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

Terra Novus

Terra Novus is a creationist editor who has been topic banned form broadly defined "Young Earth Creationism topic ban" Terra Novus has recently created an WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR article called Interpretive science where the entire thesis is

"Though it (Interpretive science) originated in the field of Sociology, applications in the natural sciences can yield insight into the process of forming a scientific theory, and some of the fallacies that persist in consensus ideas.[9] Interpretive science calls into question the ability of an individual to accurately assess all of the data that is processed, without first making a value judgement.[9]"

This pretty obviously once you see the context of his past editing in creationism its a pretty meant to be a round about attack on "Normal Scientific consensus of a 4.3 billion year earth."

Given his past ANI visits in topic area after a [1] [2][3] and misuse of retirement and Clean start. We need to have another talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You have provided absolutely no connection with how Interpretive science is related to my Young Earth Creationism topic ban. When it comes to the WP:SYNTH issue with the above article I have actively requested and approved the proposals for merging and removing the problematic content. I believe that my recent editing history will show that I have complied with the topic ban while focusing my contributions on editing and improving the article in question.--Novus Orator 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

indeed even more explicit evidence of the article purpose from the FAQ on the talk page "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me add wikilinks to the statement to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are extrapolating without sufficient data.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also surprised that ResidentAnthropologist instantly elevated this conflict to an ANI without going through the proper dispute resolution process. Perhaps his edit history would yield some insight into this odd behavior...--Novus Orator

This is not content issue its a violation of your topic ban. Please Specify an accusation rather than make vague statements The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My original question remains unanswered.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Terra

(ec-od) I am not aware that a formal topic ban was ever enacted. There have been various agreements, all of which Terra Novus has not really adhered to. The discussion of the article Interpretive science started on WP:FTN; at present Terra Novus is disrupting the merge/deletion discussion on the talk page of that article. He is equally well being disruptive by not recognizing criticisms from multiple editors. Personalizing this as a dispute with ResidentAnthroplogist is a completely unhelpful strategy and just more disruption. There are several other issues. He declared himself a co-organiser of WP:WikiProject Cryptozoology.[4] when he made a WP:CLEANSTART. Just recently he has been active with that WikiProject.[5] And he has made several abortive attempts at starting Wikiproject Jupiter. He himself does not seem to have edited any articles related to Jupiter, so the many structures he has put in place for Taskforce Jupiter are perplexing. Mathsci (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I read the archived material, and I noted several supports for a topic ban, but no formal discussion of one was started (e.g., under that heading), nor did any administrator conclude that a topic ban proposal had reached consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He does not seem to have disengaged from the article Cryptozoology as this edit in support of an edit-warring IP shows [6]. The IP 68.224.206.14 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR on the article and the normal reaction would be a request for semiprotection and/or a report at WP:AN3. Instead he requested Dougweller to impose a sanctions template. Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In support? No, I merely requested that all of the editors involved seek a more collaborative solution.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat predictably, as on each other occasion when he's caused disruption, he has now diseppeared for a while, hoping that matters will settle. This is the fourth time this has happened. Isn't it time to say "enough is enough"? Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Disappeared? I am right here if anyone wants to comment.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is frustrating, on a side note I have a hard time seeing how Speedy deletion under Blatant Hoax should not be used on Interpretive science. It seems pretty clear with the from my interpretation of his FAQ that its merely that... a WP:SYNTH Hoax to push a POV The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because you have still not provided evidence for the original reason of this ANI.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

After an absence from the discussion, I looked into things again when I bumped into Terra Novus on other science-related pages, including Climate Change Denial. I had quite a history with his editing a few months ago (under User:Gniniv), but specifically chose not to participate in the ANI threads under this new account name. Having looked at the archives, particularly the one Jclemens alludes to, I've seen several instances where either a topic ban or outright block reached near-unanimous support, but nothing was enacted. Is there a reason for that which I've been unable to track down?

As I've mentioned before, I have no issues with the idea of Terra working collaboratively, or having a 2nd chance, but I've become fully convinced that's not possible after he blew through his 10th+ chance some time ago. Unfortunately, it is still the case that the overwhelming majority of his edits to mainspace are reverted for POV issues, and he seems to be increasingly encroaching on his self sanction by creating YEC wikiprojects and contributing to physics and pseudoscience articles. These issues have been going on for 7 1/2 months, and the only dent in WP I see that he's made is to frustrate and waste the time of other respectable editors. One of the reasons I took a wikibreak some months ago was due to frustration stemming from this issue. From the responses of other editors I've seen, I'm undoubtedly not alone. Is it appropriate that we lose editor time, or editors all-together, in order to salvage some hope Terra will finally turn around and work constructively despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? I know we all want to assume good faith - I did it working with him every day for months - but good faith or not I'm having a hard time finding value in this user's history.

This discussion is fully warranted, and I think it's about time we act on what appears to be consensus support. Jess_talk|_edits 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above assessment seems reasonable. Terra Novus has been given umpteen second chances but despite that has shown little sign of changing his attitude to the project. He appears to be somebody not cut out for editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that the problematic article he created, Interpretive science, is being discussed here, on WP:FTN, at its own AfD [7] and at a merge discussion on its own talk page. I'm not sure that spreading round like discussions in this way was the best procedure. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban

After the above discussion and past discussions on Giniv/Terra Novus and any future identities from editing articles or participating in discussions involving the topic of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly defined.

