decency would post that...but you did, and you cropped it, so there the kid is in all his "obese" glory. Any of you people on here passing judgement are pretty hypocritical, if any of you are fat, post your picture, you wouldn't do it but it's okay for somebody elses kid. Your comment here:User talk:Jmh649/Archive 10#Depression (disambiguation) One must make the diagnosis before they consider the differential diagnosis. Thus the ordering.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) That is called medical misinformation not how you practice good medicine, this is how you do it: a "roadmap for diagnosis" that leads the clinician through a disciplined process of considering a broad differential diagnosis and narrowing this differential to arrive at a working diagnosis.[45] Am I capable of writing medical articles? maybe more so than yourself you started this:[46] I turned it into this:Hemoglobin Lepore syndrome, and I had to tell you the correct name:Talk:Hemoglobin Lepore syndrome, another example [47] into this Autoschizis. This article: accoding to your medical expertise;Intrauterine hypoxia (IH, sometimes called birth asphyxia)in your version;[48] More medical disinformation, Intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia describe separate issues with important medicolegal ramifications. This is my version of Intrauterine hypoxia. You only started those articles to make your article creation count look good. Somebody looks at this:[49], they would say "wow he's smart". The reality is it's mostly fluff, you split off articles because it makes look like you started them, and you start one line articles because it adds to the count and the name looks impressive. I noticed that not only can you juggle balls but you can perform magic, like how did this userbox which used to say This user is sarcastic become This user is obviously not sarcastic. And miraculously going back through the history This user is obviously not sarcastic shows up, now, how did that happen? Alter the template? This is the real you:[50]. An attitude like that doen't change over night, despite your fawning clique. Your penchant for providing medical disinformation and the pictures you have posted or reposted on the Suicide article;[51], and :Childhood obesity[52], and the picture you had posted on Anorexia nervosa [53]which was deleted 17 minutes later by User:Martin_H. on Wikimedia Commons;[54] (cur | prev) 10:01, 18 January 2010 Jmh649 (talk | contribs) (34,756 bytes) (added image) (undo)[ | Image = Anorexia 12.jpg | Caption = A female with anorexia Okay well I guess I will just wait until I get someone who is anorexic and welling to have their picture taken.Jmh649 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC Can I use this one? [55] Jmh649 (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Here is the conversation on Wikicommons:[56] National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders:Triggering photos of anorexic individuals that are used for inspiration[57] This is the prognosis section of the article Anorexia nervosa as it appeared when User:Jmh649 uploaded the triggering image of an anorexia nervosa victim:[58] Anorexia is thought to have the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder, with anywhere from 6-20% of those who are diagnosed with the disorder eventually dying from related causes.[47] The suicide rate of people with anorexia is also higher than that of the general population.[48] In a longitudinal study women diagnosed with either DSM-IV anorexia nervosa (n = 136) or bulimia nervosa (n = 110) respectively who were assessed every 6 – 12 months over an 8 year period are at a considerable risk of committing suicide. Clinicians were warned of the risks as 15% of subjects reported at least one suicide attempt. It was noted that significantly more anorexia (22.1%) than bulimia (10.9%) subjects made a suicide attempt. Are you even vaguely aware of how reading something like that can affect some of the 3k average users who log onto that article? Or do you just not care, there is something called tact: Anorexia nervosa#Prognosis I think you are little twisted and have no concept of the Hippocratic Oath. I also think your twisted behavior and medical disinformation you are disseminating via Wikipedia is harmful and egregious enough where something needs to be done, I think somebody needs to notify The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan or at very least the staff of Wikimedia should be made aware. Baiting On Wounded Knee Massacre which I wrote, this occurs onTalk:Wounded Knee Massacre#Grammatical issues: It's a little ironic the timing of a comment by this guy: (I changed "lead" to read "led", for example). I'm not the one with English difficulties here. beerslayer (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I had to explain to him how led is the past participle of lead but now the edit history reflects just the opposite. Considering all he wrote in four years was Hey Boy (TV Character)[59], I quite frankly don't believe he has the intellect to alter edit summaries and I think somebody who is an administrator would have to do it, and the timing of his little quip is convenient. Summation User:TeamZissou; you can't write, you can't handle what you dish out, and you hurt my feelings, so we are no longer BFFs. User:Literaturegeek; you value yourself and your opinions highly, bully for you not everybody else does. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia not a social utility. And you should really cool out with the fawning sychophantic behavior with User:Jmh649, because people are starting to talk. Not that there's anything wrong with that User:SandyGeorgia; Tom Cloyd said it best; This looks like yet another case of your not doing your homework - not that it would have helped your core argument'And using words like Twat isn't very ladylike, especially on the internet, you're not in a bar. User:Jmh649: I believe your twisted behavior has been harmful to people and is unprofessional and is self evident to anybody beyond that disturbing little clique you are in. Can I use this one? [60] Jmh649 No you cant. And so everybody gets a spin I would like to quote: Doc James is aggressively partisan and will misuse his Adminstrative powers to advance his agenda User:Hickorybark I do see an Admin issue here -- a lack of integrity. User:TimidGuy As I stated elsewhere I am not going to be contributing to or even accessing Wikipedia for a while, until my own personal issues and thus my stress, are taken care of, and maybe not even then. My behavior: I acceded to the fact that I may overreact when provoked, largely in part due to stress and I can't deal with troublemakers especially one after the other, so no more Wikipedia for me for now, but, some of the twisted incompetant behavior I have seen on here is incredible. This is my last "contribution", the people I have addressed, stew all you want, get me banned, alter edit summaries, send each other e-mails, tear apart articles I have written like this baby behavior by ::User:Jmh649 on the anorexia nervosa article: [61], you are not hurting me, I've dealt with alot more than petty words from petty people, you damage Wikipedia and those who can benefit by it. 7mike5000 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Take a break. Destress. Wikipedia's not going anywhere. You are overreacting and, I believe, reading more malevolence into others' behaviour than the evidence warrants. In the meantime, please become very familiar with WP:MEDRS and WP:OR - straying from those 2 policies in particular (and WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) is at the bottom of most of the above strife. Anthony (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Echo that comment, but add that 7Mike might also benefit from reviewing WP:NOT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TLDR. There are some clear behavioral issues here, and some time to destress and reflect on what Wiki is may help with perspective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Call for ban, block, indef, or whatever is warranted in such cases A long history of abuse by 7mike5000 is outlined above, but this latest aimed at Jmh649, a Canadian physican IRL and a trusted Wiki editor, is over the top, and was likely missed in the WP:TLDR post: "I think you are little twisted and have no concept of the Hippocratic Oath. I also think your twisted behavior and medical disinformation you are disseminating via Wikipedia is harmful and egregious enough where something needs to be done, I think somebody needs to notify The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan or at very least the staff of Wikimedia should be made aware."[62] I don't know blocking policy on this issue, but 7Mike5000 should be shown the door for a very long time for such a threat, in combo with his other misbehaviors. I propose that at least a six-month enforced break is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC) For something like that, I don't like to put a time limit on it. Blocked indef -- when he decides he can edit collaboratively without threatening people's livelihoods, he can request unblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Missed that. Good block. Anthony (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BACKLOG is backlogged

I only wish I was being funny. We have images in Category:User-created public domain images that have been in backlog since 2002. Articles in Category:Articles needing additional references are dating back to 2006. Same with about 4 other categories. So, could a group of people (admins too) take a look WP:BACKLOG and see if we could knock some of this mess out, please? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is pretty funny. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn. That page is depressing. I'll see what I can do, but... Damn. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. 26,421 unsourced BLPs. If an admin is feeling particularly bold and wants to delete the lot of them, I'll write a bot for it. Half-joking. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms again? Personally, I'd like to see something akin to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people instituted for ALL new articles. That, and some diligence to the backlog, should have things cleared up in, oh, five years or so. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That works great for new BLPs, does nothing about the 26k existing. I'm actually more in favour of someone deleting all of them during quiet hours and seeing if anyone notices/cares enough to go through and restore them. Permanent solution. But no, I really don't want to open that can of worms, particularly here. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was that kind of tactic that eventually led to the PRODBLP policy in the first place. Mass deletions, or at least mass tagging, started the whole ruckus. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the beauty of my method. Take em out in one fell swoop. Rather than bickering, anyone who restored them would have to admit that they are worth having, and I don't see many admins making that admission. It'd also probably get admin desysoping pushed through as well. Hell of a way to go out. Anyway, on to the actual topic of this thread, what are some of the categories where my help would be most meaningful and appreciated, without sapping my will to live? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And they'd have to provide sources since the burden would then be upon them. Brilliant, if a bit Machiavellian. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously didn't see the mess last time someone tried that. Mass-delete went to mass-reinstatement, which led to wailing and gnashing of teeth. Wouldn't be any better a second time around. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems we have an alarming 311,000 articles with no sources, out of our 6,436,020 articles. One tenth of our articles have no sources. After I read Neutral Homer's post last night I added coordinates to eight articles; that took 30 minutes (there are 180,000 articles tagged as having no coordinates, so at this rate I will be done, uh, never). I am always puzzled when people argue for retaining poor articles when we don't have time to look after the stuff we've already got. Here is something positive people can do: The WP:GOCE has been hard at work on our backlog of copy edit requests and we have reduced it from over 8000 articles at Chrismastime to 6300 today. Another backlog elimination drive starts September 1. Feel free to sign up. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know we had backlog elim. drives, my goof. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The public domain images aren't actually from 2002. That was caused by a SmackBot date tagging error. I've been trying to help deal with that backlog by tagging them with the correct date. It doesn't really help clear the backlog, but I like to think that it's at least somewhat helpful in identifying which images really are the oldest and should be dealt with first. Reach Out to the Truth 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a setup for prods on any unsourced article a while back, but it never did get off the ground. Really too bad, it could certainly cut down the number of unsourced articles we've got. BLPPROD is a step in the right direction, but we really ought to require sources for every article, first edit onward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was over three years ago. Time to try again? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first two BLPs I picked were easy to reference. Also some articles have had refs added, but the refimprove tag hasn't been removed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

I mentioned this Earlier today on AN, but now We got multiple socks coming out of the woodwork at Jewish Internet Defense Force. Could we get some blocks here? Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see another admin has protected the article. Has that helped?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No a suspected sock (thats already auto-confirmed) has popped up causing trouble. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an obvious sock puppet. Hinata talk 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, they appear to be edit-warring, so a block may be warranted on that grounds alone if it persists. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

here's one popped up. Can someone block it as a WP:DUCK sock or does it need an SPI? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Its all as Peter Cohen piointed out the users are all User:Einsteindonut or a close assocateWeaponbb7 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you know this, exactly? Sounds like a theory to me. One that you are blindly supporting. --WPYellowStars (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The account currently edit-warring was already reported by Peter as a suspected sock on 11 March, but at the time no action was taken, as the account had been protected. I have submitted a further SPI, with a CU request. RolandR (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to AGF on Wikipedia? There is a current campaign on the page of anti-Israel/anti-JIDF activists with an agenda to falsely claim that the article reads like an advertisement. Every single point in the article (including the criticism section) is from reliable sources. Consensus about it "reading like an advertisement" has not been formed. --Miamiville (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand how you can ask about AGF and then start talking about a "campaign" with an "agenda" to make false claims. I also find it unusual that you stated that you're new to wikipedia, and yet appear to be familiar with policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A perusal of their edits indicates this is not a new editor. Just their edit summaries shows that. Who's been blocked or banned in this subject area recently who might want to re-enter the fray? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And also an article can be fully referenced and still read like an advert, it's about neutrality not verification. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread, of course, relates to the discussion above about other attemtps to organise Zionist meatpuppetry. The JIDF differs from these other groups by having more people on its alert list than Eric1985's little effort and by being only interested in Wikipedia in as far as how it affects the portrayal of their organisation.

Giftiger wunsch has spotted a trademark Einsteindonut/"David Appletree" behaviour in Miamiville, that of turning up as a supposedly new user and yet already knowing Wikipedia policy. This new user has also magically found its way to this discussion on its first day on Wikipedia. As usual, it isn't clear how many of the accounts operating on behalf of the JIDF are "Appletree" himself and how many are his acolytes. What's probably going to happen is that some puppets will be blocked and the page will be fully protected. What I again say should be doen is that the sighted edits/reviewing experiment should be extended to problematic articles like this and then it can be placed on level 2 protection so that long term Wikipedians can edit the page, good faith newbies can have their contributions reviewed and accepted and the JIDF COI contributions can be kept away from affecting the page.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Ps. in case anyone thinks I am "outing" Einsteindonut by calling him and hsi clones "David Appletree", the latter is the pseudonym used by the man who runs the various JIDF sites and not his real name.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reliable evidence to support Cohen's theories. I'm surprised that such blatant violation of WP's BLP rules would be allowed right here, on the administrator's noticeboard. --WPYellowStars (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added some specific issues to resolve on the article's talk page, and suggest we take some time to fix them while the page is protected. There clearly is an astroturfing/whitewashing campaign at work here, and some admin attention is needed. I'm not sure what Arbcom is doing in regards to the jiujitsu/eric1985 issue above, but it's looking like we're going to need some overarching framework to deal with this kind of concerted off-wiki organization and POV-pushing effort in the IP area.

As an administrator previously uninvolved in this or related articles or discussions, I have indef blocked Miamiville as an obvious sock/meat puppet. If any additional ones surface, please let me know here or on my talk page and I will do the like. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Miamiville was merely continuing the edits of User:Mreditguy when the latter reached 3RR, it's fairly obvious that both are either socks or meatpuppets, and so I have blocked Mreditguy as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. There is an SPI open for them where CU has been requested. I've made comment there about how IPs in three different countries have also been acting in this.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For those who haven't got the JIDF page on their watchlist, they have just posted the following threat http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&curid=18723555&diff=380837347&oldid=380692633 On past form, the "game" that's "on" consists of creating attack material on the JIDF website, creating doppleganger accounts with similar names to people who have annoyed them here (Peter Cohn (talk · contribs · count) and JHoffer (talk · contribs · count)) and elsewhere (in December 2008, I was apparently posting to various sites on how good the achievements of the JIDF were) and posting my details to the "SHIT list" maintained by their fellow Kahanists at Masada 2000).--Peter cohen (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

More allegations/original research from someone with an obvious beef (and perhaps paranoia) about the organization. --WPYellowStars (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete and salt?

Is the JIDF of such importance that it needs an article? Might it not be better to simply delete and salt the article and its redirects so that genuine Wikipedia editors need not have to respond to David Appletree's antics?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, this is a content issue, not a deletion one. It would pass AfD easily. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Well it certainly seems to pass WP:GNG with flying colours; I don't think a bit of vandalism is a reason to delete a perfectly valid page. Such a decision should be made at AfD, in any case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• From the baseless allegations, it seems Mr. Cohen has personal issues with this organization (which is notable and thus appropriate for the project). --WPYellowStars (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• For all the article's issues, it is notable. Could probably do with a re-write, though. I'm not particularly fond of the current layout, which bears more resemblance to a list of accomplishments than to a description of the group. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• No, the topic is clearly notable. Delete the unsourced or non-neutral content, not the article. The article needs improvement, not deletion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Community ban?

Since this seems to be a problem going back years, I propose a community ban for Einsteindonut (talk · contribs). A community ban will allow us to revert any sockpuppet edits without violating 3RR. And rather than deleting an article about a group that does demonstrate some notability, this lets us keep the content while (hopefully) eliminating the sockpuppet/meatpuppet issue. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Provided we are satisfied it is him, I don't know the user well enough to know. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The JIDF site which Einsteindonut runs has the explicit purpose of encouraging meatpuppetry at social networking sites. It is therefore sometimes difficult to tell whether posts are by him or by his acolytes. However the pattern of wave attacks on the JIDF article, its talk page, user talk pages, the drama boards, OTRS and the Arbcom mailing address all make it clear that it is one person initiating things.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no clear evidence to suggest anywhere that "Einsteindonut" runs the JIDF, or that he is the only one involved in the issues. Mr. Cohen, who feels that he has somehow been wronged by ED and the JIDF only has theories and original research to "back" his claims. --WPYellowStars (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And a new reason for banning is the "game on" threat I have posted details of above.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