• Support as proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately I think an indefinite community ban is more appropriate, considering his conduct and past attempts to impose topic bans of this kind. There seem to be hardly any redeeming features in his editing. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I dont blame you an indefinite community ban is jumping the gun. We have never formally given out a topic ban as the ANI threads have shown. Lets give him WP:ROPE, I hate to say but I think he will hang himself with the rope. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Requests of this type have been started before, as Jclemens correctly commented. If anybody can point to a body of useful edits, that might be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thats why the community imposed ban rather than one he agrees to. bottom line he break the one we are imposing right now we will adress the next step.
• Support and Comment I think his long history of self-imposing topic bans and breaking them makes a strong case against another one being effective. I also think his history of editing other topics to include wording which relates to, but doesn't directly involve, creationism or pseudoscience makes the case for casting a wider net than those two topics alone. Therefore, I (very unfortunately) think a community ban is preferable to wasting more editor time reviewing contributions and inevitably discussing this again later. However, I would change my position if someone can find a string of useful edits he's made in the year he's been editing which we'd be remiss for losing. If they exist, I would encourage changing the topic ban to also include Science, generally. Jess_talk|_edits 21:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought of that but thats far too broad to be reasonable. His only issues in Science are when brings in Creationism or Pseudoscience into play... at least that I have observed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support expanded topic ban per Jess, at least. If a formally imposed ban is ineffective, as seems very possible, then a community ban would be appropriate to consider. This needs to be truly his or her last chance to contribute productively, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal, with a caveat that if Terra Novus is unable to abide by the topic ban and contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia, any further disruption will result in a full community ban. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I thought I was abiding by a topic ban on the above subject already. I am surprised that Interpretive science is considered to be under that umbrella, but I will stop contributing to this area of Wikipedia if my behavior is viewed as disruptive. Taskforce Jupiter keeps me pretty busy anyways. I would leave with the note that perhaps some of the editors involved in this ANI are going on a wild goose chase without substance.--Novus Orator 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Note: since Terra Novus has added support for the ban would someone do the formality of offically closing this? As the last topic ban discussion went the archive with support but no formal topic ban was implementedThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson and Byzantine names

Unresolved

 – Split ~70kb thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names --slakr^\ talk /

• Could an admin willing to do so please review the above thread that was split to a subpage? It has received only a few comments over the past few days, likely due to a combination of the holiday season and being split off to a subpage (where the visibility is lower). Could I also suggest that when long threads that include some form of proposed sanction are split off, that the notice left here explicitly mentions that sanction (or that the urge to subpage is resisted), as it is important that threads like that get full visibility and are not just subpaged without ensuring that traffic to the thread does not drop off. If any admin feels that more discussion is needed before closing, then please unsubpage it. Also, this notice will now archive 24 hours after I sign this note, so if anyone does review that subpage, could they leave a note here and on Pmanderson's talk page? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 starting up a dispute that was 6-months gone past;

Unresolved

 – Mbz1 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs). HeyMid (contribs) 12:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

but reviewed below. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 (talk · contribs)

6+ months ago, this user was banned from interacting with me, and I guess that interaction ban has now ran out.. Noting this, Mbz1 immediately jumped in in an issue they were not, by any stretch of the imagination, involved in, with the sole purpose of baiting me with a personal attack in the form of an unsubstantiated accusation that I 'wikistalked them all over wikipedia', when such never happened. As they are clearly just trying to start another argument, I request the expired ban be re-instated. I didn't mention them, didn't talk to them, didn't do anything in regards to them, and then as soon as it end, they go on the offensive and attack me?

Per the above, I request that they be given a short block for a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND violation.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor has been notified and removed the notice.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Make that a long block, since they aren't going to leave this issue alone. Either that, or they are banned indefinitely from interacting with me. I haven't uttered a word since the 6 month ban all those weeks ago, and yet here, some time after the ban, they try to start another fight?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 removed a templated message notifying him of this thread with the edit summary "removed garbage"? That's interesting behavior right there. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine. I left him a note asking him to avoid interacting with Daedalus969 unnecessarily, which I is something I expect Daedalus969 to follow as well. Prodego ^talk 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that really do enough to address the complaint, though? She (not he) fresh off the interaction ban just went and...interacted. When users right off a topic ban go back to the topic and engage in the same behavior that let to the ban in the first place, that's usually leads to something more severe. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, agreeing with Tarc -- I think a block for WP:BATTLEGROUND has been solidly earned by Mbz1 for general pugnaciousness and incivility and some of the rudest edit summaries I have ever read. betsythedevine (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a block, and I would suggest a substantial one. Another incident where Mbz1 seems to be digging up long-dead incidents is currently here at AE (where Mbz1 seems to be a regular visitor), where there are also suggestions of Mbz1 engaging in outing of another editor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet more WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality... assuming bad faith and describing another editor's conduct as "disgusting" because they suggested controversial material shouldn't go on the Main Page on a sensitive date [8]. (Surprise surprise, this too is related to the Israel/Palestine/Arab topic area.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Counting on my fingers, ok, WP:BATTLEGROUND with Daedalus, Supreme Deliciousness, Chem Ed, and I would point to even a fourth Wikipedian Bali_ultimate here and here, all examples just from the first 100 of Mbz1's Contributions linked to above. betsythedevine (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It would have been nice if somebody is to block user:Demiurge1000 if for nothing else then for canvasing--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Betsythedevine is also [canvasing once and canvasing 2. Is this only me who sees something strange here? Just asking.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another instance of not knowing what canvassing is. Bulldog123 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify people when they are under discussion at ANI or elsewhere, or am I mistaken about this? betsythedevine (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, Mbz1 created a sockpuppet case for this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And why haven't you blocked exactly? Seems like a fishing expedition to me— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been blocked for a week by Gwen Gale for harassment and disruption, and I've closed the SPI case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we seriously consider a community ban on this user? Checking her block log, we have a whopping 10 blocks already. If this doesn't exhibit a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I don't know what does. A few days ago, I got a mysterious message [9] on my talkpage. Mbz1 (a user I never interact with outside of AfDs where we always disagree) "reverted" it as vandalism [10]. Considering she doesn't seem to have any association with this troll account (or at least I hope not), I can only assume she regularly patrols my talk page. This "patrolling" has been going on ever since I actively participated in the AfD for List of Jewish Nobel laureates (a list she has contributed to significantly). Thereafter, she's been hounding my contribs, jumping in on discussions she has nothing to do with only to reprimand me whenever I make a mistake, like this unintentional case of outing. Bulldog123 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about these other editors, but if Daedalus969 doesn't receive a very long block for his various actions then the system has failed. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Back up your accusations or they are personal attacks. You also know nothing of this situation, so your request for a block can really be taken as a grain of salt. You're only here because I dared tell you that your actions were attacks themselves.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm here because the extreme hostility you continually display towards other editors is disruptive. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen; you can't just claim something of someone and refuse to back it up; it doesn't work that way. I left your thread alone, I dropped the stick, but now you have chosen to pick it up again.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale changed the block on Mbz1 to be indefinite. Now can we put an end to this discussion? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No problems here.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Long overdue. Bulldog123 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this discussion will be moved to a different forum, because the ban by Gwen Gale, the ban's upholding by a different admin, the ban's extension by Gwen Gale, the examples I gave at Mbz1's request, and perhaps other matters as well are all being strongly protested on Mbz1's talk page, with calls for uninvolved sysops to step in. betsythedevine (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Like Black Kite (talk · contribs), Prodego (talk · contribs) and Jehochman (talk · contribs) (see here), I too agree with the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This outcome is sad and grotesque. At her best, Mbz1 is a luminous Wikipedia contributor. She is also volatile and periodically high maintenance. But that is a small price to pay for the value of the content she adds to Wikipedia. Genuine content editors are now bizarrely at the bottom of the Wikipedia food chain. They should be at the top. It would be great if Wikipedia administrators had the motivation to identify editors who, although sometimes problematic, are nonetheless high performing contributors, and if these administrators had the skills to accommodate such editors. Instead, administrators too often treat such editors with contempt, as Mbz1 has been here, as though they were mere vandals who should be squashed.

Personally I feel embarrassed and ashamed when I see stuff like this. It is such a conflict. Wikipedia is a massively significant project, yet our administrators are letting the project down so badly. No doubt there are many benign administrators who simply don't intervene because they are afraid. But other administrators seem to have the goal of blocking (demeaning) as many high performing content editors as they can. Most content editors will not speak out now about stuff like this. They are afraid. They know how vulnerable they are now.

Mbz1, if you happen to read this, you need a rocket up your arse for the silly ways you overreact. You definitely need a severe rapping on the knuckles. Grow up. But you were, are, still one of the more creative valuable content editors Wikipedia has had the privilege to attract. Ultimately, the value of Wikipedia is just the sum of genuine and creative content editors, such as yourself, that it was privileged to attract and nurture. We attract a lot of such editors, but then we most dismally and stupidly fail to nurture them. Instead we savage them. If Wikipedia lacks the skills to create a space where content editors such as Mbz1 can flourish and continue to contribute her periodically luminous offerings, despite her somewhat flawed interpersonal complications (and don't we all all have them, however we cover them up), then really, what hope do we have as a species. Why do our administrators make mere interpersonal flaws so fatal? This is a collective craziness and failure on the part of our own unaware Wikipedia administrators, and not for the first time, a jewel creative editor, has stupidly and unnecessarily been strangled. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

But not that unusual in cases where user conduct and content contributions conflict dramatically. See User:Ottava Rima, (this was brought up on WP:AN for review not so long ago.) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Let the celebrities get off with a slap on the wrist, and treat the common-folk harsher? That doesn't sound right; treat them the same as everyone else. Content contributions don't make you exempt from the rules.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This doesn't seem to be helping any at this point. I've asked the blocking admin to clarify issues some more - that's probably the necessary dialogue at this point since the intention was clearly not for the indefinite block to be permanent. Perhaps I shouldn't have started this thread in the first place, but it did at least give a temperature reading that the community isn't obviously ready to give up on this user at this time. Rd232 ^talk 02:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