support This is a good proposal. However it needs careful wording to make it explicit that all meatpuppetry is covered. Einsteindonut/"Appletree" runs a website that has a lot of followers and also uses twitter and other means to alert his acolytes. While verbal and behavioural analysis of the latest activity all has the mark of it being him acting alone, it does involve the use of IPs from several different countries. So a ban that makes is clear that reversion of anything that quacks is immune to 3RR would be good. perhaps in conjunction with adding him to the list of long-term problematic vandals so that people can go straight to AIV for blocks. I am suggesting this as AIV has the best record of fast blocks when such problems occur. BTW as a measure how much this user is motivated by a battleground mentality, I've just had a warning posted on my page by someone from OTRS who is obviiously unfamiliar with quite how manipulative Einsteindonut/Appletree is.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have not heard too much about this group, however I took a few minutes to look at the edit history of the JIDF page and what I have seen there convinces me to support this nomination. Specifically, there is a long history of attempts to control the article by means of sockpuppets and unregistered IPs, and going back a little shows me that they have even attempted to insert a link to a page hosted on the JIDF website that attacks and attempts to out a list of Wikipedia editors [63]. This article also needs to be watched more closely as many of the sockpuppets and IPs have openly edited and engaged in edit warring there for some time without being blocked. The vast majority of them appear to fall under WP:DUCK. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support It is clear that the JIDF site is being used to recruit and organise tendentious editors, particulaarly (but not only) on the JICF article. These editors are not here to improve Wikipedia, but explicitly to edit-war their (extreme) point of view into pages. This is not simply individual POV editing, which can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, but an organised attempt to subvert Wikipedia. A community ban, and an entry on the long term abuse page, will help deal with this. RolandR (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• support I started this ANI thread and have been watching the article for a while i agree with the above. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Doesn't it seem unfair to block someone, rendering him unable to defend himself, and then start a discussion about banning? It's like throwing someone in jail, then not letting him out to attend his own trial. I'd like to hear Eisendonut's side. Also, does this sort of thing really get decided via a popularity contest? Having been the subject two such ban discussions recently, I'm a little sensitive to Wikipedia's reliance on popularity contests to resolve disputes. Noloop (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Einsteindonut was indefinitely blocked 18 months ago, for "Abusing multiple accounts: and harassing editors by email and at JIDF". The discussion above relates to changing this indefinite block to a community ban, since the abusive behaviour has continued, and apparently increased in recent weeks. We do not need to lift the block, and enable even more abuse, in order to implement this administrative amendment. In any case, the outcome will be the same: abusive socks will be blocked. But the change will make this simpler to report and effect. RolandR (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- This kind of deliberate campaign to systemically bias Wikipedia cannot be tolerated. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It is more likely that socks will arise if the ban is made than anything else. In other words, it is better by far to have one rfiyot to wath than to end up, as in the CC case, with every new editor being suspected of being a sock and automatically blocked. And again I dislike any draconian punishments. WRT the cultivation of new editors - WP has two separate psoitions on this, one which says we need such cultivation (per Strategic Planning) and another which says that all such editors are "meat puppets" of some sort (IDONTLIKETHEM). Bans do not show any dealing with this dichotomy at all. Collect (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Agreed, it is more likely that socks will arise if the ban is made than anything else. Furthermore, they are more likely to get involved with many other articles, beyond the one just about their organization. For example, they could start targeting every article about Israel, Islam, Islamic terrorism, Jewish issues, etc., and every single editor with whom they disagree. They could, potentially, recruit 1,000 people to do what seems like might just be one person at this point. I have a bad feeling about messing with this organization. If the article seems too much like an advertisement, then good faith editors without a clear agenda should perhaps get involved. If Wikipedia has an agenda to "ban" the JIDF, the JIDF will probably make it their agenda to do everything in their power to avoid it. --WPYellowStars (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the best reason I have seen yet for site-banning them: "If we mess with them, they will recruit hundreds of edit-warriors to disrupt the project". Who runs Wikipedia -- us, or the JIDF? RolandR (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, that sounds very much to me like a direct threat from the JIDF, and further reason to ban them completely. And I see that an SPI has already been filed. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Apart from demonstrating once again what an obnoxious piece of shit you are, what does that threat achieve, Mr. "Appletree"? Wikipedia has had trouble with other groups of crackpots in the past and survived the experience. I'm sure that Mike Godwin (whose famous law of the internet is instantiated by your current sockpuppet id) is quite capable of taking appropriate action against you. After all your real name isn't exactly a secret anymore and he should be able to identify which of the 75 instances of it in North America is really you.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Peter, your behavior here is absolutely unacceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Mr Wales, a strong threat was made against wikipedia by people who have listed Peter on a 'Shit list' (Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening) giving details of over 8,860 Jews, called Judenrats. Were the source not itself putatively Jewish, it would be taken by anyone with a sense of history to be a Nazi-run 'Jewbaiting' and 'Jewstalking' operation. That Peter hit out in defence of his dignity may not accord with wiki protocols. It is the lesson, however, that his people have learnt as a legacy of the Holocaust, i.e., to stand up to taunts and threats, and call a spade a shitshovel. Perhaps it is not 'acceptable' in polite society. It is understandable in the real world, esp. from an editor with a good record for decent, even-handed and informed editing. I think it worth while risking an extension of my I/P permaban to say this, even though I don't need to remind him that the function of such taunts is to get people like him, on wikipedia as elsewhere, to drop the gentleman's glove and provide the usual hangers-on diffs to get the insulted editor banned. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Wikipedia "civility" just fly out the window? And what's this strange, stalker-esque claim (threat?) about 75 instances of someone's name being in North America? Fascinating really. Strange, but fascinating. I'll let you know if I ever understand it. --WPYellowStars (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're basically saying "But if we ban them, they'll just make sockpuppets, so we should just let them do whatever they want."? Do you not think they are already targetting all Israel/Palestine/Islam/Judaism/etc articles? What makes you think that they aren't already recruiting people? (Especially since they've already said they are...) There is no reason to be intimidated by such a ridiculous group. Block them and let them make socks, and we'll block those too. Protect Israel-related articles heavily. And while they're wasting their time just trying to get an account that can actually edit the articles without being noticed as an obvious sock, other editors will fix all the crap that has spewed forth from their keyboards. Eventually they're just going to piss everyone off here so much that it's going to work against them. Ban them all, permanently, and ban any other extremist group that comes here to deliberately disrupt the Wiki. --Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support "WPYellowStars" makes it obvious he and his ilk are not interested in building an encyclopedia. They are not welcome here. Resolute 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support no-brainer. Can't think of any reason not ban a Kahanist troll. Misarxist (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Good luck determining who is or who was ever a member of the JIDF. Would anyone remotely pro-Israel be suspect? Or just anyone trying to cast a positive light on the article about the organization? Or perhaps you can just look toward Jews. Would WP force those who MIGHT (or might not) be involved in the organization to place yellow stars on their user pages? Just curious how Wikipedia plans to institute this ban, exactly. I've seen some pretty hilarious sockpuppet cases against the JIDF, even accusing Dr. Oboler of being a sockpuppet of David Appletree. Then there were just friends of the JIDF who acted on their own accord, who were also falsely accused of being sockpuppets. Again, I suppose anyone pro-Israel or pro-JIDF who might be remotely new, would be suspect. Good luck implementing that! I'm sure if it's anything like your approach in the past, it will be pretty humorous to watch your witch hunt from afar (Estonia, as a matter of fact ;) --WPYellowStars (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be the first to admit that I'm part of a vast conspiracy to ban all Jews from Wikipedia. I'm sure all of the other editors here are too. Talking about the JIDF is just a cover for everyone's raging antisemitism. Thanks for your insightful input. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The SPA/Sock/whatever's username is an attempt to liken dealing with this group of game-playing children to Hitler's practice of requiring Jews to wear yellow Stars of David on their coats. So at minimum, deal with this one. Block on behavior and ignore their proxy server reindeer games.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- A ban is easy to justify for a sockmaster who has persisted this long. It seems that Einsteindonut is going to be a permanent feature of Wikipedia. I hope that WP:RBI for new socks will be simplified in the future if there is a ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - One of the most blatant attempts at undermining the credibility of the project I have ever seen. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, despite Jimmy Wales being good people, this project has little credibility when it comes to controversial topics, like Israel. It's mob rules. Anyway, I'm a little confused here. Originally, I thought a "community ban" meant that WP was going to try to ban the entire JIDF community. Then I read whatever is to happen will make it easier for WP to deal w/ said "sockpuppet?" Howso? Will anyone who looks like a potential sockpuppet of the JIDF be reverted? I guess I don't understand what exactly is being proposed here and how a "community ban" will be different from the ban that ED is currently under. I just want to make sure the bans are going to be effective. Because if they can't keep this little mamzer (and I say that out of endearment) out of our community, FOR GOOD, I just don't know what I'm going to do with myself ;) --WPYellowStars (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. And perhaps the user is also worth an entry at WP:Long-term abuse describing their behaviour and giving recommendations for dealing with them? Hans Adler 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Or if you think it's the JIDF behind it, you can contact them directly: admin@thejidf.org. I think if you deal with them as human beings and fairly (as opposed to collectivists drowning individuals), there could be some peace here. Jimmy Wales = stand up guy. I don't think the JIDF has so much against the Wikipedia project, or most editors here, as it does against the antisemites, anti-Zionists, and extreme leftists with whom the JIDF is going to attract in droves, as they look to eliminate the JIDF from this platform, and try to put the organization and the people behind in the worst possible light. --WPYellowStars (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How are we to understand your first sentence? Is it an admission that you are the same person as the one behind the Einsteindonut account? Hans Adler 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. If this was an environment that could be trusted, I'm sure more people would be willing to open up. --WPYellowStars (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support the troll with the offensive username has made itself manifestly clear here. The "JIDF" is just some anonymous loser who knows how to use a computer, not an "organization." Toss the loser, RBI.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI Case related to this

Can someone take a look at it? Its been sitting there long enough!Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sugar-Baby-Love

Resolved

 – This is primarily a content dispute that is being discussed on various forums. Suggest sorting content out first and/or using the various dispute resolution techniques available.--RegentsPark (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to report user Sugar-Baby-Love for continued violation of WP:OR and edit-warring and wikihounding. I also suspect he has a sockpuppet (user:Cybermud) but I will take these specific concerns to another notice board.

Sugar-Baby-Love has been adding original research to articles and disguising it as viewpoints advanced by reliable sources. He then starts edit warring with anyone who points out to him that material needs to be attributed to a reliable source. Here are a few examples.

• [64] This entire section is original research because nothing in the source [65] lends support to anything said in the section as I have pointed out here [66].
• [67] Here his original research is the claim In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism and as a source he provides this book [68] which doesn't even remotely support his original research and doesn't even mention the term masculism or masculinism.
• [69] Here his original research is the claim that the first definition [of masculism] is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law.. His two sources ["Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." - Oxford English Dictionary][70] don't support any of his claims as I have pointed out to him here [71] and here [72].
• [73] Here he yet again provides a source but the source does in no way support his claim that The term masculism itself gained currency in the late 20th century, particuly in the 1990s as advocated by authors such as Warren Farrell Jack Kammer, in the context of changing gender roles in society.
• [74] Here he adds a bunch of original research not supported by the source [75]. He writes misogynistic false interpretations when the source says misogynistic interpretations, he adds sentences like Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations and in the end of a deadlocked personal dispute which are never even implied in the source. He misrepresents a source that is about the religious sanction of violence in Islam and its implication for domestic violence and writes a paragraph about misogynistic false interpretation adding original research not supported by the source.
• [76] Here he adds things like self-described biblical egalitarians and and Christian theology emphasised equality between the sexes which are unsupported by the source.
• [77][78] Here he he just adds extremely controversial claims without even sourcing them.

User Sugar-Baby-Love has been engaged in extreme edit-warring and removal of reliable sources. At this point it's impossible to add anything without Sugar-Baby-Love reverting it. Here a few some examples:

• [79] Here he reverted an edit although I explained that the source doesn't support his claims
• [80] Here he reverted an entire edit and reinstated his original research
• [81] After I have rewritten his edits and removed original research, he simply reverted the edit and called it "revert POV pushing" ironically
• [82] Here he simply deletes a viewpoint advanced by sociologist Allan Johnson during an interview on GenderTalk Radio
• [83] Here he reverted an edit and called it revert POV pushing (again, ironically) even after I explained my actions here [84]

This user has been following me around and joined discussions to attack me or discredit me. Just a few examples:

• Article about misandry: [85] Here he accuses me of ‘’making huge changes of material based on nothing but [my] own personal bigotries’’ because I added this reliable this view [86] attributed to this source [87]
• Article about masculism: [88] Here he accuses me of censoring information because I pointed out that he needs reliable sources for his original research
• Article about Warren Farrell: [89] Here he states that he agrees with a source and therefore I have no right to include it in the article.
• Article about Christina Hoff Sommers: [90] He states that the interview with Allan Johnson on GenderTalk Radio is not a reliable source and therefore the material has to go. “Zippo.”

The most important problem with Sugar-Baby-Love is that this user doesn’t react to explanation on talk pages as to why he can’t just add original research and then add a random source and hope that nobody will check them and see that it doesn’t support his claims. And then he simply reverts edits that he doesn’t like and follows me around to attack disrupt my work. He has been using Wikipedia to circulate his original research, edit-warring and wikihounding me and perhaps other editors and I believe that he should be banned from Wikipedia. Randygeorge (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Sugar-Baby-Love also appears on-going. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What we have above is an example of an editor who has made huge, dramatic changes in context while being reverted by multiple other editors. Then, her or she falsely accuses the other editors of doing exactly what him or her is doing.

When you click on every single link above, you see context that shows that George is being deliberately misleading. For example, he or she has highlighted these two edits without noting the fact that I did provide citations for that information later-- which you can see at Masculism right now.

In any rate, what we have here attempting to circumvent genuine content disputes already in discussion-- see here and here-- by banning involved users. This is a clear mistake.

I humbly ask George to retract his request for a user ban. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also at the content noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard and is some kind of content dispute spread across multiple articles and related to a similar topic field . IMO both editors need to back off a bit and take their time and use discussion of the talkpages more and try to find additions acceptable to both of them and get some outside opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with content noticeboard and BLP noticeboard. Those are content disputes. This is strictly about an editor who has been circulating original research and disguising it as content advanced by reliable sources. An editor who keeps edit-warring and wikihounding people. Please check the incidents I described and tell me if Sugar-Baby-Love hasn't been using original research and edit-warring with people who told him that this he needs reliable sources. I tried to use talk pages but said user doesn't react when I tell him that what he adds is original research. Read this [91] and this [92] and notice that the user hasn't addressed these issues. I haven't even begun to address what I believe is sockpuppetry. But I think his habit to add entire sections of original research and refuse to work with people who point out that it is original research and then engage in edit-warring and wikihounding should be banned. Randygeorge (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You can clearly see from that one link (that he or she linked twice for some reason) that George disagrees with what is stated by two reliable sources. When you look at that article's history, you find George promoting a particular view that he or she feels is correct coupled with the removal of a view that is opposed to him or her.

George has a habit of making drastic, fundamental changes in article information without editorial consensus, edit warring when he or she does not get his or her way (with many different users reverting him or her besides me), and then making wild attacks on those who criticize his or her actions.

If George is not willing to drop this patently frivolous complaint, then I hope that an administrator can do it for him or her. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency Randygeorge, could you please detail your wiki-editing experience prior to starting this account? Your edits do not appear to be those of someone who's only been here for three weeks, and your use of templates in your first few edits is a little more advanced than what we tend to see from new users. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I take serious issue with being called a sockpuppet and am, quite frankly tired of dealing with George as I've documented in the other discussions on him/her being an obnoxious drama queen (never used that term before but if it walks and quacks like a duck...) and refusing to play by the rules or respect other editors opinions. I should have been notified of this discussion (since I'm an alleged "sockpuppet") and was not -- yet another of the many problems with George's behavior. It is pretty clear that George is here to promote Wikipedia:The Truth and sees a conspiracy theory behind every attempt to censor it--Cybermud (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple points. If you think someone's a sockpuppet, and have enough anecdotal evidence to back it up, report it at WP:SPI and request a sock check. If you think someone has been naughty in their editing behavior, open a WP:RFC at the user conduct section. I've now seen variations on this theme reported at about four noticeboards with no discernible impact on the level of vitriol between these two or three participants, so perhaps you should consider another route to working out your differences. MedicationMediation or an article RFC, or as I mentioned a user conduct RFC for the individual participants. — e. ripley\^talk 12:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A few more points. Only one of the "two or three" editors is making these noticeboard requests. I don't think anyone's a sockpuppet and am defending myself against that accusation for agreeing with SBL. And suggesting editors defending themselves seek "medication" is a pretty despicable thing to do unless you're genuinely trying to be helpful and suggesting what has worked for you (something that is not at all clear in your comment.)--Cybermud (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It was simply a typo, I meant mediation, as I have made clear in one of the other venues where this dispute has been discussed. I apologize for any confusion, but really, WP:AGF. — e. ripley\^talk 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about all of the details here, but I just want to add that on one of S-B-L's most edits at Misogyny (bullet point #5, above), Randygeorge appears to be 100% correct--S-B-L's edit does actually add false statements, exaggerates others, and places statements together to imply things the original does not state. I have no idea about everything else, but others may not want to dismiss his claims out of hand. After reading the citation, I'm sure enough that S-B-L was flat out wrong that I reverted. It's certainly possible that both editors here are pushing POVs, but it doesn't appear to be quite as one-sided as some above have stated. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I will deal with the sockpuppet issue on another noticeboard.

This is not about working out my differences. It's about an editor who uses Wikipedia as his soapbox and a platform for his original research. It's about an editor who habitually disguises original research as facts by reliable sources. An editor who engages in endless edit-warring even after you explain to him that he can't add original research to articles. The wikihounding has gotten worse and now he has stalked me to another talk page [93]. It's about an editor who tries to rally support by posting this on various talk pages [94][95][96][97]. I think that these are very serious issues and shouldn't be dismissed as one editor harping on another editor for petty reasons. Randygeorge (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

These are not very serious issues, this is a open free to edit website, not a life or death situation, you disagree with his position and he disagrees with your position, please find a meeting place somewhere in between using talkpage discussion, thanks. Users that only edit a single topic field and want that topic field to reflect their strongly held position are a lot of trouble for little editorial benefit, why not branch out and contribute to other areas of the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

Again, this is not a petty content dispute or a disagreement of positions. Please look at the diffs I provided and tell me if the sources in some way support the user's extremely controversial claims. You will see that this user continues to add his original research to articles. This research is not supported in any way by the sources he provides. So I disagree with original research disguised as reliable sources rather than his position. Wikipedia is not a soapbox but the user uses it as a soapbox. In addition to that, he stalks me to most articles I've edited (with the exception of one article) and reverts my edits. When I explain to him in detail that his theories aren't backed up by the sources ([98][99][100][101][102]) he ignores this as long as his theories stay in the article. This is not a content dispute. Content that is sourced and verifiable is always welcome. But the user just adds original research and Wikipedia doesn't like or allow original research. I ask you to please read the diffs. Edit-warring, wikihounding, and misusing Wikipedia as a place to publish one's theories are serious issues in my opinion. Randygeorge (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Same old same old, do you see anyone queuing up to sort this rubbish out, no. If think this is a serious issue perhaps you need to reassess your position here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means I would be more than likely to leave Wikipedia forever if George would agree to leave with me. I'm very, very tired to having to clean up his or her messes. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps this seems resolved, but this does not actually appear to be a content issue. If either SBL or RG are doing what the other one says, then either of them is clearly violating the requirement to edit in an NPOV way. Again, in the one I checked so far on S-B-L, he flat out misrepresented a source. I don't know if this was a competence issue (in the sense of being able to capture the essence of a source in an NPOV way) or if it was a deliberate attempt to spin the source to say what he wanted, but it was very much a violation of WP:NPOV, and in a deceptive way. If this is a pattern, it's a very difficult one to root out, because his paragraph on the face of it looks accurate, but, in fact, is not at all what the source said. Again, RG could easily be just as bad for all I know. But, again, if either of them are doing this regularly it's not a content issue.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is not at all a fair representation of the editorial disagreement. I included a citation in which I referred to some things in the citation and not others. This is typical discretion undertaken by every editors. Qwyrxian and George have an editorial disafreement in which they want to and have referred to other things mentioned in the source. I very strongly encourage all interested users to go to Talk:Misogyny and see what is actually being disputed. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Misogyny I note how I absolutely have not "misrepresented a source". Further discussion should take place there. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiposter0123 off the tracks

Just to save uninvolved editors time, the posting of this matter on the dailykos website which may have influenced the RFC can be found here [103] BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

During an epic RFC (Addendum: that was reported on by DailyKOS), editor Wikiposter0123 (talk · contribs) has declared that "We are restarting the voting process anew down here, thus the double vote". I am unaware of any policy or precedent by which an editor has the authority to declare an RFC (most especially one this lopsided) invalid, especially when his justification is based on a lawyery definition of "meatpuppet". I suggest that his actions warrant (at the very least) some administrative attention. I'm not willing to strike or otherwise modify his declaration, but I certainly don't think it's valid or should remain. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by User involved After like five or so people voting over the course of about a day we all of a sudden had a massive influx of around 50 nearly identical votes of inclusion from SPA's, people who had not posted in over 3 weeks, and people who had never posted on the topic. I decided to make a new section after the massive pile-on was attributed to the Daily KOs site which has been edited since its discovery to sound less like meatpuppetry. I simply assumed the voting would start over, and that any editors actually involved in would just re-cast their vote. Besides, I didn't voting really mattered. I'm not declaring the RFC invalid(despite Blaxthos suggestion that perhaps the Daily Kos article was an attempt to invalidate the RFC process) I am just resetting it and allowing users to bypass scrolling down the epic pile-on to get to the relevant arguments.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is hell on that page because of blatant attempts to rig that RFC, its not hard to see how someone could go "off the tracks" with that much crap on the track. The RFC should be closed and the debate restart. If that RFC results in the issue in question being included in the article then it is going to encourage clear cheating like that in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

With a ratio of something like 70:5, and you're one of the 5, I'm not surprised you want to just ignore the RFC. Doesn't the policy actually require us to find consensus through discussion? As I understand it, there can only be "cheating" if we're counting votes. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're not counting votes why does the ratio matter, and how can you delcare consensus. We've heard from a number of people who happen to read about the story from a source that doesn't always think kindly of Fox News. I'm not saying they should be thrown out, but to say there was absolutely no disruption is silly. We have no consensus, let others who aren't DKOSers respond before declaring such. Misread, See comment below Soxwon (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Blaxthos, IMO the material is relevant to the page and should be included. IMO an untainted RfC would also reach that conclusion (perhaps not at 70:5) ... but this RfC does look like a smelly pile of something. It might be good to start over. Where did all those editors come from? In fact its so ridiculous that its hard to even imagine that someone who wants the material included initiated that. More likely someone is trying to derail the entire process for fun or because they fear losing the RfC (probably the former).Griswaldo (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anyone supporting exclusion would go to all the trouble of finding editors that would vote include, and then contact them all (possibly hundreds if only a small percentage responded).--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Blaxthos, don't take this the wrong way, but did you contact users about this RFC?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not -- I do not participate in mixing Wikipedia and anything else in my life.  :) To Griswoldo's point, I submit that the consensus among any cross-section of the respondents is that it should be included -- even if you ignore all the anonymous IP's and obvious SPA's, there is still a clear consensus amongst the established editors to include the material. The three or four opponents are trying every trick in the book -- it was unreferenced, then it's not relevant, then it's really about newscorp, then it is meatpuppetry, now it's about "restarting the vote". Time to call a spade a spade. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am then calling you a shovel, because your statement is not true. The very first comment, mine, was that this article was FNC and the issue was about NewsCorp thus not relevant. It was never an unfreferenced issue. The SPA's, and Established Editor Meatpuppets are just extra dirt for the cause. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is clearly what is taking place there. The policy clearly states Meatpuppetry is the use of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy. . All those new editors in the RFC are attempting to sway the debate and cause certain material to be included in the article. The RFC should not continue. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to run a check-user on all the accounts that were otherwise dormant and all these IPs. I'd freeze the RfC until that is done. See what shakes out then continue it. A normal RfC would definitely come down on the side of inclusion IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to run a checkuser on IPs; by the nature of the checkuser process, it wouldn't be able to reveal anything you can't already see. Checkuser is only able to reveal otherwise-hidden data about logged-in users. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Griswaldo (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to William S. Saturn and Griswaldo and other's interested, This is where all those editors came from. I think Blaxthos is pointing out that Meatpuppetry doesn't matter as long as we look at arguments made and who is making said arguments, rather than number of arguers (my case in point, I am for inclusion despite being not of the DKOS persuasion). Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon is correct. My apologies for not including that in the initial report -- it's kindof assumed knowledge over in the asylum, and I lost track.  :) To Arzel's kneejerk attack, that's just another WP:AGF violation. There is no "coordinated effort" here, nor is it meatpuppetry... a third party website pointed out an RFC already in progress. No, it wasn't me. No, no one was "told" to go !vote. I have no doubt this is all smoke and mirrors in an attempt to discredit an RFC with which 3 or 4 editors are dissatisfied. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Any closing admin is just going to ignore all the spurious !votes anyway, so their presence there is fairly irrelevant. The only question would be what the consensus is when they are disregarded. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Arzel's comment was retracted, it looks like it was accidentally removed in an edit conflict. As for the meatpuppetry, if a biased third party website brought up the RFC, it was encouragement to a particular group of people with their own POV, destroying the legitimacy of the RFC. Also, the votes from the DailyKos may have encouraged a pile-on from non-Kos editors unfamiliar with what was going on.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Kos post specifically asked people to come here.

A REQUEST FOR COMMENTS forum has been called to resolve this matter in the talk section (bottom):http://en.wikipedia.org/... It's essentially two guys against Fox...so if you have an account on Wikipedia, please contribute and let your voice be heard! Wikipedia is always a top search result of just about any topic, so this does matter--Fox knows it.

The language has since changed. Arzel (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, this was orginally addressed here. Blaxthos, you know what you can do. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User involved After like five or so people voting over the course of about a day we all of a sudden had a massive influx of around 50 nearly identical votes of inclusion from SPA's, people who had not posted in over 3 weeks, and people who had never posted on the topic. I decided to make a new section after the massive pile-on was attributed to the Daily KOs site which has been edited since its discovery to sound less like meatpuppetry. I simply assumed the voting would start over, and that any editors actually involved in would just re-cast their vote. Besides, I didn't voting really mattered. I'm not declaring the RFC invalid(despite Blaxthos suggestion that perhaps the Daily Kos article was an attempt to invalidate the RFC process) I am just resetting it and allowing users to bypass scrolling down the epic pile-on to get to the relevant arguments.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a couple of issues there, though. Firstly, there are comments from regular editors mixed in with the "pile-on" votes; you clearly can't ignore those, and nor will a closing admin. Secondly, you've now !voted twice (I haven't checked if anyone else has). You need to strike the duplicate. I would let the RFC run and collapse the extraneous arguing about the re-set, the closing admin will take the pile-on into account. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment First, to get my biases out of the way, I believe mention of the donation and the resulting controversy should definitely be included. That said, I do share BritishWatcher's concerns that the DailyKOS article has fatally damaged the integrity of the RfC. I would be just as concerned if Fox News had admonished its readers to "lend a hand" on Tea Party to combat "radical leftists". The rapid influx of editors unfamiliar with our policies and practices pretty much tanked any chance at reasonable discussion, and made what discussion there was impossible to follow. Let's redo it, in a lower-key venue. Some interesting points were raised on both sides, but it's nearly impossible for someone to make sense of the discussion at this point and respond to well-reasoned, well-supported arguments with ones of their own. Wikiposter should not have made the decision to "restart the poll" unilaterally, and I am highly suspicious of his motives in doing so. That said, it does appear to be the right course of action. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, is it your contention that we should not consider the reasoned offerings of editors who just happened to learn of the RFC through a third party? Is it your belief that any "legitimate" editor should have to come and explain his position twice? I just don't see how that's a more reasonable position than for the closing admin to simply consider the discussion in its entirety. All your solution does is reward grossly inappropriate behavior (like unilaterally declaring "I am starting this RFC over" when things don't go your way) for disrupting the process and ignoring the policy. The vast majority of respondents offered a rational opinion, and did not just show up and !vote "include"; admins are not idiots, and are certainly skilled in reading the signal from the noise. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For the same reason that I would be crying foul if Fox did it. It has nothing to do with "legitimate" versus "illegitimate" editors, it's the fact that an outside organization with a political axe to grind admonished its readers to come here and influence the RfC. Now, I don't think there was anything particularly nefarious about it, but I am worried about setting a precedent. What happens when the next I-P conflict boils over and a conservative Israeli news agency tells its readers to make sure their view is reflected? The project is far better off protecting itself against undue gaming by outside organizations, even if that involves more work and wasted effort, than letting itself be used as a political chessboard. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than letting "an outside organization with a political axe to grind" disrupt our process, we should ignore them and move on. Their comments will be considered accordingly, as noted by other editors in this discussion. In other words, the process of starting over is the precedent we don't want to set; because if we have to start over every time someone disrupts the process, then we'll never get anything accomplished. Akerans (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary question then becomes "How do you determine who was part of the disruption?" There were only a few editors involved before the Daily Kos disruption. The new editors and IP's are pretty easy to ignore, but there were a substantial number of registered editors that clearly fall into the same realm. Editors that actually care about the project should still care about it even if the process is restarted, and would be far easier than having an admin go through all of the editors to determine which are which. The worst part about this, and I should have cached the entire DK post right away before it was changed, was that the DK poster fully realized that this approach may not work, but at the minimum they would suceed in wasting our time. They have certainly suceeded at that! As a secondary note, could we please close any action against Wikiposter0123. He was certainly following the spirt of the WP project regardless of whether anyone feels he went against any WP policies. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really worried about the process of weeding out the grain from the chaff, as that's the closing admin's job and it's no different from any RfC close, just more complicated. I'm worried about the precedent it sets, and the taint that will hang over it. If the admin decides to close in favor of the inclusionists, then the exclusionists cry foul and say it was all because of the Daily Kos. That in itself is fine; people on the losing end of arguments throw tantrums all the time round here. The problem is when other people look at it and think "hey, the daily kos ran a piece getting their readers to influence wikipedia and it worked! We should do that!". If, on the other hand, the closing admin finds in favour of the exclusionists, there will be a huge uproar (given the overwhelming consensus), and a new RfC will be started anyway. I think we're just better off doing it again now. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As Akerans points out, we should ignore them and allow the policy (which deals directly with this circumstance) to work. Regardless of whether you restart the RFC now or later, calling a mulligan and starting over only rewards a persistent and vocal minority who have stopped at nothing to derail an RFC that didn't go their way and sets a very dangerous precedent. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Inserting the text now will reward the vote rigging that took place, it will certainly be seen in that way by those responsible. Far better to restart the debate sensibly than expect someone to close that RFC and sift through all the comments by those who are not meant to have taken part. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(I don't generally get involved in policy discussions, being more of the gnome/sloth persuasion, but hey there's a first time for everything.) I think the problem is that either way we're going to be rewarding someone's bad behaviour. Either you come down on the side of the SPAs/vote-rigging, or you come down on the side of obstructionist tactics. Both set a bad precedent, but I think it's unavoidable. It'll just have to be made clear that the result was not due to the messing around, but rather points made on Wiki policy. In that case, I agree that we should just deal with the current mess and let an admin close it. EvilStorm (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Several comments: (1) Wikiposter0123 was incorrect to unilaterally declare a restart/do over/reboot, as that is a consensus process. Even eliminating the obvious SPA votes, there still is overwhelming consensus in the RfC to include the questioned content, both in terms of numbers and strength of arguments. (2) We have had many contentious discussions before, even some major battleground ones. America is deeply polarized and the US Senate is nearly totally dysfunctional with almost every vote partisan. Considering the societal forces, is it surprising they play out here as well? It would help, I think, to avoid flinging labels around and questioning motives. (3) The neutrality of Fox News is clearly a politically charged issue and there is bound to be passionate involvement, even by editors that didn't participate before. (4) If an uninvolved admin can't separate the wheat from the chaff in that RfC discussion, he/she shouldn't be closing it. (5) Totally against restarting the RfC, as that would be caving in to pressure, internal and external. We spent far too many resources to throw it away. — Becksguy (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about the overwheliming concensus. There were only two editors (Blaxthos and SemDem) involved before it was hijacked by the DK's (per the original Daily Kos poster). A SPA initially asked why it wasn't included, to which I responded and then Blaxthos then made a snide remark. SemDem then started to insert the material with no discussion to which I and a couple others removed. Blaxthos then started the RfC (for no real apparent reason since there was almost not discussion at that point) and then DK hijacked the process. A few other valid editors weighed in after, but there is no valid overwhelming concensus. The vast majority that actually have accounts have little or no contributions to this topic and are clearly the result of the off-site canvassing. The process was corrupted and given Blaxthos' recent actions here I am starting to question whether Blaxthos had anything to do with it. The original DK post clearly stated that "They" had tried to add it and were unable. The "They" can only be user:SemDem or Blaxthos, there was no one else before the SPA Meatpuppets showed up. Failure to restart the RfC will only encourage similar tactics in the futre. Better to restart now, if it really does belong then it will come to that point regardless. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of an RfC is to get other people to look at the matter. Just because there were only 2 inclusionists prior to the RfC is no reason whatsoever to believe there wouldn't have been many more after. You can't say "The vast majority that actually have accounts have little or no contributions to this topic and are clearly the result of the off-site canvassing". An RfC is intended to provide visibility, and it did. Also, your liberal use of the terms "SPA", "valid editors", etc is unhelpful, as is your insinuation that Blaxthos is behind the Daily Kos article. Those kinds of accusations require strong evidence, and you don't have any. I'd ask you kindly to stop. Nevertheless, we do agree that a new RfC should be held. In addition to the reasons I listed above, I simply can't see the editor interactions on that page improving if this RfC is used, especially with Wikiposter's attempted redo. Let's just get it over with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous four RfC's on the more visable FNC main page were 13, 10, 9, and 5. Since the 2008 election, there has been a decreasing interest on FNC. Now over 70? Sorry, I don't buy it. I stated that I didn't think Blaxthos was behind it from the beginning on my initial report, yet he insinuated that perhaps I was, and then he files this pointy ANI? This whole process smells of manure, and you don't have to be a statistician to see the statistical probability of what has happened to be inconcievably statistical significant. The vast majority that chimed in, where canvassed to do so, and the obvious evidence is overwhelming. Arzel (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no guarantee starting over will prevent another pile-on. So, we'll have to keep starting over until all those people are no longer interested, or we can simply ignore them. Soxwon has taken the time and effort to mark new editors as SPA and mark existing editors as "haven't edited in X weeks", and I believe the closing administrator will take that into consideration. Akerans (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We just recently had a contentious RfC on WP:RSN about whether Fox News was a reliable source. There were about 60 participants (including me). So the roughly 70 participating in this RfC is not that unusual. Not for a hot button issue like Fox News. — Becksguy (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite this ridiculous argument going on here where people like Blaxthos are inventing quotes by me saying "like unilaterally declaring "I am starting this RFC over" when things don't go your way" which I did not say, the RFC is still going uninterrupted. I created a break after the pile, told people to continue discussion. After I and some other guy recast our votes Blax questioned why we were voting twice, I then said "We are restarting the voting process anew down here. Because votes don't actually matter these are really more just statements of our side." which in response to this I have written:

We are restarting the voting process anew down here. We just assumed the voting process had started over, thus the double vote. Because votes don't actually matter these are really more just statements of our side.

Despite Blax and others claiming I have unilaterally declared a restart of the RFC, what actually happened is I told people to continue the discussion, and after myself and another recast our "votes" twice I said we are restarting the voting process because that is what I thought was happening.

There has been no damage to the RFC, it is ongoing without any problems, so what Blax is asking for assistance for I do not know unless he is trying to get me banned from posting arguments. Before the massive influx is was multiple editors against Blax and Sem who were the only people for inclusion, so his representation that I am trying to rig this RFC because I'm losing is absurd. I think our arguments are getting more steam, and expect a consensus to ultimately be reached in our favor.(which is why I have not once suggested a restart of the RFC).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, your actual wording was "We are restarting the voting process anew". Sorry for any confusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys. Relax. RfCs are not votes. Stacking the vote and starting the vote over don't change that, so there's no point losing your temper. EvilStorm (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

req4DESYSOP

Resolved

 – Sven70 has been indef blocked by Wgfinley for "Personal attacks or harassment". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

rsn:INTEFERENSbyINTIMIDATNw/RFC/U [104]-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Y,wiklawyer!-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any interference. What I see is a patent refusal to work well with others. Having a disability is not a free pass regarding WP:COMPETENCE or WP:CIVIL. --Jayron32 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sven didn't notify me, but I found this anyway, so don't worry about substing {{aninotice}} on my talk page, i'm aware of the discussion. I stand by my warning. I warned him that if he continued to whine about the WMF et al discriminating against him, he would be blocked. He responded...by whining about discrimination! I'm not going to block myself, because I could be seen as involved, but I think someone else should. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1inotifyd[rvebyUser_talk:Seb_az86556|her[105]butnowikilaerin2urC-INBLINDclique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification as in post a message on his talk page so he knows, but anyway, let's try to keep RfC issues at RfC. Netalarm^talk 05:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

hestalkongme[butno wklwyr~formalityzas2WHER

• uplDUNEVNOurownprocedur~stifl[certifyinANDendorsinOUTSIDCMNTSpuh!-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) you vandalized my sig -- twice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

UVnoideabout[LIKLYonpurpos]WOT=vandalismNDAD=GRAVCONCERN,PROB-CREATR!

I stand by my

FINAL[SV]

warning. I warned him that if he continued to whine

ALREDYDEwordchois=RUD,DENIGRATIN+OFENSIV!>DESYSOP![SV24.8]

about the WMF et al discriminating against him, he would be blocked.

RFC=BLOKFEST,IC[SV]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs)

I can't find anything offensive about that message. It was a final warning (which I believed you've received many times now) to discuss your issues with other users. Yes, you are of course allowed to discuss it with other editors, yes you are allowed to ask them for their views, however you are not allowed to harass or or attack other editors (calling them Nazis, etc.). I understand that it may be hard to keep your temper if people are rude to you, but no one has done that. So let's all engage in a reasonable discussion and resolve this issue. Netalarm^talk 05:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything offensive about that message. It was a final warning (which I believed you've received many times now)

oye-NEDGLASES??testimony2deBIASDNSfr.OUTSET!![SV24.8]

yes you are allowed to ask them for their views, however you are not allowed to harass

ALURBL'EVIDENS'wherPPLINVOLVD,butMAKINTHINGSUPASUGO'MEDIATN'[SV]

or or attack other editors (calling them Nazis,

DEYWEREGUDW/DISABLDL2,AO-SV]etc.).

it may be hard to keep your temper if people are rude to you, but no one has done that

LUK@F+GREGLPOST,O,O,BUTnotOFENSIV,DENIGRATIN+DISPARAGIN-TAKESCALSOFUREYS+LEARNBOUTPC!!

• Does anyone else think Sven70's signature is insanely too long and probably violates WP:SIG rules? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

NOdadISC.GEN-SORTRudnsOUTOFUR"COMUNITY"THENDISABLDMITENOTNE2TRYnsufer!!DADMUCH!!---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to get him to use a shorter variant that links to the information he wants to present, but he doesn't want to use it, as he thinks it may cause confusion. Netalarm^talk 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wha? That mess where he gives his MSN and Skype information is confusing enough and probably opening himself up to all sorts of problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

NO1HASabusdDADVENUE[hardlyany1usdit eithe]+dad'mess'[nodenigratn-empathylesimaturppl]hasbenCAREFULYREDACTED2GETHEW/ACONCERNDADMIN[aminorityadmitedly]-a-buti'cantcolaborate[genstanSERTIVDISABLD=fre4al-shameonuppl!> LUK@DEHOLWMF/WP/WIKTmesHARDLYANY1wants2JOINANYMORE[HINT:1RESN=DEABUSIVFAKSDADPOPULATEDISPLACE, ocasionalexc.permitinBUTCALMEDEVANDAL[hunevavndlizes]dadSCAPEGOATIN'lsolvit---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone translate this mess? If you can type all that, you don't have any "Repetitive Strain Injury", you are just being disruptive. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a rough translation: No one has abused that venue (hardly anyone used it either) and that mess [referring to his signature - WS] (no denigrating, empathy, less immature people) has been carefully redacted together with a concerned admin (a minority, admittedly). But, I can't collaborate [incomprehensible] is a free-for-all, shame on you people! Look at the whole WMF/Wikipedia/Wiktionary mess, hardly anyone wants to join anymore (hint: one reason is the abusive fucks that populate this place). [incomprehensible] but call ME the vandal (who never vandalizes)? That's scapegoating [incomprehensible]. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not calling you a vandal. I am, however, saying that you are attacking other editors and that it needs to stop, immediately. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If he has 'repetitive strain disorder', why is he even here? 'Hi, I use a method of communication that is literally incomprehensible; please allow me to vomit a mass of text on your page so you can spend ten minutes trying to figure out what I'm saying.'

Frankly his disorder is his problem; if he can't type coherently, why would he even think that being on a website (where text is literally the only method of communication) would in any way be a good idea? That's almost trolling in its ignorance. HalfShadow 06:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not "ignorant" to want to contribute to an encyclopedia just because one has a disability; we cater for all sorts of editors who could probably find less difficult ways to spend their free time. Furthermore, it's not like we hand out bans for people whose grasp of English is sub-optimal, which results in a similar problem. His articlespace contributions are fine, and that's supposed to be what we're all here for. A lot of people are not doing themselves favours on this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

An editor can have excellent content contributions and still be indeffed for incivility. sonia♫ 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely not in disagreement with that. However, a great deal of the rancour directed at Sven is due to his writing style, such as the above comment (where he has been called ignorant to the point of trolling for daring to think that he could contribute to Wikipedia. That's utterly unacceptable, and yet I've lost count of the number of times I've seen editors spout it after twenty seconds looking over Sven's edits. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

Among the various acts of incivility in this edit we have a particular area:

HINT:1RESN=DEABUSIVFAKSDADPOPULATEDISPLACE

Which I translate as "Hint: one reason is the abusive fucks that populate this place".

This is but the latest of a string of personal attacks against anyone who has criticized this user's behavior. These cases are well outlined in the user's current RfC and its talk page.

I believe the community has been more than tolerant of these various attacks on various members and the time has come for this to stop.

1. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary and his grievances shouldn't have been brought here to begin with. He's been told this many times but still persists[106], it's gone on months in my review. This is a constant disruption.
2. I have applied criteria one would in real life that is, is this behavior a manifestation of Sven's disability? Clearly it is not. His RSI does not cause him to make these personal attacks on people.
3. He has been warned multiple times about his behavior but it has not changed.