---

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would suggest that whilst a week block might have been appropriate to allow the user to reflect on how they're going about things, an indef block of an established contributor really requires rather more discussion. I think Gwen Gale's indef block needs to be reviewed, and if there is a move to formally community ban Mbz1, record that appropriately. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. A reasonable and sensible comment by Rd232.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. This editor constantly causes problems, and the lengthy block log is evidence of inabilty to reform. I could say more, but won't. This was an enough is enough moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support review This was grossly disrproportional and misguided sanction against an estiablished and useful contributer. The admins should AGF like all of us. - BorisG (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (adapted from my post on mbz1's talk page before this review was started): Topic or interaction bans require cooperation from the banned editor. All that admins can do to enforce those is to block (globally) for violations. Unlike parking tickets, which are for the same amount every time, it seems that blocks in Wikipedia are escalating in length. So, Mbz1 is the only one who can improve on this situation. The significant amount of administrative complains from Mbz1 against editors with whom she had a long term conflict, some of which were unfounded or retaliatory (recent SPI against Dedalus, recent AE against Supreme Deliciousness), need to weighted against her content contributions, some of which I am fond of myself. At least a topic ban from all Wikipedia namespace seems appropriate, but that probably won't help with the other interaction issues. Perhaps reduce the block length to a month or so would be more appropriate. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• The indefinite block is technically correct, since indefinite is not infinite and is not a ban - it means that the block lasts until the problem that triggered it is satisfactorily addressed by the blocked user. But I suggest that an indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic and interaction ban would be more appropriate in this case. Mbz1 is apparently a valued contributor in other areas, but in my experience she does not interact collegially and usefully with many people in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.  Sandstein  13:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, you may be right about interaction, but topic? Is there a pattern of disruptive editing in article space? - BorisG (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, all of her many blocks were a consequence of inappropriate interactions with other editors in this topic area. But a broad topic-area interaction ban implies an article editing ban, because article editors need - and are required to - communicate with each other. I should add that a similar indefinite ban would probably be a good idea for several of her regular opponents and allies for much the same reasons. One need only look at the top ten usernames that keep fighting with each other in the regular WP:AE threads about these issues.  Sandstein  14:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One doesn't seam possible without the other in this case. See this AE thread where both the reporter the reportee were blocked: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#Mbz1. I don't know what the beef between her and Dedalus is. The problems seems to be WP:BATTLE conduct stemming from the I-P topic area that gets personalized and becomes a series of interpersonal disputes that overflow in other articles. So, I agree with Sandstein, both topic and interaction bans are needed, but those have been issued before. The question at hand is their enforcement. At what point "enough is enough" and an indef is warranted despite other content contributions. YMMV as they say. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the block I have never seen more unwarranted block than this one was.--Broccoli (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support finding an alternative. Don't wish to criticize the admins who took the action that they did (other than blocking the talkpage, which was MHO a less than obvious call), but guys, can we find a better way. I think every time one of these rows blows up, the parties on all sides have seemed just as bad to me - that's the problem where people are arguing from the soul, everything looks different. What is going to work, what tools and solutions do we have, that we can use to resolve this so that Mbz1 can continue contributing, other people can continue contributing, no foolish accusations are made etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you have anything specific to propose? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment on the involved votes. The for/against the block split is as predictable as ever for the I-P regulars. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tijfo, I think this analogy is superficial. The arguments here are more colleagial, nuanced and reasoned, on both sides. In particular, I take your and Sandstein's point that contribution to articles is impossible without interaction. However I disagree that the problem is enforcement. I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that Mbz1 did not violate her topic ban or interaction bans, at least not in a persistent manner. She started interaction soon after an interaction ban expired? That's not violation, and a simple remedy is to extend the interaction ban. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Do you think that editors need to be specifically forbidden from repeatedly filing vexatious reports before they are blocked for the eleventh time? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• A ban on all AE, AN/I etc pages may be useful. Yes, creative solutions are called for if we care about Wikipedia content. Blocks, and especially long-term blocks, are a very blunt tool and should be used as a last resort. Too often we see the opposite. As an extreme case, I saw a comment during the recent ArbCom election, where one editor said a candidate was inexperienced because while he had been an admin for a long time, he did not issue many blocks. - BorisG (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef - As I usually note at these reviews, any action which pries yet another tendentious editor out of a heated topic area is a good thing. Indef is not for forever, so the user is quite able to be unblocked given a clear "I fucked up, here is what I will do to avoid fucking up in the future" unblock request. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As an editor who has had a number of run-ins with mbz1 in the past I think that a further review of her actions is necessary before lifting the ban, I also think that we should give Mbz1 the chance to respond in a reasoned manner to the concerns leading to her current block. As I understand it, the initial block was precipitated by her immediate engagement of a party with which an interaction ban recently expired, continuing with an SPI even after she was urged to not seek further involvement. Also cited was what has been characterized as a "retaliatory filing" (by uninvolved admins) at AE which seemed to include material from literally years ago. I would like to hear Mbz1 respond to these matters on her talkpage. As Mbz1 has appealed to a number of admins seeking an interaction ban between the two of us, most recently here I am obviously an interested party to this, nonetheless I think that it is hard to argue against a review of her actions. Based on prior experience I would support a ban on ANI / AE etc pages, however I think that the root cause is her personal investment in the I/P area, where, I must say - positive contributions from her are more difficult to find. un☯mi 15:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I would just like to review the history of the block we are being asked to support or not support. Initially, this thread began with a request that Mbz1 get a one-week block, citing WP:BATTLEGROUND and the text of a very uncivil edit Mbz1 made concerning Daedalus, an editor with whom she had just come off a 6-month interaction ban. Several people supported a one-week block, citing even more clear examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND from recent Contributions by Mbz1. Mbz1 filed an SPI against the editor she had just been reminded not to interact with and accused two other editors who were doing ANI-notification of canvassing. Gwen Gale imposed a one-week block but did not specifically mention WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mbz1 appealed saying she had done nothing wrong. A second admin approved the one-week block. Mbz1 continued to protest that she had done nothing wrong and did not plan to change her behavior. Gwen Gale changed the ban to indef, saying that automatically unblocking after a week would clearly not get the desired result of Mbz1 changing behavior. Mbz1 revamped her talk page from top to bottom, displaying a large collection of the DYK and Featured Picture prizes for which she works so hard, and topping the collection with a block-notice of her own. Gwen Gale removed the block notice but left the brand-new display of Mbz1's trophies. Mbz1 undid that edit. I forget at which point in this discussion she stated that Gwen's admin tools should be removed. But after this piece of edit-warring, Gwen removed Mbz1's talk page access, which she had declared she did not want to use to defend or apologize for ANY of the behavior others had cited. Then Mbz1 canvassed Sandstein and possibly others by email asking for intervention on her behalf. So the question is not, do we support an infinite community ban for an editor who has done nothing but create wonderful content. The question is, was Gwen's initial one-week block appropriate? Is it appropriate for that block to become indefinite if Mbz1, supported by her claque, continues to assert that all her behavior has been wonderful and she should only continue to behave in exactly the same way? Is it appropriate for an indefinite block to be lifted if Mbz1 agrees to stop WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics that hurt the project. I would support all three of those. betsythedevine (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Since canvassing was mentioned, I'll just make it clear that Mbz1 didn't contact me. (Given our prior history, it's hardly like they would.) Rd232 ^talk 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef or at least support indef in the same way Tarc does. Unblock reviews like this just pave the way for Mbz1's very obvious cronies to come and sway consensus toward "blind miscarriage of justice!" (a case of trading favors whenever a wiki-friend goes too far). Fact is, user has 10 blocks in her block log and appears to regularly hound more than 5 users. What does someone have to do to exhaust community consensus these days? Bulldog123 17:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Rd232. Mbz1's vast contributions to this project require that she treated better then with an indef for this one incident. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef. Not infinite, but until they get the all-important clue. Brewcrewer above refers to Mbz1's "vast contributions to this project," which seems to indicate that if an editor has added quality work in the past, they should get some kind of conduct pass. With all due respect to Brewcrewer and other editors using this argument, there's no (official) policy giving some kind of sliding scale that allows editors to reach a certain level, then ignore Wikipedia's rules. Dayewalker (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

if she were to be indef blocked it would not be under any specific policy, so no "sliding scale" exception is needed. It's a community decision that allows someone to be indef blocked via an ANI discussion. Thus it would only make sense that all editors offer their opinions on this user, and the overall contributions of this user be taken into account.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, but I still disagree wholeheartedly. If Mbz1's behavior is deserving of an indef block, the actual quality of her contributions shouldn't come into play. If they deserve to be gone because they're disrupting the project, they should be gone. Dayewalker (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between policy not allowing for an editors overall contributions to be taken into account before an indef block and your opinion that an editors overall contributions should not be taken into account before an indef blocked. Now that you have apparently moved from the former position to the latter position, I believe we are on the same page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that good behavior excuses bad behavior. It hasn't, and it never will.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 23:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is under any false impression, it's you, my dear. I never said good behavior excuses bad behavior. My position-and the position of most people, i think-is that an editors overall contributions are taken into account before she is indef blocked.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You see, here's the thing; content contributions don't matter in a thread that explicitly discusses behavior in regards to other editors; you can argue semantics all you want, but you're clearly trying to use their content contributions as some kind of get-out-of-jail-free-card. You clearly said as much on your first post here, This was grossly disrproportional and misguided sanction against an estiablished and useful contributer. The admins should AGF like all of us. A misguided block? Really? She was on an interaction ban and forbidden from commenting on me. Fresh off of it, she does exactly that, then subsequently files an SPI on me.

In the perfect world, editors who are personally involved in threads should recuse themselves from commenting.. like you, some of Mb's other supporters here.. that have so far said nothing to explain why her behavior is okay. The only thing you've so far done is continue to mention their content contributions. Content, in a discussion on behavior, means zilch. Her content may have been great, but it doesn't excuse her behavior. I await your reply that finally addresses the behavior, and not the content.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 01:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict; responding to Daedalus969); I did not want to clutter this long thread with any more comments, but at this point I feel compelled to clarify a few points (1) the above cited comment was from me, not from Brewcrewer; (2) I did not mean the original block was wrong, I meant indef without userpage access was disproportional (3) I agree that editors like you who are personally involved in threads should recuse themselves from commenting. However if you want to exclude all editors who have an opinion then there will be no one to comment. And finally, (4) and most importantly, it is my firm belief that content contributions do matter everywhere on Wikipedia. Sure it is not a free pass, but any conduct issues should be weighted against user's contributions (which determine the value of a contributer to the project). I understand that no explicit policy says this and that you disagree but I hope there are enough sensible people here who share my view. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue that; by your logic, if a user had created 10k featured articles, they would be able to call people rapists and get off scot-free. Content is only relevant in issues about content. Not conduct. The only type of contribution that should be weighed in a conduct discussion is conduct with people she hasn't gotten in fights with, who are already uninvolved.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've had some interactions with Mbz1, some positive, some negative, some neutral, and she's definitely a more productive editor than I'll ever be. That said, content production can only outweigh so many behavioral infractions before the balance goes into the red; disciplinary actions, edit warring, etc., suck up editor/admin time. Given the problems in the I-P area, I think a very long topic ban/interaction bans would be appropriate but looking at the block log . . .is that going to work? The ban's been imposed and broken on multiple occasions. There's been no acknowledgment from Mbz1 that the original 1 week block had any basis, something it's pretty clearly got. If someone doesn't acknowledge/understand why their actions are problems and has broken the same rules after promising not to in the past, I'm less than hopeful that topic/interaction bans will work. If they can work then I'm all for them. Sol (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• There will need to be an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban should the user be unblocked, with respect to which I voice no opinion at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

this brouhaha did not arise from anything related to the A-I conflict, as far as I can see.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock after a week. He/she is a good content contributor. Give him/her second chance, please. As about ARBPIA topic ban, this needs to be properly filed and discussed at AE, but it was not. Biophys (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support blocking, but start out with a week first. We should do a week's block right now, not indef, to see if Mbz1 will get a clue and quit the harassment. If that does not work, then we should consider longer blocks or a long-period interaction ban, etc. Some people are defiant and just refuse to get it and stop. If Mbz1 is one of those people, then she may be asking for us to do something about it. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that she just came out of an interaction ban? and upon re-initiating interaction she was asked to refrain by prodego, yet she continued still? I don't think there is any good reason to set a time period on this, it could be within the hour as far as I am concerned, if she shows some understanding of why people are concerned and states that she will seek change. So far her talkpage reads like a WP:NOTTHEM best-of. I want her to come back to the project and work in a constructive manner, so far we seem to have failed in letting her understand there are limits - we will continue to fail in this manner if we just let it expire without her taking responsibility. I have previously asked for someone to mentor her - but no one seems to want the job, I urge those of you that argue for clemency to consider taking on that post. un☯mi 02:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, as long as Mbz1 learns to leave people well enough alone, as far as the harassment, etc. goes. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While Mbz1 does not admit she has committed a blockable offfence, she does promise she won't file AE, AN/I, and SPI reports in the future. On this ground, there appears to be a good prospect of maintaining her productive contribution to the project without those actions that the community considers disruptive. I see no faults in I/P article space but I have not done extensive research. - BorisG (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Given your message near the top of this sub-section, it's difficult to not take your comment with a grain of salt; promising they won't file reports doesn't solve the problem of their treatment of others in general, and refusing to admit, or understand for that matter, why their actions caused them to be blocked only promises one thing: it will just happen again.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Failure to admit wrong doing is a big part of this. If she doesn't think she did anything improperly and uninvolved editors are coming out to say "Yeah, the original offense is block worthy" then there's a disconnect between community standards and her's. Judging by the block log over sanction violations, it's been a problem. The talk page section in which she offers her terms (a good move) isn't helping; it's largely a glutinous mixture of accusations, flat-out denials, wiki-lawyering and cringe-worthy statements. If she'd just said "I'm sorry, I know what I've done and I won't do it again, etc, etc." then great, we could move on. Threatening to WP:TROUT your banning admin if you ever get unblocked may be the least helpful thing to say in this situation closely followed by indulging in the same behavior that got you blocked in the first place. If Mbz1 doesn't understand why all of this is a problem then it doesn't matter what sanctions are in place, we'd still wind up back here. Sol (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Mbz1 continues to discuss my behavior and that of others on her talk page, I will re-post here a response I left there, which she immediately undid with the summary "reverted without even reading . stay off my page".

From WP:BLOCK: "A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page. Users are allowed to retain editing access to their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, while the block is active...A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple – editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened." I did not assert you were not within your rights to edit your own talk page, I merely listed a few of the many actions you engaged in there that A) were far in excess of your claim in the canvassing email to Sandstein that you "only added the template" and B) might lead a reasonable admin to feel you were using it "for personal attack or to play games and make a point" and thus were by policy likely to be blocked from using it further.