Accordingly I have blocked him indefinitely for constant disruption and multiple instances of personal attacks. This may be changed pending further developments on his RfC or a ban proposal I have noted below. --WGFinley (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support This behavior needs to stop because it is not compatible with the wiki. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a disruptive troll who insists in communicating only in his own invented language, which gives me and others headaches trying to interpret. This is the English encyclopedia, not the "shrthndijstnvntedtday" encyclopedia. Give me a break! Edison (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk Block

Despite my warning,[107] Sven has continued to use his talk page for lashing out against WMF, etc without making an unblock request.[108] I have blocked him from editing his talk page accordingly and notified him he can use the mailing list to request an unblock.[109] --WGFinley (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well done! His gibberish on talk pages and here shows all the signs of being deliberately disruptive. His claims that his disability preventing him from writing normal text don't wash at all when one looks at his most recent edits in article space (and others not long before), which seem apparently coherent and comprehensible and a total contrast with the garbage he's been spouting on talk pages & here before & since. Hopefully we've seen the last of this troll. David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal on User:Sven70

Uninvolved admin note: 1 - Per community ban best practice, this should be allowed to run for a minimum of 48 hrs, excepting extreme circumstances; 2 - A number of the ban proposals and some extraneous comments cross the line into abuse of the user, so-called "tap dancing on this users' grave", which is not tolerated. I would like to request that those commenting below strike hostile comments they may have made, and that others not make further abusive statements. If this continues unabated it would fall under the aforementioned extreme circumstances clause... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am proposing a siteban on User:Sven70, as it has become painfully clear to me of his blatant disruption here on en.wiki, which has actually been brought here from other wikis. I hate to say that he is using his disability as leverage to engage in disruption and harassment here because I believe all should have their fair treatment, but I am afraid that this is the case. WP:COMPETENCE applies here, and Sven70 is abusing that in his favor, as he has done on the other wikis. –MuZemike 06:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Especially due to this mess of shorthand writing which few can read anyway, but he writes in volumes. "Repetitive Strain Injury" my foot. I have Tendon Tunnel (think Carpal Tunnel, but for tendons in your hands) and I can still type in normal everyday English. Combine that with the apparent disruption and harrassment in other areas, yeah, this guy needs to be banned. Indef block already in place, by the way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Oppose. Don't you know that disagreeing with someone who has a disability is discriminatory? So is taking any sort of administrative action against them! The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Dude, I am really hoping you are joking. I have a disability, it is called Aspergers and I have been taken to ANI more times than I can count and blocked a shitload, didn't say "hey, sorry, disability, can't block me". Doesn't work that way. We don't have the ADA here on Wikipedia. You screw up, disability or not, you are out. Plain and simple. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Bull. A handicapped person cannot abuse his driving privileges by triple-parking sideways from a handicapped spot into two non-handicapped spots and get away with it. This is what this basically is. –MuZemike 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • For those who didn't get it, this is an attempt at humour. Probably not a very good one, since it is nearly 3:00 here and I need sleep, but an attempt nonetheless. I actually support a ban, for the same reasons I warned Sven about. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well other than the fact that it was a bad joke, ban discussions are serious about totally removing someone from the project and they should not be treated lightly, so even the attempt was unhelpful + inappropriate. I suggest you actually strike the comment now (if you have not already done so). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No, not a good one. Some, like myself, take matters of disability serious, plus can't read between the lines on subtle humor...now that I can blame on my Aspergers, but I am learning on that one, so my apologizes for getting upset over a joke. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • It wasn't particularly subtle, but I'm sure Wordsmith didn't mean to offend anyone. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Cut the crap > Support No-one needs to be called a Nazi w/o retraction, no-one needs to be called names. It's over. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Enough is enough. He's been given many, many chances to change his behavior, and has wildly ignored them. Disability or not, everyone must abide by the same rules regarding civility and personal attacks. Sven, if you read this, I would like to let you know that I am NOT doing this because of your RSI. I am doing this because of your constant attacks, incivility, calling others Nazis, claims of stalking, and general disruptiveness. (X! · talk)  · @327  ·  06:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. User:BarkingFish/Sven70Response Translation tells enough. He could use a more intelligible form of shorthand, too. --Rschen7754 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Although I see it's been implemented now. I've had hand/elbow problems that made it hard/painful to type, that's no excuse, no matter how bad, for this sort of behavior. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Incredibly disruptive behavior. I can't see this editor's return causing anything more than constant further problems, on several levels. Doc9871 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support, and sincere apologies that our block of this user on Wiktionary only caused him to take his abuses elsewhere. As an aside, I use a screenreader set to read each thing I hover the mouse over, in order to compensate for moderately severe dyslexia, and cannot read Sven's comments without an hour of effort, which gives me a headache and then makes it harder for me to continue to read things afterward. The screenreader simply garbles anything he writes. Oh yes and I also have numerous bone spurs in my hands that make it a relatively slow process to type if I want to retain hand function, and yet I use complete English sentences, too! --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 07:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inasmuch as this seems to have proceeded rather quickly. I understand that Xavexgoem had to some extent (I am not sure how much) taken Sven70 under his wing and/or agreed to act as some sort of intermediary. I suggest that we put this on hold until Xav has a chance to discuss with Sven and weigh in here. →ROUX ₪ 07:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• I've always been amazed at how hard Wikipedia users will allow themselves to be trolled, but this might be the king of them all. You guys have been used, all of you. Grandmasterka 07:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's kind of... cryptic. What do you mean, Grandmasterka? Doc9871 (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Entirely doubtful, Grandmasterka. He really did try, just in the totally wrong ways. Totally wrong. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - indefinite block is enough. And no less than; I support the block. There is the chance he'd be more productive/friendly with voice-to-text in the future. Ban does not allow him recourse should he one day invest in voice-to-text and a better computer. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Note to Roux et al: I have blocked him from my Skype, so cannot reach him. I don't believe my going over to his talkpage will help anything.
  • That's what appeals exist for; should such circumstances arise, he can appeal to BASC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I just think it's overdoing it. This is a procedural matter; his chances of unblock are close to nil anyway. I don't need a final nail in the coffin. And to clarify on my !vote: There is the possibility (boy who cried wolf, blahblahblah) that his perceived victimization spiraled to such a point that everything wrong he did do -- insofar as it all makes his shorthand a rather minor point -- became a part of that perceived victimization, causing him to loss all perspective. That's the most optimistic take, unfortunately. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I can appreciate that; I've kept my support for the block, but I don't really have a view (be it support/oppose) on a ban at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support (if I can). As a big sufferer of RSI the short hand is a red herring. Sven his doing himself damage using such a cramped typing technique (trust me - I used to try it.... big mistake). His specific shorthand doesn't strike me as particularly efficient. I recommend he gets a voice->speech if he is unable to edit for any specific length of time. What I find helps is 5 minuts editing then 10 minutes doing something else. Inefficient but it saves your hands :) None of that, though, excuses his behaviour - a non-disabled editor would have been banned long ago --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, absolutely not. A block is, sadly, appropriate here, because while I reckon some of the comments directed at Sven are reprehensible he's clearly not helping the project by posting personal attacks all over the place. However, his articlespace work in general is fine and I've found him to be helpful and cooperative (perhaps because I didn't treat him like a second-class citizen). Let the RFC run its course, and let Sven known what needs to be done to get him unblocked (basically, to stop reacting to people: it's the Internet, and most people on it are going to be idiotic and offensive, and everyone has to deal with that). The degree to which people have been happy to unperson him is ridiculous, and the project is not being aided by a ban here in any way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Request: I see the above evidence of direct incivility with regards to this thread, which certainly makes an indefinite block appropriate (indefinite until user demonstrates his ability to work within the rules). Usually when I've seen ban discussions before, there is some accounting of past disruptions, and I see no info here other than the above ANI post (which, again, definitely seems block-worthy to me). I took a look at the RfC, and I see 8 listed diffs of disruptive behavior. I don't necessarily think we need an exhaustive list of diffs, but are editors above willing to vouch for the fact that this behavior is more extensive than has so far been described, and is in fact so extensive that we are saying "Sven70 should never be allowed back on Wikipedia?" I know that bans can technically be appealed, but the message of a ban is still "You are unwelcome here, forever." As opposed to an indefinite block, which says "You are blocked until you can demonstrate that you have learned from your mistakes and can show us that you won't make them again."Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A quick glance through his contribs shows he is able to type clearly. Per that, the above kind of looks like trolling to me. If the user is unable to act in a civil manner, when they clearly can, I see no reason why they should remain.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that was him quoting someone else, as he tends to do. sonia♫ 09:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's comments like this (off-handed and half-researched attacks) which led to this situation in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Question - How are edits such as this perfectly legible entry performed by this user? This is no "cut and paste". If it took him three hours to type this, it's still better than what he's been doing recently... Doc9871 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment/Reply - I don't believe he was quoting someone else; it looks as if he genuinely typed that out. That aside, having a disability does not justify calling people nazis.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. User seems to be unwilling to communicate either civilly or intelligibly. I do not believe that doing both presents unsurmountable technical difficulties no matter what one's condition is, and clear written communication is a non-negotiable basic requirement for contributing to any written medium. We are an encyclopedia, not therapy.  Sandstein  10:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've communicated with him "civilly" and "intelligibly" for several months now. Doing so requires a little more effort and the assumption of good faith, which is apparently too much for some people, but it is not grounds for a siteban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I will not be a party to banning an editor who has tried every avenue to have his legitimate complaints dealt with, only to be met with a wall of indifference, derision, ignorance and facile diagnosis. While I realise that not everyone has been as arrogantly stupid as the wanker over at Wiktionary to declare that Sven70 has "Münchhausen Syndrome", there has been a disappointing disinclination to discuss the issues that he complains of rather than the manner in which he does it. There are (far too many) examples apparent above - and I am the person who wrote Sven70's signature, so that he would not be declared a vandal by people too stupid or lazy to try to make the attempt at deciphering his text(Struck, because I would not want anyone thinking I was referring to one editor specifically... - and I wrote my comment before noting this "vandalism revert". LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)). It is unfortunate for Sven that when people do get the gist of what he is saying, they realise that he is rude and abrupt and is generally in the wrong venue to address his concerns. In so far that this is disruptive, I am not opposing the indefinite block - but I would note that if these issues of disruption were addressed to the communities satisfaction then I would be prepared to unblock Sven70. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What about him being too stupid or lazy (your words) to use speech recognition software? One person's effort versus the entire community's effort, the onus is on him to improve his writing, not us to decipher it. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • He is not too lazy or stupid to use speech-recognition software. Good lord! He's running a very weak computer in a far-away land; he has immense difficulty even getting a computer that can handle speech recognition software. Not to mention the prohibitive cost of speech recognition software in the first place. Was "too stupid or lazy" really necessary? No. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I do hope you'll share the same ire with LessHeard vanU, who called people lazy and stupid for not wanting to decipher his 'writings'. If you had vision that wasn't relegated to a tunnel, you would have seen I was simply using his words. And I'm sorry, there's no such thing as a "very weak computer" that can still run Skype and MSN Messenger, not to mention a modern browser. If it can run those and Firefox, it can run some version of Dragon. Period. Being in a "far away land" has nothing to do with ... well, anything, so I don't know why you brought it up. He has a computer. He claims it can run Skype. I once ran a copy of Dragon in 1998 that was pretty passable, and I'm reasonably sure a wristwatch could run software written in 1998, let alone a computer capable of running Skype. It should be trivial for him to obtain some speech recognition software that runs on his computer. It seems to me he has chosen not to, and based on his continued statements about being "discriminated" against, I can only assume he enjoys the attention. --Golbez (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • And how do you know this person's circumstances well enough to pass judgment? If he's living in a far away land, as he says, it might be difficult to get speech recognition software. Your statement that he seems to effectively have Munchausen syndrome (albeit indirectly) is incredibly vicious, and based on what I've seen (I've been following from the outside, not commenting until now) are not grounded in reality. As someone disabled myself (PDD-NOS), I would have the same reaction if someone were to claim I intentionally misinterpret comments because I "want attention". No, personal attacks are not good, but it's in response to very nasty accusations. Think about what your response would be if you were in his situation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
          • He has the same internet I do, and software does not care about borders. The best part is, if he is communicating over Skype, he already has a microphone, so the one piece of physical hardware required, he already has. --Golbez (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
          • His comment about how he's in so much pain and disgust that he can't request an unblock, yet somehow wrote a dozen lines of complaints at the same moment, kind of speaks to me. I know many people who have claimed innocence, saying, "I have been so stressed out over this that I can't possibly think about it right now", while at the same time preparing their next half dozen screeds against The Man. But I could be wrong. He could truly have an injury that makes it impossible for him to type (on talk pages). I'm very willing not only to believe this, but accept it. But that doesn't excuse his constant seeking of special dispensation that we simply cannot provide, and then calling people fuckers and nazis. And it doesn't excuse people for attacking others as "too stupid or lazy" for not wanting to put in the effort to deal with his cryptography, when he doesn't appear - please prove me wrong - to be putting in any effort on his side. You want me to look at the content of his character rather than the method in which he expresses it? Then there's no difference in my remarks. --Golbez (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Skype communication with Sven70 was apparently "blocked" by at least one editor opposing the ban[110]. Why? Just curious... Doc9871 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I refer admins to his original talk page at [111] and see how long - at least eight months now - he's been complaining about people here hating the disabled, how he's been heartlessly persecuted because people complained about his chicken scratch, and how he sent a letter to the WMF - in other words, same shit, different day. Disability or not, we have no room for this. --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
              • (And incidentally, if every letter were a painful ordeal for him, wouldn't he not want to spend time insulting people and whining about his treatment in multiple forums that have nothing to do with how he's being treated? Wouldn't he want to put every letter towards creation, rather than chat with people he doesn't like?) --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. An indef block is enough (and I support it); however, I don't see the pattern of egregious disruption or sockpuppetry usually required to ban an editor. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per LHvU, indef (<>infinite) is enough, but I'd say that as an RSI sufferer myself (I have no feeling in half of my right hand) I'd find it just as difficult to type Sven's "shorthand" as I would normal sentences, and it'd be a hell of a lot less confusing for both me and everyone else. A lot of those "shorthands" hardly use less keystrokes than the translations of them. And there's a lot of characters that need a shift key, especially the square brackets. I do find my credibility strained slightly by this. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• What the f*ck was all this?! Uh... looking at contribs, this guy was editing just fine on articles - long blocks of text that were properly typed and all - but in talk space, not so much. I'm seeing disruption to the max in those community areas, probably deliberate. Support unless we see some level of improvement in communication. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• The indef is enough - no need to overdo it. Connormah 17:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• All posts on Wikipedia talk pages should be in English, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines so that "comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, you should either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy. Wikipedia talk page guidelines." This applies equally to someone who claims to be only able to type in a unique idiosyncratic shorthand. I can't tell what he is trying to say in most of the posts, and I expect that applies to many other editors. If there is no possibility of him getting someone to provide an English translation, he should find technology such as text to speech to make his posts comprehensible, or he should not be posting. Edison (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to repeat wiktionary's mistakes. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Dragon NaturallySpeaking - It works great. I should think that anyone with the disability he describes would have gotten it long ago. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment leaning support I don't know enough about his history to decisively vote on the ban, but while a lot of the comments are related to his disability/style of shorthand, I wonder how deep the issue of his personal attacks go? I don't buy for a second that his repetitive stress injury justifies the gibberish he is typing, but it is his apparent habit of attacking people that is the greater concern in my view. Resolute 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I am patently stunned that you chummers are playing directly into his hands and claiming that his disability (and how he was treated on Wiktionary) are mitigating circumstances. News flash: Claiming disability does not give someone the right to accuse other editors of being Nazis (which, need I remind you, is above and beyond the pale compared to most other insults). And given the other comments in this thread above, I smell a troll. I do not believe, for a second, that his RSI is as severe as he's attempting to make it out to be. (Disclaimer: I am a mild Aspergian myself.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think there's enough AGF in the world to believe this user must resort to such cryptic Leet, but can edit articles without any trouble. Even assuming that this is the truth, there's been too many personal attacks to let slip by. I've interacted with other editors who have serious disabilities, and they were able to do better than inventing a cryptic shorthand for interacting with the community. If the user can show they will refrain from personal attacks, and perhaps seek a better way to interact than cryptic abbreviations, we can lift the ban & block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand; if we're saying that we're willing to consider a future change in behavior and let him return, that means an indefinite block, doesn't it? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bans can later be overturned by community consensus. The difference is, indef can be lifted by an admin at any point; bans need community discussion to be lifted. This is a very contentious issue and, if a ban is placed, needs a discussion before it's lifted again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: After thinking about my previous comment and some of the other comments here, I can's see why need a ban anyway--does anyone think he's going to start sockpuppeting, so we need the ban to justify immediate blocks? Why can't we just say "You're out until you prove to us that you can stop the personal attacks." I guess what I'm saying is, for those who want a ban, what specifically do you think a ban accomplishes that the indef doesn't?Qwyrxian (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above: indef can be overturned by a single admin's decision. Given the disruption and general attacks, I'd prefer his return require community debate & consensus, which a ban would require. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per Edison, WP:COMPETENCE, and WP:NOTTHERAPY. As others have pointed out, this user's insistence on using shorthand when they are capable of using normal english in the mainspace is rather suspicious. As Edison has pointed out, talk page guidlines require the use of english on talk pages. According to WP:NOTTHERAPY, disabilities are not an excuse for disruption. IMO, the suggestion that sven70 invests in a voice to text program is not unreasonable. If they can't afford it, that's his problem. IMO, in general, if a person decides to engage in a regulated activity, they must be able to adhere to the regulations for that activity. If they are unable, then they should not engage in that activity. For example: would it be reasonable to let an owner of a chemical plant continue to operate said plant with faulty safety devices because they couldn't afford to replace them? No. Same logic applies here, IMO. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Many of the points I would make to explain my position have been made by others (and especially succinctly by RadmanCF), so I won't belabor them. MSJapan (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• OpposeA site ban is an extremely drastic action, and to adopt in with a single day's deliberation for something which is adequately handled without it seems to be using power for the sake of showing that one has it. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The user hasn't been banned yet, so calling it "a single day's deliberation" seems premature. And I'm surprised you would go straight to bad faith with "power for the sake..." etc. We're still discussing it, so it's not gone extreme yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a very strong suggestion that much, if not most, of the support here comes from people who took less than five minutes to look over Sven's edits, got annoyed that they couldn't read them, and decided to unperson him. Quite how you decided that DGG is assuming bad faith while earlier having pronounced that AGF was essentially impossible here (which is false, and offensively so) is beyond me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also a very strong suggestion that many of the supporters here are from people who have spent months and countless hours interacting with him who have decided that it's gone too far. Myself included. (X! · talk)  · @064  ·  00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that all of the support here is from rubberneckers, but that a worrying proportion of it is. That's problematic considering quite how serious a ban proposal is. There's no doubt that something needs to be done here, but the question is whether an indef (which has halted the disruption) genuinely deserves to be upgraded to a siteban. Given that Sven obviously has a short temper, proposing such on the same day as the block (which has, almost inevitably, resulted in further flameouts on Sven's talk page) is likely to mean that he's seen in the worst possibly light here. Considering that his block log is hardly extensive, a ban on the grounds of unmanageability would be an extreme reaction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Chris, that dog is more than dead; I don't care if he writes FAKNasWLE, fNKsshOl, or fucking asshole; nZI@min, ADM=NZee, or Nazi admin -- I can read all variations. Shouting req4DESYSOP after a final warning that wasn't offensive with the rationale and complaint ALREDYDEwordchois=RUD,DENIGRATIN+OFENSIV!>DESYSOP! while continuing insult others is inappropriate no matter how it's spelled. Telling me UVnoideabout[LIKLYonpurpos] after his reinstating his own vandalism is a blatant lie. Thus far any well-meaning comment or point has been dismissed with the accusations of oye-NEDGLASES??testimony2deBIASDNSfr.OUTSET!! or some such. None of that has anything to do with the way he chooses to type. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Unfortunately. I feel kinda bad for him having a physical disability but WP:COMPETENCE was written for just that reason. It doesn't have to be a punishment or because we "don't like him", or because he is operating with malice, it's to prevent damage to the project. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support User appears to be a net-negative producer around here. I have had RSI myself, and have known multiple other people who have had carpal tunnel or other similar disorders, and do not find the users assertion that he has a disability either credible, or if actually true, sufficient justification for his communication style or behavior. When he can formulate a proper BASC appeal, and commit to communicating effectively in written English, his participation can be considered on its own merits. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support The editor in question persists in only posting in his own invented language/shorthand, due to his claimed disability, despite requests to comply with the guideline that posts should be in English, yet has shown the ability to post in English. Edison (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It would be a mistake to give the impression that a contributor was blocked due to their disability, setting aside for a moment whether it is in fact true or not. Further, the competency of Sven should not be in question, only the user's ability to communicate effectively, which is an obvious requirement for building an encyclopedia. Still, I would like to see a ban discussion with little or no discussion on the Sven's disability and more on Sven's behavior before I would be likely to support it.   Thorncrag  04:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I am unsure if anyone realizes it but Sven70 has a sockpuppet that was blocked as a vandalism-only account. He names the account on his own userpage and the account also edited Sven70s userpage once. The socks contributions are at Special:Contributions/史凡. I support the siteban. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Oppose (Changed my position per Collect's comment, below.) Hard to tell if this is a very sophisticated troll or an upset, misunderstood person with a genuine problem (all the contrib's I looked at at Special:Contributions/史凡 were constructive, but the account was banned as a vandalism only account). Nevertheless, the "shorthand" doesn't work here. When you have a system that supports Dragon, apply to have the ban block lifted and it will be considered sympathetically. Anthony (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, but keep the indef in place. Communication with this user is nearly impossible, due only in part to his shorthand. Every message I've seen is inflammatory and accusatory, and I simply don't think he's a good fit for the project right now. Maybe after getting voice to text set up we'll have an easier time communicating with him and he won't be as frustrated and out of control, but his current attitude is incompatible with our mission here. While we certainly should not discriminate against those with disabilities, we should not coddle them either. Sven has accused everyone, from admins to editors to the foundation himself of discriminating against him any time someone raises an issue with his conduct. It's a tired excuse. Let him back when he's better able to communicate without flying off the handle. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I simply can't believe that this person is able to properly type things in mainspace, but has to resort to nearly illegible gibberish on talk pages. I have little doubt this is an epic trolling. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • His socks can properly type in mainspace as well[112]. I'm sensing something pretty odd here as well. What's up with edits like this? Or this? This is epic... Doc9871 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a bizarre claim, that he's faking the disability in order to be disruptive. If he couldn't type in mainspace, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Protonk (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only do draconian bans not work, using one in this case where a person might have a disability opens WP to substantial ridicule outside. Watch the person carefully, but establishing this as a precedent is unwise. If the person is a troll, he will soon leave (or have blocks of varying lengths). Collect (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Excellent points, Common. Under the second point of this here, even if he weren't site banned by consensus on this thread, consensus would not support removing his indef. He would thus eventually be "banned by the Wikipedia community" by default (after "due consideration"). Life without parole, or 25 to life? I agree with what you say about the precedent, btw... Doc9871 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose A ban is not needed and really a stupid idea. Sole Soul (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good reason for the ban when a block suffices?