I have little doubt that she will sooner or later wheedle somebody into unblocking her without any promise of change in her behavior. betsythedevine (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• • From that (immediately reverting someone's commenting on her talk page, with the edit summary "reverted without even reading . stay off my page" (!!)), it is pretty obvious that she has not chilled out yet. We need to wait until it is obvious enough that she has gotten the point about all this before unblocking her. Right now, it could well be just another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so it may very well be a waiting game until she gets the point and cools off. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:COOLDOWN?Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • L.O.L., I think what I meant by "chilled out" or "cool off" is "lose the harassing, etc.". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef per Elen. Mbz1 has issues, sure; deal with them. But per WP:Boomerang consider that Dae is here for the 'hunt' as he clarified to me, recently (the latter part of the thread, specifically). This is part of all this; it's 'toxic-wiki' shite. Deal with all *that*. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  Nice lie there. I told you I hunt sockpuppets because it's the only thing I'm good at, and that has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments made after thread archived, and better placed on user talk page, where discussion continues. Rd232 talk 09:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dae, have you read Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia? Hunting sockpuppets is *not* about being here to build the encyclopedia. If you are here only to hunt sockpuppets, then you you should read the other sections of that essay by a former arb. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 04:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I'm going to paste what I did at your talk page(you may delete it after all, and it would not be seen by anyone else): For the last time, I am not here 'only to hunt sockpuppets', 'hunting sockpuppets' is just 'the only thing I'm good at'. I never said I only hunt sockpuppets; I do other stuff, I browse for random articles and make minor fixes when I see them, I remove original research that's been unsourced for a year or several months, I keep watch over several BLPs to counteract vandalism, as well as several highly-vandalized articles. I sometimes new page patrol, tag for deletion, or approve. If a source is brought up on an article I watch concerning a specific bit of information, and just the url doesn't look reliable to me, I do check it out, and if I can't find something that signifies a RS, I take it to RSN. How many times do I have to say that I am not here to only hunt sockpuppets, but hunting sockpuppets is the only thing I'm good at. Large, very very large, distinction.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Can't drop teh stick, huh; ok; I'll paste my reply here, too. Sheesh. “You want a pig,” said Roger, “like in a real hunt.” “Or someone to pretend,” said Jack. “You could get someone to dress up as a pig and then he could act — you know, pretend to knock me over and all that —” “You want a real pig,” said Robert, still caressing his rump, “because you've got to kill him.” “Use a littlun,” said Jack, and everybody laughed. Ch. 8: Gift for the Darkness “only” “hunt” You're not listening. You're good at “hunting” *people* — sure a lot of socks are disruptive, are trolls, but they're all human beings. This is an encyclopedia, not a fucking game. See also: s:The Most Dangerous Game. Jack Merridew 08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC) How about you drop the stick? You only commented in this discussion to snipe at me. Give it a rest, you know nothing about me.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) You're not listening either, you seem to be stuck on the false assumption that I think wikipedia is a game; I don't. You also are again, assuming bad faith as usual; you're assuming I don't think they're human beings, despite the fact that I've never said anything close to that. Yes, they're human, but that's rather irrelevant in the scheme of things. I call them sockpuppets because that's the terminology used on this website, just as a homicide detective tracks down a serial killer; calling the committee of the crime a 'serial killer' doesn't make them any less human, it simply groups them into a category of similar traits, such as killing in a recognizable pattern, like the Zodiac Killer for instance. It's the same with alternate accounts, 'sockpuppets'. This account that you now edit under is a sockpuppet, so I'm quite sure I don't need to explain to you the name semantics. Do I really need to explain to you why I call a sockpuppet a sockpuppet? Its easy for me to type out, I don't always know their real name.. not like they would give it out, and even if I did, more often than not, 'sock' is much shorter than anything I've seen. Jaraxle.. something. I don't remember his last name, the first 'vandal' of wikipedia, operating through page-move vandalism by moving various titles to 'x on wheels'. Either way, sock, being only four letters, is easier and quicker to type than 'Jaraxle', every single time they are referred to, or even WoW(Willy on Wheels, etc). To using 'hunt' to track down socks.. again, assuming bad faith, and too much bad faith on a single word. It's a word, it isn't some easily identifiable trait that you can use as an excuse to assume bad faith. I didn't put much thought into using it, it seemed rather natural. I'm sure you know what hunting is... finding your quarry by tracking down the evidence that it was there, the eating habits, the foot prints, the behavior. I know they're human, but what I know most of all is that they are mentally children, at least by my standards of what an adult should be, such as learning when to drop something.. and on that note.. In various discussions in which you were not involved, you have told me to 'drop the stick'. Well, I have an all-resounding question for you: Why haven't you dropped it. Again and again you bring up your bad-faith, false assumption that I think wikipedia is a game. Why don't you give it a rest and drop it yourself. ..Further, for again, someone who tells others to 'drop the stick', or tells others they are 'treating wikipedia as a game', you are doing both of these things. You are first of all continuing with the bad-faith assumptions on myself, instead of assuming good faith, so why don't you drop that stick. On the subject of 'games', in a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with you, you make a comment that has naught to do with the topic at hand, by a snipe aimed directly at myself. Perhaps aimed to 'get my goat', to 'piss me off'. You should try taking your own medicine sometimes; drop the stick, and stop commenting in issues which concern me, only to snipe at me without addressing the real issues at hand. Your bad faith assumptions about what you think I do, and why you think I do it really don't have any place in a dispute that has nothing to do with you.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am not comfortable with an indef. Mbz1 may need to change their approach, true, but indef? No, this seems a hasty rush to judgment to me. Support 1 week and some work to try to modify behavior. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef is not the same as a community ban etc, it simply means that they are asked answer to the concerns raised prior to being unblocked, hardly a too onerous imposition. Setting a set time on the block seems to have the effect of giving the user the impression that they were treated unfairly by people who are 'out to get her'. un☯mi 22:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, yes. Nevertheless I'm concerned. Mbz1 at this point has gotten a reputation that will be hard to overcome, they need to be on their best behavior all the time even if others get away with stuff. Is that fair? No, but it is how things are. First impressions are hard to shake. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly have I gotten away with Lar? I haven't mentioned her, before she mentioned me some days ago, in close to a year. I didn't message her, I didn't email her, I didn't mention or comment on her, I didn't edit any pages she did.. I didn't have anything to do with her, and yet, when the interaction ban finally ends, she immediately jumps into a thread that has nothing to do with her to only comment on me, and then subsequently files an SPI on me. Tell me, what precisely have I gotten away with here? I left her alone and she comes out to attack me, and I've gotten away with something? I really can't wait to read what that something is.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran

• Bondiveres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.85.252.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Sgaran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I became aware of this user - and I will demonstrate that it is very likely the same user - when I blocked the IP for 72 hours for vandalism and edit warring at Paola S. Timiras on December 19. At the time I blocked only the IP because he was deleting content, and at the time I didn't know any of the story I'm about to relate. It was simply another response to an WP:AIV report, and I didn't think any more about it.

About 24 hours later, User:Bondiveres added this statement to my talk page, complaining about the IP's block and that Wim Crusio, who edits here as User:Crusio, is on some type of vendetta against him about the use of 'phenomics' instead of 'phenotype'. This goes back to these two AFDs, as far as I can tell - the IP is trying to get information into the Timiras article that was deleted by consensus at AFD. Quack, quack.

Several hours to my involvement in this mess, Bondiveres sought help and advice from User:Gnowor, and you can find their conversations here. Gnowor clearly is trying to give the editor some advice, but Bondiveres seems like a classic case of WP:IDHT. Tonight Gnowor's patience finally wore out, and he's told Bondiveres again that he's going about this the wrong way and that he's done with dealing with Bondiveres's issues.

But this is why I'm here now: yesterday, Bondiveres started plastering this diatribe on my talk page and the talk pages of several other editors. He also stuck it into Talk:Wim Crusio over several edits. I think he's trying to demonstrate that the Crusio article should be trimmed because all the Nobel laureates' articles aren't as long, or something. I responded on his talk page to not take the size of articles in KB as some weight of importance or notability.

Meanwhile, the 72-hour block of the IP expired, and after it did the IP added the same screed to the talk page of User:Colonel Warden - word for word. Quack, quack, quack.

It's obvious to me that the IP and Bondiveres are the same person. I also suspect that User:Sgaran, the Steven A. Garan of one of the AFD discussions, is the actual sockmaster here. And it's plain that he's not here to add to the encyclopedia - he's here to harass Crusio in both real life and Wikilife. I'd like a checkuser run to see if these three are indeed the same, and if there are more.

In addition, I believe we should restrict this editor at least from User:Crusio, Wim Crusio, and Paola S. Timiras. There may be more articles and problems of which I'm not aware. And it goes without saying that he's not to do this canvassing on talk or user talk pages again.

I'm notifying editors who have received that long message and may know more - Gnowor, Crusio, User:OrangeMike and User:Nuujinn. I just discovered Nuujinn opened an SPI on Sgaran in May 2010.

This is nonsense and it's spreading. It has to stop. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 08:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the length of the discussion that started on my talk page and has now moved here, I'm guessing it's helpful for a quick summary.

I was Huggling. I noticed an edit by Bondiveres (BV) to Paola S. Timiras. It was the same as an edit that Crusio had reverted. The edit in question looked like some shameless self-plugging, along with something that defied WP:MOS guidelines on bolding the subject of the article. I reverted. Although the edit was by an IP editor, BV was the one who alerted me on my talk page that it was constructive. I took a closer look, and tried to restore the info without the MOS violation.

Crusio notified me there was history and linked me to the AfDs above. I tried to act as an unofficial mediator between Crusio & BV and also educate BV as to WP policy. Eventually, I proposed a solution that avoided any potential plugging of articles which I believe BV contributed to off-wiki that are not notable (I defer to Crusio on notability standards on scientific articles based on my only physical science class in undergrad being Astronomy). BV had insisted that the name of a device (AIMS for short) was very important to Paola S. Timiras prior to her death, and that it was not the same as the ATIS it redirects to. I proposed we change the name on the PST page to AIMS with a cite to one of the non-notable papers for reference. Crusio didn't like the cite. I figured, if BV is really looking out for PST's interests, he won't care about the loss of the cite. He did.

After this, BV started to attack the Wim Crusio article which is a bio of Crusio. Based on the early edits to the page, and subsequent block of that user, it looks like the article's creator was a student of Crusio's (possibly). Regardless, Crusio himself at one point nom'd the page for AfD and succeeded.

Bottom line, despite the gentle hand I tried to treat BV with as he is a new editor, and a fairly stern warning by myself, BV is unhappy that he can't use Wikipedia to plug his non-notable off-wiki work. He's proceeded with a vendetta against a veteran editor who (understandably) lost patience with the situation long ago, as I feel I now have.

I sincerely apologize to the community if my handling of the situation has resulted in this escalating to this point. Please understand I intervened with best intentions. I thought I was dealing with two brilliant and reasonable individuals who would accept a fair solution (and Crusio did). In the future, when I see myself investing this much time in a matter with little progress, I'll hand it over to the pros.