Can someone explain to me or anyone else curious why a ban is better than an indef block? My understanding is that a ban is largely a social measure with little in the way of recourse. I understand that there is recourse, but wouldn't it be easier to request an unblock -- if and when that happens -- from the userpage? Forgive me if this all seems a little ridiculous. What's done is done, isn't it? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed - blocks are cheap and easy to undo. Bans require community consultation. Why do we need to dance on his grave? → ROUX ₪ 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed - I'd be willing to consider a ban if, upon his return with legible communication, he still displayed the same behaviour that got him blocked. I think this thread is about ready for a resolved tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs) 07:06, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
• The reason for a ban is that an admin can't unilaterally decide to unban someone, it requires discussion. Indef's can be removed at a moment's notice. Also, if a user is formally banned, any sock he uses to try and post something can be removed regardless of its alleged quality. Bans always carry either a threat of suspension (on a topic ban) or a concurrent suspension (on a site ban). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OTOH Bugs, I doubt it would be too hard to spot a Sven sock. Pretty easy to block them too. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but the question was why a ban and not just an indef. A ban prevents a softhearted admin from being suckered into unblocking somebody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Don't Agree: Even during discussion, people who could make out what he was saying said he was still showing the same disregard for policies as before. Plus, with the finding he created a sockpuppet account (and edited in perfectly legible English for the most part) shows this jumbled nonsense far above was just there for nothing more than disruption. Plus, the current !voting is leaning clearly toward support for the ban, so this is all moot anyway. Ban is pretty much in place, let's move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• The point of this discussion is no longer about preventing disruption to the encyclopedia: it's about heaping as much abuse and bile as possible on the unperson of the day. The accusations of trolling are simply unreal, but then "troll" ceased to have any real meaning after about 1997 I suppose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think calling him a troll is possibly unfair, yes. But beyond how he communicates he was being widely disruptive raining all sorts of accusations of discrimination down on editors and Wikimedia. He has resisted many good faith attempts to help him. The combination of how he insists on communicating and the tone with which he communicates means it is entirely counter productive to the Wiki - I supported a siteban because until he is willing to change one of those aspects I see no way forward. Even using a better shorthand (i.e. txt spk) would be enough for me to oppose a siteban; but he has insisted this custom shorthand is the only way - that feels disruptive to me --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The shorthand is not the problem. We have editors who have been around for three years who have never used a talk page. There's this one guy who edits football articles who refuses to communicate in anything except German. So long as they're not actually disrupting the project we let them be, precisely because this isn't a remedial school and we shouldn't care for people being good citizens if it isn't impacting the project. What we have here is an editor who can't communicate fluently who is really, really angry because from day one he's been treated like either a common vandal or some sort of elaborate troll by what appears to be 90% of the people he runs into. Poor communicator + bad temper = trouble. However, a block takes care of that. If the editor calms down (remembering that the reason he's angry is because he has quite clearly been mistreated), then an unblock can be discussed so long as he promises not to continue attacking people. But above you've got people who are determined to punish him either because they are convinced that the whole thing is an act, or because they believe that we've got some policy of banning anyone who calls someone a nazi, or because they think that some newbie admin is going to unblock him on a whim. I know we hand out bans more readily now than we used to, but that's a pretty weak set of reasons to upgrade an indef block on a user who is not actively disrupting the project and who has a readily identifiable path to absolution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Inability to effectively communicate is one of the problems. His shorthand is part of the disruption - for example use of random characters in replace of spaces. There is no reason to use [ on second and then ] the next, followed by - and then =. All four keys are identically located. I can understand him having difficulty using the space key (that is when my RSI kicks in too) but surely using "-" consistently is a sensible idea? Based on this, and other factors, I have to confess I am unconvinced his shorthand isn't disruptive (note: I'm not saying it is deliberately disruptive) - it's certainly not efficient from the perspective of minimising key presses or the movement of your hands. I sympathise with the anger issue - but Sven has consistently attacked people, even those who tried to help, brought wiktionary disputes here and even socked. I do see what you are saying; but if there was an option to add a caveat to the indef block that an unblock would be discussed at AN/I then I'd support that instead --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • His shorthand may not be deliberately disruptive, but he does deliberately refuse to attempt to mitigate the very real disruption it causes. He demands that anyone who tries to communicate with him either decipher his shorthand or skype him. I might be willing to accept those terms were he not so quick to play the "disabled" card at every perceived offense. He also refuses to use a dictation program, claiming his computer is inadequate. Please. My uncle was using Dragon on his Pentium-133. The combination of the three suggests an entitlement complex, and until he ditches it I see no reason to let him back. I originally supported the indef, but I'm leaning towards the outright ban now, as I think Sven has to demonstrate a great deal of growth and willingness to change before being allowed back into the community, and that should only happen as the result of a community decision. You can only blame the disability for the communication and, perhaps, the frustration. The rest is all Sven. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, shorthand is part of the problem, but It's not why we ban people. It really has no place in a ban discussion, because A) we don't ban people for bad spelling, do we? And B) it appears that we're talking about banning someone (with about 66% support) because of a disability. Not the appearance we want to create. Can we let the shorthand go in a ban discussion? Or are we actually banning him for the way he types? Obviously not. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an appearance that's being created because folks continue to make that claim – that those who have !voted to support a ban are doing so because of his disability – despite multiple denials that this is the case, and reasonable policy-based explanations for their support for the ban. Disabilities should never be a reason for being blocked or banned, but neither can it be an excuse for disruption, incivility, and apparent lack of competence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The ban, if it happens, would be if the community believes that he is being deliberately disruptive, rather than having the disability he claims. Look at his most recent edits in article space, such as Sea of Azov and Oman. Then compare them with the garbage he has posted on talk pages and here at WP:ANI. If he is capable of producing coherent text in article space, but chooses to post gibberish here, then you may think that he is being deliberately disruptive here, and that his claims of disability are irrelevant and perhaps exaggerated. Look at his edit history, and draw your own conclusions. David Biddulph (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it looks bad. I just wish we'd do a better job of separating his shorthand and the reason he's blocked. It's not like he wouldn't be here if he called someone a nazi in readable prose. It's not the shorthand. I know him well enough to know he's not deliberately destructive... just entirely clueless about how he's going about things. I know him well enough (i.e., I've drawn my own conclusions, thank you :-p ) to know he's not "faking it". Were it that he spent more time in mainspace. Why me types clearly in mainspace and not article talk, I don't know. It would almost make more sense to ban him from talk pages in their entirety, so long as his mainspace is OK. (Pardon the meandering reply). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC) mainspace mainspace mainspace

Annoying Point Of Order

Off-topic policy question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Annoying Point Of Order - I know know one actually reads these headers, but at the top of this page under "Are you in the right place?": "To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard." Shouldn't this be moved there, to keep in line with this? Jus' sayin'... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC) No. This belongs here because it followed on from an ANI report. If the rule in the header was going to be enforced like that, as I said at the time, it would need to be changed to explicitly provide ANI as another venue. At the time, there was agreement to only mention AN to encourage users to start ban discussions at AN - this is in circumstances where there is no incident report that later prompted a ban proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC) [EC] AN is preferred, but there's an acknowledged exception for ban proposals flowing out of other problem reports here. I will crosspost a notification regarding this there, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I just wanted to be clear on this. Feel free to collapse this as immaterial to the discussion.  :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:HareKrishnaPortal

This user has created or edited several unsourced and non-neutral POV/promotional pages and a portal relating to Hare Krishna.

• Portal:Hare Krishna
• Hare Krishna media gallery
• Krishna consciousness philosophy
• Vedic Cosmology

All of these have been nominated for deletion by myself or others, after explaining Wikipedia policies regarding RS, NPOV, Not a Soapbox, etc.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedic Cosmology
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna consciousness philosophy
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hare Krishna

The user responded by making strange religious statements [113] and other spiritual threats [114].

This user was blocked for a period of time for randomly adding mfd tags to atheism-related articles [115], but IPs showed up soon after and continued to edit Portal:Hare Krishna and harass myself [116] and other editors [117] among others. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Update. The user continued adding mfd templates to the atheism portal [118] and off-topic addition to an active mfd [119]. I reported the user to AIV. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 05:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I ended up blocking him indefinitely. The community can decide here if they want it to stay like that but he was clearly not listening to warnings or willing to talk and had already been blocked for similar issues a couple days ago. James (T C) 05:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "atheists face repeted rebirth and death life after life. Chant Hare Krishna instead if you are intelligent" and asking DanielRigal whether xe is a demon or a sinner tells me that this person isn't really here to build an encyclopaedia, or is in any way attempting to embrace the neutral point of view. Whether we have such a portal or not, this person is wholly unsuited to writing it (and possibly anything else) based upon all contributions so far. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah. I got one of those too!. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 11:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't HareKrishnaPortal the same as Qualities108? Shouldn't they both be indeffed? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Qualities108 doesn't have a long-enough block. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Eddie Schluessel

Resolved

Since yesterday (August 23), User:Eddie Schluessel has been inexplicably reverting any edits I make to articles despite being warned not to. It started with their very first edit after creating their account on an article about a 1924 film where they did what appears to be a blind revert which I reverted back because, in addition to removing some material (which is wholly unneeded), I also made stylistic changes (flag icons removal & proper date formatting) and added more specific categories. The edit also restored a bit of long-standing silly vandalism as I'm certain Leo Sayer wasn't in a silent film (well, maybe he was but not this one). After that edit, Eddie Schluessel seemingly went though my history reverting any edit I made to articles. A few were reverted by another IP user ([120] and [121]) and I restored the rest. I left a rather curt message on their talk page regarding their edits as did User:Jeff G. Today I come on to find yet another one of my edits from yesterday inexplicably reverted. It seems this accounts sole purpose is to follow my edits around and revert them. Can someone have a word with them? 70.241.16.221 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have had the requested word. I gave him one chance to get his act together, if he fails he's blocked. The way he rather appeared from nowhere suggests an SPA sockpuppet to me; can you think of any likely candidates for a sockmaster? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• User indefblocked. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. 70.241.16.221 (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Dodo19 - stalking User:Miacek and compiling his 'Little Black Book'

• Dodo19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am running out of patience with a user (and a couple of IPs). I once came across a certain Dodo19 @ Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, who after our encounter immediately started stalking me across all the articles I edited on that day (3 August, 2010), mechanically reverting my changes, adding bogus edit summaries like this, until both of us were blocked for 'edit warring', though only Dodo19 technically broke 3 RR. When he returned from his block, he immediately proceeded with edit warring @ Viktor Suvorov, but gave up there, after I was supported by another user. Since then, this user has been busy with stalking my edits, and during last weeks compiling basically a ’Black Book’.

Here it is [122] (47 diffs with the stand of August 24)

He clearly functions as a single purpose account of stalking me and collecting 'evidence' against me (he also included at his talk page a couple of diffs against other users, under special subheadings, whom he, it seems, either thinks to be my sock puppets or ‘suspiciously similar’ in appearance). For some time, I didn't pay attention to it (though as I watchlist the page since my first encounter I noticed this at the beginning), thinking that he'll give up anyway, considering that Dodo actually claims to be {retired}.

But as there's been no sign of this circus ever stopping, today I finally decided that enough is enough, and told the user that such practice is unacceptable and asked him to remove this attack page. He proceeded to erase my notice in 5 minutes (suspiciously quick given that he has never edited any articles under this account since 5 August!). No wonder that he just removed my comment: It is his standard practice to just immediately undo any warnings that more experienced users have posted on his talk page [123].

What makes me even more concerned, is the fact that all my edits in the contributions list are being constantly very closely scrutinized by another German IP user (IP range 78. …), who has been making biased edits to BLP articles since Dec. 2009. I have reported both this IP range stalking me and his BLP violations, it seems the latter issue is improving, as other impartial users have joined in to address my concerns there.
As was to be expected, however, the IP 78...'s stalking of my edits at the very moment I am writing these lines (note that it was the wrong year that he entered there into the article I had just created).

It should be noted that Dodo19 has also edited as IP 92.225.139.239. Not surprisingly, IP’s from that range have propped up to edit war in some of the articles I have edited. [124], [125]. They might be connected with Dodo19, but might not be.

I want to start new articles and improve others without being harassed by a couple of German trolls.

However, regardless of the fact if these two issues are connected, I want some action taken against Dodo19’s campaign against me. It is a single purpose account devoted to collecting ‘evidence’ against me. His diff compilation on me constitutes an attack page by now. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Dodo19 notified. DMacks (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

92.225.139.239 == Dodo19 per this edit (didn't look deeper or in the surrounding IP range). However, Dodo19 has continued editing (both article-space and user-space) despite that "retired" tag. His diffs collection is totally outside scope of WP user/usertalk pages. If he's retiring, then bye bye, no need to have that there and no need to continue here. If he's not, then it suggests on-wiki-stalking, which is not allowable either. Dodo19's edits themselves don't stand well (many others on talk-pages keep trying to point out his problems with WP:OR, etc). We're left with problematic edits (though he does discuss them, so not itself a fatal problem) but all recent behavior appears to be following Miacek around usually picking in his edits or comments. So...zero asset to wikipedia at this time. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I laughed out loud at these paragraphs. BTW, the IP you are talking about appears to be obsessed with you. I hope I made no offense to you.

Hinata talk

15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What the IP has been doing is not funny at all. It is a classic case of Wikihounding. He behaved like that with User:Mrandsl, once they had met in German wikipedia. The IP 78's bias was so heavy that one subject of the article had to register and complain of the manner the article had been composed. By that troll. Yesterday, I couldn't even edit a minor article related to Prussia/Poland without that loony appearing to revert me. The IP may be “obsessed with” me or with other users, but that's exactly why we should set admin tools ready for those, who are not interested in writing an encyclopedia, but in smear campaign and hounding.
As for Dodo, I agree with DMacks' opinion that it is time Dodo uses his right to leave. He is either incapable of creating or not willing to create encyclopedic content. His attack page should be deleted. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I will agree with DMacks. If the editor is truly gone, then this is resolved. If they continue to edit in a problematic way, either as a registered user or as IPs, then action needs to be taken. Any "evidence" collected can probably be ignored unless they decide to do something with it. -- Atama頭 20:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP user went on yesterday and continued today. It's nothing but following my edits, posting 'warnings' at my talk page, pointless inaccurate changes of my contributions. Note that I avoided everything controversial today, he would start edit wars otherwise.
Secondly, if Dodo19 has left, then he should stop collecting incriminatory diffs against me and blank his Black list. He continues with the opposite activities. Such compilations are NOT acceptable. If this is not wikihounding, what is? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 20:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that calling DoDo19 a "singe purpose account" is patently ridiculous. He has been on Wikipedia since 2008 and edited articles on World War II and associated subjects. Some of these articles that Miacek is accusing him of stalking him on, DoDo edited long before Miacek, so if anything the stalking goes the other way; and the diffs DoDo19 is collecting appear to be a defense/documentation of that fact.radek (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as ridiculous at all. Whatever contributions Dodo19 has made in the past, the editor's recent behavior seems to be that of a stalker. It also seems very deceptive to claim to be retired and to stop editing with their main account just to stalk someone while not logged in. I reviewed the addresses and they all seem to be plausibly the same person; same ISP and identical geolocation to each other, and we have confirmation that one of the IPs is definitely Dodo19. I'm not sure what can be technically done here, I fear a rangeblock might have too much collateral damage. But something needs to be figured out here, harassment is a big deal. -- Atama頭 21:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The point, which you're missing, is that Dodo, an established editor with a clean block log until this happened, was active on some of these articles BEFORE Miacek. Hence, charges of 'stalking' are absurd, not to mention the fact that calling him things like "single purpose account" (is he? Diffs please) or a "German troll" (diffs please) like Miacek does is very offensive and clear violation of WP:CIVIL. No wonder the guy wanted to retire.

I don't know if the IPs are him. But what apparently happened here is that DoDo19 was a productive and valued contributor to many articles on World War II. Then he got in these spats with Miacek and got a block for edit warring which apparently he felt was unfair. Add to that Miacek's persistent accusations and attacks and it seems DoDo did two things: 1) began collecting diffs to document Miacek's behavior and then 2) decided to retire. Now, if he says he's retired he should either remove that banner from his page or really retire. But it often happens that when productive users feel they've been treated unfairly (which is continuing here btw) they get mad, and wish to leave the project, but can't quite let go without "tying up loose ends". There is no evidence of harassment (gathering diffs on one's talk a page does NOT qualify) nor of stalking.radek (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz is a user I have recently clashed with on a number of issues, and in cases Dodo19 was involved, Radeksz and his former cabal pal MyMoloboaccount invariably agreed with Dodo19. Radek is a partisan user on that matter.As for Radek's further hints, Dodo19 has a high editcount just because he has made thousands of bot-type edits like categories. The number of content-related major contributions is low. On the other hand, I have started over 60 articles, so it doesn't matter who registered first.Dodo19 has a long history of POV pushing, e.g. in case of Estonian history (I'm from Estonia, too, btw).
As the issue of IPs has been once raised, let us look further into the matter.
The trouble with the 78… range started on 4 December, 2009, as User:Mrandsl had made some changes to Alfred de Zayas here, and at the same time complained of partisan description at the corresponding German Wikipedia article http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_de_Zayas&diff=prev&oldid=67594097 (the edit summary is in English). His edits were all reverted in German wikipedia [126]. User Mrandsl was a contributor who started a number of articles on controversial German historians here. Looking his comments, I'd agree with him in that his opponents engaged in WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP violations (the latter having been my special concern recently). True, he, on the other hand might've been too uncritical of the subjects.
For this, a vendetta was conducted against him by IPs like 78.53.32.121, 92.229.61.33. The user account Dodo19 represented similar POVs. As for the IPs, please note the inflammatory category he added into the article), trying to paint as negative a picture on the historian as possible. Note also that at the same time this IP is defending the leading far-left newspaper in Germany.
All of this is even more astonishing, if we consider that the person(s) behind those IPs has/have much knowledge on German historiography, as does Dodo19. There might be some conflict of interest, or just a will to disparage colleagues with different theses.
Now, 92.229.60.29 (editing recently) is also active in similar topics, wherease from the same range 92.225.81.242 has also stalked my edits recently (me editing German Communist Party? Here it comes - he with his (factually dubious) change, too!). 92.225... is a certified range of Dodo19. 78.53.47.215 showed up at Party of Freedom, a page I've edited for years. Naturally, he defended a particular POV. Besides adding bogus warnings to my talk pageThe fact is, both POV and the manner of action - stalking and often mechanically undoing the perceived opponent's (since August 3, it's me!) edits, is exactly the modus operandi of Dodo19, the 78... range and a couple of times 92.... range. Even if those aren't one and the same person, following my edits on a daily basis must stop.
Just a IP range block for some time might help, after all, he gave up his POV-pushing on SS matter and more recently in case Viktor Suvorov, after he saw that he won't succeed that easily. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice. First you attack Dodo19 by calling him a "single purpose account" and "troll" and when I point out that he is neither you respond by attacking me. I'm starting to see a pattern here in terms of how you deal with people who disagree with you. And if you're going to throw epithets like "former cabal pal" around, you might as well provide enough context that you're a "former cabal pal" as well. And in terms of the relevant content dispute, all of these "historians" are individuals associated with the far right in Germany, which Mrandsl was trying to hide.radek (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Miacek feels harassed by other editors editing "his" articles. After I clashed with him earlier this month, I decided to stop editing. Frankly, I did not see any chance for a productive cooperation due to fundamental differences in political opinion. I have come back though occasionally to check on Miacek and his pals, saving some links to edits I found interesting. Since he's been doing something similar, I didn't see anything wrong with that.
As to edits by IPs, may I point out, that I am living in a major European city with a high percentage of the population qualifying as "far left" (from Miacek's POV). Incidentally there are also loads of Russians living here. Some of them might share the same ISP as I do and edit on the same articles as Miacek does. If that's it what's troubling him, I can't help it.--Dodo19 (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Today's work of the IP, this time 78.53.40.172. Very constructive indeed... Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with those edits? Do they violate any Wikipedia policies? All I can see is engagement in article talk page discussions, a copy edit or two and a legitimate complaint about the fact that you called him/her a "German crackpot". Just because the user has a disagreement with you does not automatically make his contributions "non-constructive".radek (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

“Do they violate any Wikipedia policies? ” Yes, they do. To name just one matter, adding frivolous tags on daily basis is harassment directed against a user (per Wikipedia:Harassment:

Placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

. You know this as well as I do. And what the IP was doing today was pretty much one against all battle. That he was violating guidelines was explained to the troll by a number of impartial users. That you as an experienced user might come to defend such behaviour, is disappointing.

But let us consider a few things. What really matters for you that one has the 'correct POV' and is useful in 'treating' your opponents. As was, btw revealed by the arbitration case (and now I am convinced of this, having experienced this at first hand): what matters to you and your buddies is just pushing Polish POV and for this purpose, all means are OK. Encyclopedic value of edits (and indeed, editors) is of no importance in such world of thought. I repeat, it is the 'correct POV' that is important. By that logic, it is only natural that you are grooming pet trolls as you see them befit your agenda in one particular issue. The evidence of Polish POV pushing, and you in particular, was solid during the last Arbitration case [[127]], [128], interestingly incl. questionable edits to the article we now debated, harrassment concerns etc. Such behaviour was written into the Arbcom decision on you. You managed to have your ban lifted in this summer. Have you stopped all of this the arbcom had found you responsible of? Hardly!. Even the main 'opponents' are the same. For a user with such record of recent behaviour it is sometimes wiser to keep silent and at least pretend that you've abandoned WP:BATTLE.
Instead of using every chance to get on your perceived opponents - both ages' old and newly detected ones. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 00:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Miacek, your edits and comments are completely inappropriate, way out of line, and this appears to be only escalating. Specifically;

• Do they violate any Wikipedia policies? ” Yes, they do. To name just one matter, adding frivolous tags on daily basis is harassment directed against a user (per Wikipedia:Harassment) - you linked to this list of the user's contributions [129] as proof of this allegation. Can you point out where this user is adding "frivolous tags"? The only thing I see is the IP User trying to apologize to you for any offense you might have felt [130]. So again, it appears your accusations are false and completely inappropriate and you are just making more unfounded personal attacks.
• The rest of your comment is just one long ranting personal attack. How about actually showing any proof where this IP, or Dodo19 for that matter, actually broke any Wikipedia policies? How about not trying to smear me with irrelevant diffs just because I happen to disagree with you?
• You have been making personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you recently across many pages, and have even made edits which come dangerously close to outing (since over-sighted [131]) users you are in dispute with. And then you turn around and accuse of others of battleground behavior? Quite honestly, since your topic ban was lifted, I've seen quite a number of your edits which were probably "report-worthy" for incivility, bad faith, battleground and personal attacks but I've held back because I thought this was some kind of weird temporary fluctuation. But it appears this kind of behavior is only escalating - your standard response to any kind of disagreement seems to be throw around accusations and make personal attacks. No wonder users like DoDo19 want to leave the project as a result.
• My request for any diffs which justify calling Dodo19 a "single purpose account" or a "German troll" are left unanswered and the only thing you do in return is attack me. Never mind me. But in regards to the other matter, let me repeat myself: Diffs please!
• The fact that somebody is editing as an IP does not justify you making personal attacks against them, such as calling them "a couple of German trolls", "By that troll", "was explained to the troll", "grooming pet trolls" - these are all serious violations of Wikipedia policy on No Personal Attacks (nevermind that you are making such against me as well), even if they are directed at an editor with an IP. A good rule of thumb is that when an editor resorts to repeatedly and persistently calling another editor "troll" without justification, he or she has lost touch with the intent of Wikipedia policies and the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia and needs to disengage from the relevant disputes. Please stop using such language.
• Rereading this whole thread it does look like the focus was initially inappropriately placed on the victim (Dodo19) rather than the other party (Miacek).radek (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Kww and WLU

Resolved

 – Freakshownerd has been blocked for 48 hours, as well as having his / her talk page access revoked. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Kww is abusing his admin tools to intimidate an editor trying to uphold our BLP standards in order to advance his personal Point of View. He and WLU are removing accurate and undisputed descriptors of William Dembski's career from the lead because they disagree with his positions on Intelligent Design. Apart from the clear BLP violation that these edits have with their potential to damage the man's career, there is also the very serious issue of abuse of admin tools, a subject which I have (quite unfortunately) am acutely aware. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look and can't see Kww taking any recent admin action on that article - can you point directly to what you mean (with diffs or in the logs) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He's using his tools to threaten to block me for maintaining BLP despite my requests that he take the issue to the BLPN noticeboard if he disagreed that removing content on a man's career to make them look bad was inappropriate and in violation of policy. That is an abuse of his tools. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The core of the matter is that this is a content dispute; Freakshownerd contends that the removal of the term "mathematician" from the lead sentence of the article is a BLP violation, and has thrice reverted to keep that term in the lead. Kww and others have pointed out (correctly, I believe) that this is not a BLP violation, and that focusing on the mathematician term is a violation of undue weight. Extensive references throughout the article make the subject's involvement in mathematics clear to the most casual observer, so there is no danger of the subject being considered a non-mathematician. In this particular case, there appears to be no abuse of the tools - no tools have been used in the debate. Freakshownerd, moreover, has repeatedly accused editors of bad faith, and has done so using personal attacks and gross incivility. The most recent block, yesterday, resulted in the removal of the editor's ability to edit their talk page following a pretty nasty tirade against myself and others after I attempted to explain why I declined to unblock. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your description is inaccurate. He is removing that he is mathemetician, theologian, and philosopher (BASICALLY ALL THE INFO ON THE MAN'S CAREER) from the lead, despite that content being sourced to Time magazine and indisputable. He is doing this solely for the purpose of disparaging a living person who he happens to disagree with. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He also failed to notify Kww and WLU. I'll do that momentarily. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Toddst already did that. Anyway, I don't see any misuse of administrator tools. Here are Kww's logs, talk page of the reporter, and the history of the article in question. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I notified both and was responding to the related discussion on my talkpage. You failed to note that you have been in dispute with me over similar attempts by you to push your personal point of view, and over Rd232's abuse of admin tools. Maybe you should leave this discusssion to the uninvolved? Freakshownerd (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1 notified Kww, and Freakshownerd and I Edit Conflicted in notifying WLU. Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I did briefly block Freakshownerd for an earlier edit-war on the article on August 12. I unblocked after it was pointed out that Freakshownerd had self-reverted as his final reversion on that day. Freakshownerd is edit-warring on the article, and is falsely portraying his edits as reverting BLP violations when, in fact, no BLP violations have been made. Personally, I consider Freakshownerd to be a hopeless case: no concept of what it takes to edit collegially, personal attacks whenever crossed, and basically a single-purpose POV account. I'm to WP:INVOLVED to do it, but I'd propose holding him to a 1RR limit on all articles.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And I propose that you be stripped of you admin tools for abusing them, as you admit in an unfounded block, and for consistently abusing your tools in cases where you are involved. I know you have strong opinions on Intelligent Design, but that does not give you the right to disparage article subjects, especially living ones, or to abuse your administrative status to go after good faith editors seeking to uphold our most basic standards. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe an RFCU is in the works, as this person is almost certainly our old ANI-haranguing friend ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs). This savage lashing out at every single admin or user who takes an opposing opinion, especially when the discussion is in regards to his blocks and the perceived ganging-up, injustice of it all, etc...should be quite familiar to those who have had to deal with CoM in the past. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it is, and I hope checkuser will confirm it soon. In the mean time, this thread should be closed to avoid further time-wasting. (FWIW, I agree with F that the removed text at Dembski was better left there on NPOV grounds, though removal hardly constituted a BLP violation since the info was still in the article.) Rd232 ^talk 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Freakshownerd (talk · contribs) and WLU (talk · contribs) - have overstepped WP:3RR on William Dembski today. Freakshownerd is claiming a WP:BLP exemption that I do not think applies as I am not able to direct anything libellous or really contentious. Codf1977 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (filed at WP:AN3 here) Codf1977 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• The BLP policy is clear:

Tone

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan' manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject...

Attack pages

Further information: Wikipedia:Attack pages and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10 Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them {{db-attack}}. The idea that it's not a BLP violation to remove all the content about someone's career from the introduction of their article despite it being well sourced and indisputable is outrageous. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• COM? Is that you COM? Only two days ago Freakshow was blocked by another admin as a sock of Grundle? Has anyone actually made a report? (there is nothing that I have seen that if a big enough issue to be a BLP revert exemption) Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been accused of being the socks of four or so different editors. It happens every time someone disagree with my positions. And Rd232, who abused his tools in another matter where he was involved and edit warring, has said he is engagede in an an off-wiki campaign to get checkusers to block me (ie. a witch hunt). The conduct of these abusive POV pushers and corrupt admins is truly outrageous. If someone thinks the edit is appropriate let's hear why instead of trying to attack and disparage me for upholding our BLP standards. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can't produce diffs or log entries showing that tools have been abused, you really need to stop crying abuse. —DoRD (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also this is another case of crying abuse from today. Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Has a sockpuppet report been made by anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Grundle sprang to mind and prompted my investigation, which showed from the edit history it's clearly CoM (though it's getting to the point where F's comments alone could be enough). I prefer to keep the details private, since pointing out the socking errors will just make CoM's future socking more effective. (I'm not surprised F has been subject to previous sock allegations - there are various clues that it's not a first account.) Again, I'm awaiting checkuser result, hopefully today, and hopefully that will settle it. Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you made a proper report, citing your evidence for requesting checkuser? Nothing in your edit history, two days ago you blocked him because you were sure he was a sock of grundle and now your sure hes a sock of COM and no report nothing just a please check this user back door request to a checkuser, with the claim that you don't want the evidence to help future socking attempts, imo that is a rubbish claim for checkuser and you should make an open up front report as you are already accused of involvement and a poor block that was quickly unblocked by another admin. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed detailed evidence to a checkuser and half a dozen admins. I won't quote from private emails, but I can say it's deemed easily sufficient for a checkuser. Rd232 ^talk 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have consistently been accused of BLP violations, and have consistently asked for clarification on which part of BLP I am breaking. I have yet to get a reply that helps me understand, though I have been accused of vandalism repeatedly. Note edits like this one I made, where I note his former position as a professor of theology. Dembski is primarily a proponent of the creationist pseudoscience intelligent design. I've never removed "all of the information on his career", in fact I have added the listing of degrees he has attained and noted them in the lead. That sentence, "Dembski holds advanced degrees in philosophy, theology, mathematics and statistics, and has written numerous books and articles on the topic of intelligent design and Christian apologetics"? I put that in. It's hard to accurately summarize Dembski's career, given the propensity of ID promoters to claim far more than is their due (Dembski amusingly claimed to have discovered a fourth law of thermodynamics); I think the best position to adopt is to list affiliations and qualifications, and leave it at that. He's certainly not a real philosopher, since he doesn't publish in philosophy journals or write on real philosophical topics. He's not really a theologian either, but he does write extensively on Christian apologetics. Much of this has played out in aggressive edit summaries rather than talk page discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but Time described him in that way, and clearly the issue requires more than edit summary discussion. Rd232 ^talk 15:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• There should be enough behavioral evidence so this really should be at SPI if it isn't already, though I share Off2riorob's concerns in that I don't think the evidence needs to be kept private - given the whole blocking while involved and perceptions of fishing. Just looking at the circumstances of his editing, his commentary, and his style, I think he's a sock of CoM. It seems pretty obvious to me and CU isn't the be-all and end-all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Ncmvocalist & Rob. Open an SPI report - if the evidence really can't be public (and I'm not sure I like the idea of it being private...) then at least the CU is all official and documented. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As a coincidence, Freakshownerd's account was created exactly 3 days after CoM's last edit. That should probably be taken into account. -- Atama頭 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's part of the circumstances I was (vaguely) alluding to, though it would follow that I was a bit more sceptical and didn't interpret it as a coincidence in this case. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've boobed there, it's 19 March and 22 May. In fact Freakshownerd was created some weeks after User:Electroshoxcure's last edit (the previous CoM sock). Rd232 ^talk 17:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This being another part of the circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I did goof with the dates, sorry about that. -- Atama頭 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I have blocked User:Freakshownerd for 48h for obvious 3RR violation reported at WP:AN3. The issue regarding WLU ((link here) is more complex - would someone else like to take a second look at it for me please? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Given this edit, I would suggest removing Freakshownerd's ability to edit his/her Talk page. If it's only going to be used to lash out at and insult admins, there's no point it leaving it open during the block. Once the SPI results come back, we can determine if we need to extend or shorten the block, but there's no point letting the user spout vitriol in the meantime. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was called a "moron". Working at Wendy's doesn't really deserve that kind of treatment ... :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible illegal sig

Resolved

Would someone have a look at Hinata (talk · contribs)'s sig a little ways up this page, diff and let him know if it violates policy? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Signatures specifically mentions that signatures should not contain blinking text; it's rather annoying. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please do speak directly to editors prior to bringing an ANI thread. Had you visited their talk page, you would've seen that they've had messages from two different administrators since their last edit. –xeno^talk 18:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, you are required to notify anyone you discuss here, but xeno has done that for you. The user has since changed their signature, and I've gone ahead and disabled the blink above. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, dammit, you're right, didn't notify. Seemed like such a small thing, I figured a quick word from someone who knew policy better than me would suffice. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Not a huge deal. –xeno^talk 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That must be why he asked me if I liked his new signature. It wasn't flashing for me, so his comment didn't make sense. Maybe there are indeed advantages to operating a vintage machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Vintage machine? Hinata talk 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Steam powered. HalfShadow 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Perhaps his steam-powered computer is still running this cranky "operating system". —DoRD (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
                • It's not steam-powered, it's run by a tireless team of squirrels, some of whom can type, which is why I appear to make evil comments from time to time. When that happens, just assume it's a squirrel. Regarding Windows... 95? You mean there's an upgrade from 3.1? Awesome! Tomorrow I'll go to my nearest Circuit City and get a copy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Windoze 3.11 is the networked edition - but you could actually skip right to the incredible Windoze 98SE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Troubles sanctions - seeking community clarification

I'm seeking some clarification on the {{Troubles restriction}} template (maybe the wrong furum but not sure where to post) and the sanctions arising from it. This partly arising from a request for clarification that I made to ArbCom a few months back. That produced the surprising response (to me and I'm sure others) that this template, and what it purports, is not in fact an ArbCom ruling.

Now, given its wide-spread use, it may have community sanction status - but if so can we clarify that?

Also, though not wanting to forum shop, can I ask for comment here on a proposal to put Republic of Ireland under this restriction as "Troubles-related". That would seem to me as being as widely cast a net as putting United Kingdom under the same sanction, particularly as there have been no Northern Ireland or Troubles-related incidents on the article in memory. --RA (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Posting cross-links here from the relevant Wikiprojects. --RA (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR should be restricted to articles specifically about the troubles, not country articles or anything that mentions them. I remember someone mentioned a year or so ago about an article on someone who died long before the troubles should be considered as under the restrictions too. Such a serious rule which can easily catch editors unaware out and result in potential blocks should be restricted to specific pages and clearly labelled both on the talk page and on the edit page of the article for all to see. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". At different times we have different groups involved over multiple articles. At the moment it appears to be British nationalism. Best to apply it in this case where the edits relate in any way to the history or the status of the state etc. Its a good calming measure. --Snowded ^TALK 03:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If the 1RR restriction must be applied to articles on which there have been no Northern Ireland or Troubles-related incidents in memory, may we at least have a time limit for review? In my view such articles have suffered because of the restriction. Editors become wary of being involved there, consequently genuine article improvements become rarer. Daicaregos (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Genuine article improvements ought not to be reverted, therefore 1RR ought not to be relevant. Any edit that's reverted should be taken to the talk page anyway. 1RR is designed to prevent the outbreak of POV wars, which very rarely result from "genuine" article improvements. Scolaire (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IP is overusing "reqphoto"

A overactive user is adding the reqphoto" template to multiple pages, every minute, effecting hundreds of pages. Some articles don't have images, but many do. I'm assuming this is a bot, just blindly going along, based on a category. --Rob (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You should probably specify the user's name, so someone can check out their editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's 137.186.233.209 (talk · contribs). Looie496 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That does appear to be a bot, whether unauthorized or just not logged in. It's looping alphabetically over categories and then moving to a new category. Really, it ought to be blocked until there's some explanation. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. I'm going to bed, though, anyone is free to unblock if they see fit. TNXMan 03:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the cleanup work. Surely if this was something we wanted done, re-doing it won't take much effort... AFTER it's gone through WP:BRFA. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I watch BMO Centre which I created. The IP properly requested a photo for this article, but that useful tag was undone by Shirik. I have now looked through many of the photo requests made by the IP and it seems that 95% of them were properly requested. I don't see any evidence that the IP was "looping alphabetically over categories and then moving to a new category" as stated by Gavia immer. Can you point to a dif that demonstrates that behaviour? It appears to me that the IP was acting properly to tag articles that needed photos, and that it was Shirik who was just "blindly going along" undoing a lot of good work. Inniverse (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment: Geolocate puts the IP in Calgary, Alberta - the same city as the location for the photo requests. It doesn't look like a bot to me. It looks like the anonymous editor was "photo request" tagging articles about his/her home town. Inniverse (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I also took a look as an uninvolved person, and these are all Alberta articles. Nothing wrong with the edits. Recommend Shirik revert his unnecessary reverts and the IP be unblocked. Did anyone think to talk to the IP before taking this to ANI? That is how things go around here. Talk first, then ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As to why I think it was a bot: three edits a minute (which I could easily do manually) over a span of many hours (which no human could or would). As to why I think it was looping over categories: check the contributions; they are doing individual groups of edits in alphabetical order, then starting another group of edits in alphabetical order. I suppose this could be a manually-assisted tool; in that case, they need only give an explanation to be unblocked. Also, I agree with you that they are likely an editor with a direct interest in Canadian topics, since they have often created talk pages with a WikiProject Canada tag on them. Also, the editor's talk page does have an outstanding request to discuss their edits, though it appears it was left shortly before the ANI thread was started. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Gavia immer: It could also be someone opening a crapload of tabs and pasting in the template and hitting save...rinse, lather, repeat. That could be done manually and quite quickly if someone wanted to. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I do know all the tricks to make manual edits efficiently. The IP has a sustained edit rate of not less than two edits per minute from 16:42 UTC - 19:09 UTC [132]. It is not reasonable to assume that the editor was just opening a bunch of tabs for that length of time. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Around here, nothing would surprise me, seriously. But I honestly don't see (be them bot, tool, or manual) these being vandalism edits. They are just requesting a photo, what is the harm in that? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not said "vandalism", personally. However, if other editors say their edits were disruptive, they probably were disruptive, and avoiding disruption is one of the reasons that we require approval for bots doing things like that. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as someone with a pile of Calgary and Alberta related articles on their watchlist, it was annoying as hell, but it was also good faith, and ultimately, pointless. The only issue I really have, aside from the waste of effort, is that they weren't even checking if an article had images, they just tagged everything in various categories. That would indicate a lack of verification, though not neccessarly a bot. At any rate, all of those "needs a photo" talk page templates are utterly useless. We can determine if an article needs an image by looking at the article. If it has no images, then we need one. Resolute 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Who said the edits were disruptive? I've not yet read a single editor to say that. The IP is accused of being "overactive" and Gavia immer's opening response was that the IP be "blocked until there's some explanation". Huh? Is there really a policy that states that a non-disruptive editor can be blocked for being "overactive"? Apparently "Tnxman307' thinks so. I call for this IP to be unblocked. Not a single editor has said that the IP's edits were disruptive. I called them useful. The only disruption are all of the "undo edits" made unnecessarily by Shirik' (and very quickly too - maybe Shirik is a bot "joking"), and this ANI. Inniverse (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I went to sleep shortly after this and didn't see any objections until I woke up. As for the reverts - they can easily be undone, however keep this in mind: While I was doing the reverts, I came across several instances of users having already undone the edits with reasons like "this isn't even close to Calgary" or simply unintelligible edits. I think, even if this wasn't a bot, this needs to have some discussion before we modify literally hundreds of pages. (And for the record, yes I did do a lot of reverts in about 5 minutes. You can call me a bot if you want – I did even use the "bot" flag – but the AJAX sysop tool makes mass reverting pages quite easy.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we have already had enough of a discussion. You have said that the tags placed in error were already undone by other interested editors. Did you check the remaining articles to see if photos were needed before reversing the remaining "hundreds of pages" that were properly tagged? Inniverse (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just left a "welcome message" on the IP's talk page (isn't that the first step that should have been taken?), but I am afraid its "too little to late". This ANI is a very unfriendly way to welcome a new editor. Inniverse (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) No I did not, and perhaps I should have, however a handful of editors on ANI is not a "discussion" for the purposes of content. Of course, I should point out here that there is nothing that I have that you don't have (or anyone, for that matter) that's preventing you from overturning my reverts. I'm simply not going to, on my own, restore a bunch of tags (nearly 300) that were (1) questioned by several editors, (2) led to a block, and (3) haven't properly been discussed as being desirable, especially where I lack the content knowledge to know whether or not they are appropriate. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the block and rollback were entirely appropriate. I only become aware of this IP (sorry for identifying it at first) because multiple articles I posted pictures to, were still on my watch list. It's simply a matter of coincidence that most of the type of article targetted (low profile local places) happened to not have a picture. You can't count those as legitimate tags, and it's unreasonable to expect anybody to manually check everyone of these articles. That's why I reported this to here, because I didn't have a spare week, to go through all these articles manually. If these hadn't been rolled back, then the value of the tag would become almost nil. --Rob (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking assistance from Admin to move article / something (user?) is blocked

Resolved

Hello -

Not clear on what's happening or what changed since last contribution to Wikipedia, but now this user is (apparently) blocked...hmmm.

Just created a new article which is notable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johncmorley/CamboFest,_Cambodia_Film_Festival

Can an admin here pls kindly handle its move to the main space?

Thanks,

JCM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncmorley (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Already answered at a more appropriate venue: WP:NCH#Having trouble moving article from user space to main space / am I blocked? -- Atama頭 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Amp873

• Amp873 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am a bit at a loss as to what to do with this user. I don't want to get involved in this anymore, mostly because I am having trouble believing this user is editing in good faith:

• The user is brand new to Wikipedia, but has extensively edit warred already. Amp's second edit was a revert. This includes, in his/her barely 100 edits and 4 days, about half a dozen reverts to Conscription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and three reverts to United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• The user has edited with an agenda, which is why the reversions have been necessary, because people have routinely been reverting this user. For example, as I detailed on User talk:Amp873, routinely referring to the American/Indian wars as a "gruesome genocide" and the European colonization of America as an "invasion", and conscription as sexism, discrimination, and slavery.
• Misleading edit summaries: [133] [134] [135]
• And of course, a demand on my talk page: [136] and immediate assumption of bad faith which showed that the user has no intentions of paying attention to my common sense uw-npov template on his/her talk page

After my talk page response, Amp simply had the courtesy to make another revert with a misleading edit summary and the same NPOV problems. It's obviously s/he will just ignore anything I say. It would be nice if another experienced editor or administrator could respond to the issues on Amp's talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: user removed this thread. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that Magog has notified Amp873 of this discussion and the user has blanked their talk page afterwards. I have placed an "only warning" for removing this discussion. I believe this user needs a block as they are not contributing in a collegial manner, are being disruptive, assuming bad faith, leaving false edit summaries, among other problems. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A block is absolutely called for, at the very least. Removing a thread about oneself from ANI?! What could exhibit more contempt for the process by which we work together here? We don't need editors like this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They were up to something like 20RR on Conscription, combined with disrupting ANI by removing the thread here...

I have blocked for 48 hrs. I pointed them to specific policies and the Pillars. I would like to encourage others to do things like that, on encountering problematic new users, as exposure to our policies and discussion may help head them off from having to be blocked...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks for the info Georgewilliamherbert. Additionally: in your block summary you linked to WP:DE, which couldn't have been more on the ball. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:MZMcBride re-opening his closed RfA

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe just closed MZMcBride's most recent RfA as NOTNOW because it's obviously not happening. But now MZMcBride is going through, un-closing it and adding it back to the list of current RfAs. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 05:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an unwise action for MZM to take, but would perhaps be best dealt with via BN. →ROUX ₪ 05:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is nothing that admins would probably walk into. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe is a crat so it belongs elsewhere. This will handle itself, no need for drama. Shadowjams (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Early closure of RfAs for a more appropriate venue. -- Avi (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:68.236.155.129

User talk:68.236.155.129 has been adding WP:POV material to Akahi Nui. Normally, I'd just report him to WP:ANI, but he's making threats and disputes about Arbcomm and such so I'm not sure how to proceed. [137] If someone could check it out I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 07:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my talk page, where the said user makes references to "outside remidies" the user also leaves his/her e-mail address. Df747jet (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin GorillaWarrior has applied the loving bananna hug of correction to the IP for a month. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Banana (sp) hug? You'll have to explain that one. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you heard of the loving mallet of correction? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to the Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool, also called a Lart, Cluebat, Clue-by-four, etc. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Romaniantruths (the former and blocked User:Romanianlies)

Resolved

 – blocked as sock. Thanks Alison! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

After being blocked for breaking username policy, this editor created a new account with a ironical name. He vandalizes articles about Romanian aviators, including:

• Coandă-1910 (see pre-edit-war stable version. He is adding some dubious references, even if there are many reliable sources which support the stable version of the article: [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]
• Jet aircraft (dsee stable version from before his attacks)
• Aircraft engine
• Henri Coandă ‎ (79.117.193.129 (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

3RR-warning given to both of you. Please stop IP-hopping. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• User:Romaniantruths is a sockpuppet of the blocked User:Romanianlies
• He has already broken 3RR on Henri Coanda (4 reverts between 17:50, 24 August 2010 and 21:45, 24 August 2010), so he should be blocked
• It is not an content edit war, but a vadalazing of the articles, as he changes the stable version which is supported by a plenty of sources: [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] (YellowFF0 (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

So is this now your account, or are you going to keep IP-hopping/socking? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside to the IP user - The user getting a new account name after a username block is an acceptable practice (as is having the account renamed). If they were not blocked for other abuse, that's perfectly OK under our policy. Picking a username we forbid for some reason is not otherwise a problem.

I don't mean to assert there is no other problem - but the username change was normal and not abusive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Block request to Cameron Scott

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

---

I request to block the user Cameron Scott because he keeps deleting uw-npa1 from his talk page for 8 times and cleared all his notices for 2 times, resulting a blank talk page. I stated WP:RPA for several times but he didn't listen. Now all the notices were deleted by him. I post uw-npa1 because he used bad altitude in Talk:Nokia C6 and [154].
Regards,
Claudeemann --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I will investigate the general behavior, but, as a rule, people are always allowed to remove warnings or comments on their talk page. Declined unblock requests are pretty much the only exception.

It's assumed that if someone has removed it, they are responsible for having read the comment and acknowledged its receipt.

Please come see an administrator sooner in the future, if something like this starts... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing them making abusive behavior. Can you list the particular diffs which you believed were personal attacks?

The editorial discussion on Nokia C6 and its talk page should be more constructive, but I don't see that he's done anything wrong under our policies. Can you please try to engage with him cooperatively?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But he deleted other notices, too. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He is allowed to do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahum - where is my notification of this discussion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We trusted that your psychic powers would work properly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(In all seriousness - ZirconiumTwice, you need to notify other editors on their talk page if you open an ANI thread about them, please do so next time... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC) )

In regards to It's assumed that if someone has removed it, they are responsible for having read the comment and acknowledged its receipt. read the edit history for my talkpage, I note multiple times I've read it and ask the user to check his actions with others before he persists with his editwarring on my talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I did note that prior to my second response. I don't see that your actions were wrong here, Cameron. ZirconiumTwice appears to be unfamiliar with how editing and the community work, but you appear to be trying to handle it properly. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary in a case like this where there is an obvious misunderstanding about WP:TPG, but I looked to see whether I could find any reason for ZirconiumTwice to post warning notices on User talk:Cameron Scott. It appears that the issue concerns a disagreement about the reviews (which are negative) in Nokia C6 and the discussion at Talk:Nokia C6. There is nothing at that talk page that approaches a personal attack, so the warnings were not appropriate in the first place. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Anyway it's a bit rich having a lecture on NPOV off a C6 owner and someone who has SYMBIAN slapped over the top of the wikipedia logo on their talkpage." Offensive.--ZirconiumTwice (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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

User:NovaSkola

Resolved

 – Twinkle removed. Fences&Windows 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied material from ANI archive. Please see below for actual matter.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User reverted my edit as vandalism. I've added a name of the fortress in Armenian and in Azeri; I've mentioned that the fortress is situated in the disputed territory which is de-facto under the control of NKR for improving NPOV. Finally I've added three interwikies: in Azeri, Russian and Ukrainian. All these my edits were reverted by User:NovaSkola as a vandalism. There were a discussion in the talk page of the article about the city of Martuni. Don't taking part in the discussion User:NovaSkola changed the name from Martuni to the Khojavend and after it he make a request to the administrators for protection of the name of the article. Administrator SlimVirgin protected the name of the article on the version of NovaSkola. Then there were no discussion from the users who represents Azerbaijan: User:Tuscumbia, User:NovaSkola and User:Brandmeister as they agreed that it is normal behavior of user NovaSkola. In my request that there are no consensus, administrator SlimVirgin wrote answer in the talk page (end of the page). After that without any discussion User:NovaSkola has done the same with the article about Martakert (town). He moved the name of the article and after that make a request for protection of the title, but I've seen it and stopped him, mentioning about it in the RfPP. After some period of time he repeated the action. He moved the title and then make a request for protection of the title on his version. Administrator TFOWR accepted request. Please take concrete measures against the user, which is in conflict articles biased and unfair conducts his activities. Thanks in advance. --Ліонкінг (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC) No idea about the content-dispute, but there seems to be some mis-use of Twinkle going on... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Sounds like someone needs a break from twinkle.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, definatly needs a break from Twinkle Látches (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC) User talk:Ліонкінг mentions the link to Ukranian Askeran Fortress. I just want to remind, that in the Ukranian version there is no mentioning of Azerbaijan even though the fortress is legally located on Azerbaijani territory. About city so called Martuni, it is actually perfectly fine with Wikipedia, due it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto. So I guess this user accusing me of false allegations and I want admins to check my and his records and make right decision. Also I want to remind, this user previously topic banned on Azerbaijani articles as he was falsifying Azerbaijani articles and removing references, while accusing all other users of mistreating him.--NovaSkola (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC) There were not only Ukrainian interwiki, there were also Azeri and Russian interwikies, You've deleted all of them. But it is even not important what is in the other language article. In the ukrwiki uses de-facto names. Anyway You don't have a right to delete interwikies and mention it as vandalism. "About city so called Martuni, it is actually perfectly fine with Wikipedia, due it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto." - it is only Your opinion. You can't decide for whole community. By the way there were a big hot discussion on the talk page of the article. You've just ignore opinion of participants and moved the title of article and make request for protection on Your version, however there were a hot discussion. I have never falsified anything. Just You and Your collegues Tuscumbia and Brandmeister started a campaign against me and from third request I and Your collegue Tuscumbia were topic banned. Speaking about everything else what You've said it is just Your propoganda and it does no matter to the plot of this discussion. Now we're speaking about Your behavior and Your concrete actions, not about my actions. So please give direct answers to the request. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Your not admin to I force me to do something. Ліонкінг is surely, don't know his duties by showing agressive behavior against me. This user just showed his attitude against Azerbaijani users by accusing us without having constructive arguments. So I urge admins to take action.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC) On a side note, considering User:NovaSkola's past actions of removing information he/she finds unpalatable[155](massive deletion of referenced information),[156][157](contends Armenian sources are not neutral, yet corresponding source is written by a Turk(Özkırımlı)!),[158](straight deletion after information was given on the talk page, which was NOT used by User:NovaSkola!), why has this editor's recent actions surprised anyone? Admins should take into consideration this editor's past reverts, deletions and non-use of talk page, before allowing User:NovaSkola continued use of Twinkle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I am actually not surprised, by Kansas Bear who is well known for his one side support and sympathy for armenian users as never seen this user been neutral, always acting anti-Azeri so I guess, they should also check your opinions on Azerbaijani users, which clearly shows your sympathy for armenians nearly in each case. I know, truth hurts. --NovaSkola (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC) User:Ліонкінг I've moved this thread up to unify the two complaints; feel free to revert if you think this was inappropriate. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Hello, I have complaint against User:Ліонкінг, who constantly personally attacks me and other users without having constructive opinions. Situation follows: 1. User failed to notify me, about incident that he launched against me. While I notified him immediately. 2. User starts using aggressive behavior towards me by forcing me to do his actions, despite this user is not in admin role. An example of this could be - give direct answers to the request in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:NovaSkola 3. User also accuses other Azerbaijani users, which includes Tuscumbia and Brandmeister by trying to get back to him, while we just only complained so Lionking tries to blackmail me and others. So I hope admins, do something against this user who is fed me up with his direct attacks.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC) I don't have a big contribution in enwiki, so everybody can review my contribution. The problem is that user NovaSkola try to get distracted from my request. He don't want to give direct answers on my request. Instead of it he says that I've aggressive behavior against him and smbd else. I want to listen his comment to the diffs which I've written. Am I disagree with his behavior? Yes, I'm. And I've written here why. He revert my edits and he write that I vandalise pages while I'm not do it. Then I want to hear why he without any discussion move the title of the articles which are about very disputed area and then he make a request for protection on his version. And he don't take a part in any discussion. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Exactly, you don't have big contribution and now you are taking on big contribution users from Azerbaijan to ruin our reputation. Once again, I decide admins to make wise decision and make sure this user is not attacking me directly. User must know his own responsibilities and not accuse of me answering or forcing something. --NovaSkola (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Just reviewed the edits by User Ліонкінг and this one in particular [159] which seems to have started this thread. I must say that the edit can't be fully justified. If an Armenian name for a fortress or any other town, village or center on the territory of Azerbaijan is added, then it should be the same case with fortresses, towns and villages in Armenia which had had a considerable Azerbaijani population in the past. See Blue Mosque, Yerevan for instance, or Sisian or Alaverdi, or even Caucasian Albania historically located on the territory of Azerbaijan; see in this link [160] where an Armenian user removes the Azeri language. The really wrong thing seems to be adding Armenian names to the de-jure Azerbaijani cities which are clearly under occupation and are recognized as Azerbaijani lands when the Azerbaijani population of those towns have been deported by force. This seems quite unjust. See how one user User talk:Vrammycowboy was rightfully banned from editing due to disruptive editing (his account was created just for the sake of adding Armenian names and disruptive editing. And this is the proper response from the admin [161]. I just checked history of contributions of Ліонкінг against those of NovaSkola. Don't know about the other. All user Ліонкінг has done in English Wikipedia is disrupt when NovaSkola has created a whole line of articles. Anastasia Bukhantseva  23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC) For the umpteenth time, I am not Armenian, stop this nationalistic non-sense. Sardur (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC) You accuse us of nationalism, but why does User:Ліонкінг not add Azeri names to his pictures in WikiCommons, the pictures that he took in Hadrut, Khojavend, Kelbajar, etc. I bet this is all done with the purpose to disclaim Azeri ownership of Azerbaijani lands by falsely claiming they are some Nagorno Karabakh Republic. If I am wrong, show one reliable source from international community or organization claiming the country is legitimate.--NovaSkola (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I see here only one think. NovaSkola don't have any answer to his actions about which I've claimed and now he just try to get destructed. About my small contribution. Yes, I've a small contribution in enwiki as English isn't my native language, but I've enough contribution in ruwiki (I'm autoeditor there) and in ukrwiki (I'm patroller there). Also I've uploaded some hundred images to the commons. But even it is not important. If I even have no contribution it don't make a right to NovaSkola to act in this way. About my disruptive behavior You can learn from my contribution list to avoid speculations. By the way, I'm an author of nearly thousand articles in different language chapters of wikipedia which I've created in a period of two years. About Armenian names in Azeri territory and Azeri people who have moved with forces. Nagorno Karabakh at least is disputed territory. The current territory of NKR is recognised by Azerbaijan according to the Bishkek protocol. There were no Azeris in Askeran. In NKR there are even no any mosque which is earlier of 18 century, but there are thousands churches of earlier period, begining from 1 century. I wouldn't answer here more before I wouldn't hear official position of NovaSkola on my three claims, as he just try to change attention from concrete his actions which I've mentioned to some mythical my disruptive edits, nationalism, aggression and so on. We can discuss on this tematic for ages. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The above was archived prematurely. I have thus brought it back here so an univolved admin can address the misuse of twinkle this user(Nova) has done.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not going to get any attention leaving the hats on it. Most people will pass it over thinking it's done.--Crossmr (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Hopefully this will help draw more attention.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I added an unresolved tag as well, if that doesn't work, try jumping up and down.--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've blacklisted them for Twinkle. They made another edit using Twinkle after the disputed one that also incorrectly labelled an edit as vandalism. Fences&Windows 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

Keen readers of this page might be aware of the recent em.. problems over at this page about adding links to patches. This now seems to have kicked back up into full scale edit-warring. An uninvolved admin might want to head over and see if they can cool things down. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on both sides, so I've pp-disputed it. I'll keep an eye on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec with thumper)A quick look at the history of the page makes me think that WillNever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alkanoonion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are socks of blocked user Tessmage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I took a quick look at Wesp5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too, but I'm (fairly) satisifed Wesp5 is a legitimate user and not there to edit war - their contribs to the page were in between hotspots of trouble, there was no reverting and the user has a history of other good contribs. Looking at the talk page, other apparant sock SPAs are SilverStern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Perez007usa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Schu2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arglaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cylnar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked for block evasion). And probably others with a more in-depth look. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Notification-wise, I'm inclined to feel that posting on the article talk page would be appropriate. All the users clearly watch it. If people disagree, we've a lot of notifications to hand out... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW this is completely obvious meatpuppetry, as Tessmage calls most of these people out by name on his website. (Wesp is apparently a "rival" patch maker, which apparently is a bad thing.) If there's a better way of resolving this than full protection then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

*Wishes* But we can, at least, zap the accounts involved. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd take the possible socks to WP:SPI while they're fresh ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked WillNever and Alkanoonion indef for evasion, but I'm not completely sure about Alkano. Can someone look into his contributions a bit more and unblock if necessary? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they are actual socks, but very probably are meatpuppets. The indefinitely blocked user Tessmage runs a website where he hosts forums and a patch he created for the game. In early August, he strongly requested members of his forum work to include links to his patch in the article. As part of the follout, he closed his site and deleted all backups (per Tessmage, mostly for financial reasons). Recently, he recanted that decision, "found" a somewhat recent backup and put up a more limited version of his site that would be financially feasible for him. He's posted yesterday as IP 24.186.133.194, where he's previously admitted the IP was static and was him.

I think it's another round of meatpuppets from Tessmage's site, probably inspired by a post there. When they calm down, read through the various policies that are linked in numerous replies, some have been fairly pleasant. The initial, umm, enthusiasm, is rough, but some could turn into helpful editors.

(That said, I'll freely admit to not being that welcoming, but I really don't like people like Tessmage. His posts on his site are, to me, a prime example of a small child taking his ball home when he doesn't get his way.) Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So let's solve it by putting his page on the blacklist until he agrees to cut it out--Crossmr (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's no question that the link is unsuitable, I think that would work. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, only the sock/meatpuppets think the link is appropriate. So yes, blacklist sounds nice. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Whack-A-Mole

Resolved

 – Indeffed by Favonian

Recently, I was involved in an SPI concerningUser:RewlandUmmer, a sock of banned User:Barryispuzzled. RU was blocked, but today FranceIsHog (talk · contribs) showed up badgering the participants in that SPI and generally quacking all over the place. Check his contribs, they are pretty self-explanatory. Every user talk page he's posted on was someone involved in the SPI. This definitely won't be Barry's last sock, but if someone wouldn't mind giving the old banhammer a heave-ho, It'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this fowl quack a bit too loudly? I seem to recall another puppeteer with a passion for mimicry. Favonian (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? Either way, it's still an indef. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. It's done. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Vulgar and racist insults

Resolved

 – Blocked by Elockid. Favonian (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Something should be done about 124.122.75.4. It appears to be the sock of some disgruntled user with a history with Elockid. The only two edits are both extremely vulgar racist insults: [162], [163]. Given the extreme vulgarity, I have reverted both of the comments. --LK (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:POV Detective again

POV Detective (talk · contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#User:POV Detective engaged in disruptive editing on circumcision-related topics. The user, upon his/her return from the block, has picked up where s/he left off, including making the same edits that led to the block, the same dismissal of requests to stop, etc. Perhaps more time to review policies is appropriate? I usually do not like to bring up topic-bans before an RfC, but the users behavior does not provide much hope that s/he will start contributing gainfully to circumcision-related articles. Being involved in the discussions, I think propriety dictates that other admins should make the decisions and to take any necessary actions. So, is any action necessary now, and should a topic-ban be countenanced so soon? -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Note especially this edit after Cailil's warning to stop using the term in this context. This is pretty clearly unacceptable behavior. Nandesuka (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. I think it's a bit soon for a discussion on a topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32

If nothing else, the user needs to be told to stop using distracting, cluttering and unnecessary decorations in his talk page posts and to start using standard talk page formatting. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear beside all the clutter and soapboxing that this self styled POV-Dective was adding to talk posts there was a rather alarming edge to the comments directed at Avi. Using the term 'half-cocked' once in a circumscion related discpute seems just like an unfortunate turn of phrase. Using it repeatedly at a user who has indentified themselves as Jewish in that context looks bad - very bad. And I warned them that their use of the phrase looked deliberate and derisive. Perhaps I was over sensitive but rather than say that they made a point. I'm not sure if the edits were just plain disruptive or if they were an antisemetic slur but either way they had warning to stop and ignored it.
I'm not sure that it's time for a topic ban here either--Cailil ^talk 17:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An excellent case study in why initial blocks for disruption should be indef, unblocks contingent on acknowledgment of the issue and agreement to modify behavior. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This guy is really not showing any signs of getting it, is he? If he does it again, we should consider indef. It's not like he's doing all kinds of other things that are useful that might mitigate his actions on the topic of circumcision. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Stillwater, MN politics

I had tagged Dave Junker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for speedy under {{db-bio}} as it's simply a political ad. It appears to have been created as a pointy response to the page protections which resulted from excessive edit warring on the articles Stillwater, Minnesota and Ken Harycki (now at AfD). The db tag was removed by an IP, the original user hasn't edited other than creating the article.

Can someone else take a look at this? --- Barek (talk) - 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedied, no other action taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nazar

There is a long history between myself and Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but this user has a knack of personal attacks and false claims against me. I don't want to spend time at WQA but is this acceptable? Can anyone talk to this person? Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in much detail here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a brand new incident. It is about your insulting edit summary. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the edit summery was a personal attack, but I also didn't see how the previous edit can be considered vandalism. Anyhow, civility questions belong at WP:WQA, so perhaps this should be brought up there.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary mentioned isn't addressed personally to Dr.K. or any other single user. It's about preserving the integrity of the article from disruptive and deteriorating removals undiscussed properly before. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please also note the continuous personal harassment by Dr.K., which has been described in detail here. I'm not pushing it, but his permanent attempts to blame me for whatever reason possible become more and more uncomfortable to bear. Please note that I've personally initiated none of the attacks neither used any reporting tool to accuse Dr.K. of anything. I've just been reacting and defending from his aggressive accusations. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So you think that your edit summary: (Undid revision 380941035 by Dr.K. (talk) - please stop vandalizing the article.) is ok? And you call my reporting of your aggressive accusation of vandalism an "aggressive accusation" on my part? I think you don't make any sense at all. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And I think you're trying to push a synthesis and your personal opinion into an encyclopedia article, trying to intimidate me in this process, as I'm the main editor who has been trying to defend the neutrality of the article against your disruptive edits. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are skirting the issue. Any perceived content dispute with anyone does not give you the right to insult them. You have a fundamental problem with civility and owning up to your actions. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I want to stop this unbearable personal dispute with you, Dr.K.. Please forgive me I'll not reply each and every of your accusations, because this has really no end. I've withdrawn from the discussion on Prodego's page just to save the day for better things than endless arguing with you, and here again you push me into more fruitless arguments on this noticeboard... this is just too much to bear. I need a break... -- Nazar (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I withdrew from Prodego's talkpage for the same reason. I grant you that this dispute is not pleasant at all and like all disputes it should be avoided if at all possible. I will withdraw as well because I see nothing good coming out of pursuing this further. But for the record your claim and here again you push me into more fruitless arguments on this noticeboard is invalid. I never push anyone for anything. But if someone calls my edits vandalism I have to respond. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way Nazar. Prahlad Jani himself would not want people to fight in order to defend his claims. Count Iblis (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ME202012

This is new user who started on Aug. 19 and has already created at least 6 already deleted articles on the Middle East and one now undergoing an AFD. Today he is up at the Israel/Lebanon border, removing a large amount of referenced, long-stable material form Sabra and Shatila massacre. I do not know the proper procedure, but surely there is a way to stop a troublemaker like this from disrupting so many articles.AMuseo (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried dispute resolution? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am never going to sock again! (this time I mean it)

Thanks! NW (Talk) 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have offended many with my behavior the past year, particulary admins, SPI clerks and CheckUsers. I have finally realised that this is not the right thing at all and I deserve 100 {{whale}}'s. To show I have changed, I vow to never make an account here again and I will become a good faith editor on another Wiki. Goodbye forever Wikipedia and I'm sorry! 92.40.222.29 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I've heard ducks fart before :) If you really mean it, Good for you. Whether you do or not is an entirely different issue, we'll believe it when we *don't* see it! BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I swear down I will never sock again and I mean it! 92.40.222.29 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Good! you can do a WP:CLEANSTART here and avoid the topics that threw you into troubleWeaponbb7 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Not if they're blocked or banned. Maybe they should go put in some good, meaningful time at another project before attempting again here.Heiro 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC) It may interest you to know I am GEORGIEGIBBONS. (note: I am the same guy who posted this thread, dynamic IP range.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.198.15 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Thats 2 ips from 92.40.xxx.xx, would it be worth blocking them or a range block? Or should we just take him at his word? Heiro 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Meh, DFT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC) WP:Sockpuppet investigations/GEORGIEGIBBONS will never again be seen on the WP:SPI page. 92.40.198.15 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Stuff a cork in him and forget he exists; assuming it's him he's been socking since January. The possibility that he's 'seen the light' is minimal. At best. More probable is that this is just him waving his dick in our faces and saying "Look, I'm back." Equally probable is that this is a different socker trying to pass themselves off as someone else. I know at least two who do this. In either case, RBI. HalfShadow 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Portmann

There's paid editing issues at the above AfD. My solution is to keep the newly cleaned article and block anyone who looks suspicious. That's probably a bit of an overreaction. Does anyone have any opinions or thoughts on it all? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the paid editing issue ever got resolved, so I'm not sure there would be cause for blocking if it is simply the case that an editor admits to being paid. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that, though. Given that there is an open AfD, this seems likely to be mistaken for canvassing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing for what? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DC himself admits that there was no consensus about paid editing on AN/I, so this is a nonpartisan audience, and as such the canvassing issue is moot...68.55.112.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Planned role accounts

The users Lanark Grammar School 1 (talk · contribs), Lanark Grammar School 2 (talk · contribs) and Lanark Grammar School 3 (talk · contribs) have been created as role accounts and should probably be blocked. This seems to be a misunderstanding by tb240904 (talk · contribs). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I created these accounts yesterday after posting a message at the village pump and having received no replies after several hours. My message involved the creation of these accounts so I created them myself and created a userpage message for #1 as a sort of example of what other users would see. I don't think I explained this very well and I'm sorry if I've went against any Wikipedia policy. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 22:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We try not to treat people harshly for simple mistakes, don't worry about it. The relevant policy is our Username Policy, specifically the section on organization names and sharing accounts. To summarize, every account on Wikipedia should represent a person, not a company, or group, or school, and should only be used by a single person. If you have a number of students who will be using Wikipedia, they should each create one account, although it would certainly be advisable if those accounts were created under your supervision and there should be a disclaimer on each student's userpage proclaiming that it is an account used for the project at that school, that way nobody mistakenly accuses the accounts of being sockpuppets; multiple accounts used by the same person. If all accounts are used at the school, that would probably register as multiple accounts from a single IP address which might lead someone mistakenly to that conclusion (there is also the probability that students working on the same or similar projects may have similar editing patterns which might also raise suspicions). If you haven't done so yet, some help specific to your situation can be found at WP:SUP where some advice and best practices are provided for educators using Wikipedia for school projects. Good luck! -- Atama頭 23:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So long as only one person uses each account, there's no problem. Fences&Windows 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that WP:ORGNAME states that accounts named "Lanark Grammar School" shouldn't be allowed, although I suppose that there is no promotional intent which is the biggest concern with that part of the policy. Frankly, I don't see the harm if (as you say) each account is only used by one student. Tb240904, to help explain why that is important for you, imagine that you have more than one student using an account and you find out that one of them went wild (as kids do, I know I probably would have as a kid) and vandalized a dozen articles. It might be difficult for you to figure out who did so. We look at it the same way, so having one account per student is in both your interest and Wikipedia's. -- Atama頭 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One other bit that might be helpful for you is Advice for Parents; although not written for teachers the advice applies to anyone who has children in their care that will be using Wikipedia. There are some nice tips in there. -- Atama頭 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:HappyDudeThe MadTim

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by User:Atama

Just as I am off to bed I received this on my talk page. The other day I warned the user for making this delightful edit. There seems to have been more activity on his talk page here which TFWOR was involved in (and who he has just referenced in an edit summary), but I'm not really aware of what that is. I'm ignoring him (beyond an AN/I notice) per my usual policy but maybe an admin can take a look and have a word. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice little edit summary there... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't recall ever interacting with this user prior to receiving this post a couple weeks ago. I reverted and ignored - and forgot about it until this thread. Looking at the contribution history, I see a handful of such talk page posts. --- Barek (talk) - 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for notifying me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyDudeThe MadTim (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I issued a warning for the edit summary posted above and asked that the user quit this stance. Discussion appears to be ongoing on their talk page. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Warned user that any further issues will mean a block. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess he's left then...—DoRD (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that his userpage currently contains an attack that should be removed regardless of whether he is retired or not. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that he made yet another attack on his user page after being given a final warning by Black kite, perhaps he should be blocked; I'd suggest indefinitely. Generally when users put such flamboyant "retiring" notices on their user pages, they come back within a short time. Given his continued behaviour, I feel he should be indefinitely blocked until he accepts that his actions were unacceptable and agrees to modify his behaviour (if he indeed does decide to continue editing). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Which has been done. Marked resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion should not be closed

Anyway it's a bit rich having a lecture on NPOV off a C6 owner and someone who has SYMBIAN slapped over the top of the wikipedia logo on their talkpage. Offensive. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you might need to drop this and back away from his talkpage, before YOU are the subject of a thread here. Heiro 01:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's worth looking into this user's contributing history from the past few days. I think it's going quite overboard. Strange Passerby (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Block of WolfKeeper by SarekOfVulcan

Template:Formerly

Sorry to bother you guys but I notice that User:SarekOfVulcan appears to have blocked User:Wolfkeeper for 'edit warring', without there being any 3RR noticeboard involvement, and while SarekOfVulcan had been been involved in revert warring that very policy (see: [164]) Wolfkeeper's final edit doesn't seem to have been a revert to a previous state, and he clearly hadn't exceeded the 3RR bright line, and as far as I know he wasn't under any editing restrictions. It seems like SarekOfVulcan actually did as many reverts.

Am I not correct that administrators definitely aren't supposed to do reverts as well as blocking except in the most clear cut cases of vandalism?

Since when are administrators judge, jury and executioner? Isn't Sarek well out of order here? Shouldn't he have let somebody else do these reverts and/or refer it to the 3RR noticeboard. It all seems very dubious to me, particularly the length of the block. Who is Sarek to determine what is and isn't the consensus anyway and block anyone that disagrees with him? - BigBodBad (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Admins need to act according to their own judgment with oversight here and from other admins. Endorse block till more is known, as Wolfkeeper was singlehandedly rewriting policy. Dlohcierekim 02:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

It's a formal Wikipedia Policy page, not a content page. Policies are editable - but even 2 reverts on a policy page, where a policy talk page discussion hasn't clearly established that there's a supportive consensus for the change, is really a hugely bad idea. Wolfkeeper made the change a total of 4 times over 2 days, and has not gathered any support on the talk page as far as I can tell, and was reverted back to the longstanding version by 3 separate people.

Perhaps a final warning would have been more appropriate, but he was multiply warned (now deleted) - [165].

Slow motion edit warring is still edit warring. Edit warring on policy pages is double plus bad. Wolfkeeper is not a newcomer and should know this. I don't know what his game was here, but WP:POINT was brought up by several people contemporaneously in the warnings and discussion on talk.

No admin abuse here. Don't screw with policy pages... changing it or advocating for changing it is one thing, but screwing with it is not ok. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

...I see nothing wrong with an admin putting a stop to mucking with policy pages... especially since Wolf was warned.   Thorncrag  02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Links are Here, Here, Here and here. It's over more than 24 hours, and is a "slow motion" thing. Wolfkeeper references an RFC. Haven't tracked that down. Dlohcierekim 02:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See [166]. –xeno^talk 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Sarek edited the policy; he 'determined' which version to revert to. It's not for him to determine which version of the policy is consensus, that's for other editors to do. Because he was involved, it's automatically a bad block. - BigBodBad (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this any different to what got William Connolley desysopped. Admins are not judge jury and executioner. Sarek should know that also and should not have been so stupid. - BigBodBad (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarek should have got another admin involved; it seems to me that Wolfkeeper was making good-faith edits that were in line with the current policies at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is where what a "dicdef" is defined. And that had recently changed. Sarek was edit warring it back. - BigBodBad (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

He did as he should have. There was no consensus for Wolf to have done as he did. Here is the talk page. Dlohcierekim 02:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Exactly where did Sarek edit the policy in any way that had any relationship to Wolfkeeper's edit? And I note that Wolf was reverted by three different admins, not just Sarek. —DoRD (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Um, no, all the other people who told Wolfkeeper he was misreading the result of the discussion determined consensus. I just acted on it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not supposed to revert and then block, because that makes you an involved editor, and then you're not supposed to act as an administrator. Basically you blocked him for disagreeing with your interpretation of that. - BigBodBad (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Sarek reverted back to consensus and gave a warning. That does not make him an "involved editor". This was after Wolf was reverted by two other admins, mind you. —DoRD (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What two other admins? And I don't think he was warned for this policy. That seems to have been another policy. - BigBodBad (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) BigBodBad, I don't believe that Sarek violated admin procedures here, no. Protecting policy pages is not the same as being involved in a content dispute on an article. It would have been best if another admin blocked here, but Sarek's intervention was proper. The block is proper, the reverts he did are proper, there's really no conflict of interest.

Again - screwing with policy pages is not OK. If you do it, admins are supposed to stop you and protect the policy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Wolfkeeper what he meant but he is one of the primary editors on the Wikipedia is not a dictionary page and "dicdef" is actually short hand that points to that page. It seems to me that Sarek is assuming bad faith, and is actually revert warring Wolfkeeper, and then actually blocked him for disagreeing with him. If Wolfkeeper had done what Sarek had done, he could have been blocked by an administrator. But Wolfkeeper (AFAIK) was not under any editing restrictions. This stinks to high heaven. - BigBodBad (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but no, he was blocked because he was disrupting a policy page, which is not OK.

If I had seen that sequence myself, I would have at least given him a final warning to stop doing that.

Again - Screwing with policy pages is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but he didn't give a warning, he just blocked him out of hand, and there is evidence that Sarek was following him around with what was obviously some degree of bad faith on Sarek's part. Perhaps a warning was justified, but the edit that triggered the block doesn't seem to be out of line with the changes at Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so 'screwing with policy' might be not a very balanced description of what actually was happening. He was blocked for what seems to have been a good faith edit that wasn't over the 3RR bright line. - BigBodBad (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Wolfkeeper was wrong about this either, the policy bans dicdefs but what exactly is a dicdef anyway? If it's an article that is about a word, that would presumably have to define what a word means, word articles are apparently now allowed by the policy after an RFC. - BigBodBad (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• (dozens of ecs) Wolfkeeper has been at this ever since this proposal closed, and has been heavily involved in debating the policies concerning articles on words for as long as I can remember. It may be a good time for a break. –xeno^talk 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)