Based on my time invested, I don't intend to return to this discussion, as I feel that is all the background I have. If more information is required, feel free to notify me on my talk page and I'll happily return. Thank you in advance for your time.--Gnowor^T_C 09:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BV's actions seem similar to Sgaran's to me, but then, the ips in the SPI seemed similar to Sgaran as well, so take that with a grain of salt. This conversation may be useful for comparison, but other than that I have nothing to add really. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a further demonstration that I don't know when to quit. Interesting tidbit I just discovered: The Paola S. Timiras article that the IP and BV are trying to add info to was actually created by Sgaran. Perhaps this user is unaware of WP:OWN as well?--Gnowor^T_C 12:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Katie for taking this to ANI. I had some tough traveling days here with only sketchy Internet access and only just now got back to my office (you may have heard about the travel problems in France). I think Katie and Gnowor summarized the situation very aptly. Gnowor was very patient in trying to get BV to behave in a more constructive way (see User talk:Gnowor/P.S. Timiras, which also has links to the AfDs that are at the basis of this affair). I have removed BVs diatribe from my own talk page. I would appreciate if this personal attack could be removed elsewhere, too, but as involved party will not do this myself. As for my bio, this mess illustrates why I took an earlier bio to AfD. Fortunately for me, that previous bio missed a lot of info, so that the AfD succeeded. I did not take the current bio to AfD, as my experience with academics AfDs tells me that this time around, that wouldn't fly. Despite itching fingers, I try not to edit it and hope some other editors will put it on their watchlist and keep an eye on it. As for its size, I couldn't care less, as long as what is in the bio is accurate. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First I have been asked by Garan to be an advocate for him since he no longer has the time nor the energy to address what has happened. Second I would like to thank Gnowor for his time and effort in this matter. And now I would like to address the issue at hand. This entire issue was started when Wim Crusio's actions failed to redirect the wiki entry Phenomics to Phenotype on April 27, 2010, please look at the edit log for Phenomics to verify the dates and actions. Please look at the change log for Phenomics and you will observe Crusio repeatedly tried to redirect the site and failed. After Wim Crusio lost the "battle" to redirect Phenomics to Phenotype, he started a vendetta against my friend Garan, who advocated for keeping the page, and as of today the page is still there. After this loss Wim Crusio took a sudden interest in deleting/redirecting/removing content from the following entries: Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola_S._Timiras, Aging Research Centre. I am not sure what the afore mentioned wiki pages have to do with "Phenomics"? Crusio even admitted that "There is a connection", these are his own words. A very long discussion took place with Gnowor regarding the restoration of information that Crusio deleted and as of this time of these comments, the restored item, is still on the site. Wim Crusio has removed quite a lot of information from wiki and this is all documented. He has deleted this information under the false pretense, just as he did with the information Gnowor restored. I have tried to restore the information Crusio has deleted but he has blocked every attempt but for one. Why is it that when Gnowor adds information to a wiki site and when the same information is added by BV it is considered "continued vandalism"? Crusio even removed the following item that was well referanced: "In 2001 at age 78, Timiras and her former Ph.D. student Paul Segall founded the Center for Research and Education on Aging at the University of California, Berkeley[5] of which she served as the first chair". Why would he do this? I am not sure if Gnowor wants to spend another hour of his time on defending this addition and that is perfectly understandable. I started to wonder of Crusio practiced a similar level of editing on his own site. I noticed that his own wiki page, Wim Crusio is more than twice the size of an average Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine from the past 14 years. If people think that Wim Crusio should have a wiki page larger than that of any of the previous 32 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, then that is great! I would support that my self. But let the discussion take place, do not delete the question and the responses to them. My posting of this question was deleted by him, and now no discussion can take place regarding this matter. I thought wiki was a place where good information that is referenced, can be posted, so that others can learn from this information, and discussions can take place with out fear of being stopped. I would like to know how I have restore referenced information that Crusio has deleted.? Without him blocking every step? And without people like Gnowor having to spend a great deal of time backing me up? Bondiveres (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the size of article, which has been explained to you as irrelevant, nor is it the use of phenomics and phenotype. The issue is your behavior. You are causing problems by canvassing, edit warring, and stalking User:Crusio. It's been explained to you that your information is not notable. Stop it. KrakatoaKatie 23:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my success where you have failed, BV, I'd like to think that's from following WP guidelines about editing("being bold"), reverting, and discussing. You made an edit, I reverted, you and I discussed. I made an edit you and I agreed upon, Crusio reverted, then the three of us discussed. Where you're running into trouble is that when the discussion doesn't go your way, you've tried to insert non-relevant material in order to avoid the decision in the AfDs (prior to my involvement). When the discussion didn't go your way our interactions, you've proceeded with the canvassing, stalking, and editwarring that Katie mentioned.

Katie, Crusio, and myself could be contributing this time to improving this and other areas of the encyclopedia. Rather than joining us in that bold endeavor, you hang on to the hope that you can get your way with this one specific set of articles. You're running into trouble because we're trying to make the encyclopedia better, and you're trying to get what you want.

Additionally, regarding your size of Wim Crusio argument: I believe you have a flawed premise. That premise is that a more important article should be longer. If we accept that premise and act upon it immediately, I'd argue that Wikipedia would be immediately blank. We'd have to have a discussion about what article is most important, 2nd most, 3rd most, etc, and then proceed with restoring pages and trimming to appropriate size. And given that I don't believe the 100k+ active editors are going to come to an agreement on that any time soon, I believe that Wikipedia would remain blank for quite a long time. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Viewing your argument about size of article's in the best light, your conclusion is that Nobel Laureates should have longer pages than Wim Crusio. So take it upon yourself to make them longer. If Katie, Crusio, myself, or many other experienced editors were to make that argument, that is what we'd do. Why? Because it improves the encyclopedia, rather than taking away from it by deleting content from an article.

You're a scientist, BV. I guarantee you're a lot smarter than a lot of the people that Katie and I deal with when we normally fight vandalism. As such, I ask you to take a step back and evaluate your actions. Are you doing what's in the best interest of the encyclopedia? Or are you doing what's in the best interests of BV/Sgaran? I've spent the time engaging in this dialog with you because unlike users that make edits like this I believe you have valuable contributions that you can make to the encyclopedia if you choose to do so. Whether you choose to do so is up to you.--Gnowor^T_C 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your great comments Gnowor and for your time. I completely agree with what you said regarding the fact, that it is better to contribute to the wiki encyclopedia than to delete as has been the case with Crusio and the afore mentioned pages. I am sorry for bringing him into this again, but this is why we are all here. The only reason I mention the page size issue, was to provoke a response. It appears I have done so. Please read what James Cantor said: "The problem you are describing seems to me to be a reason to add good material to the pages on your list.". James mirrors, what you said, in that it is better to add information than delete it, and once again I agree whole heartedly. But I am afraid that puts me into a bit of a catch 22 situation, and takes us back to when a certain person removed the content for the Automated Imaging Microscope System. Details of the system have been published in many peer reviewed journals, and I would like to share information about this system to the rest of the wiki community. But Crusio can blocked this, even though hard copy publications have published details of this system he does not want to allow the information to be put on wikipedia. He has made repeated attempts to suppress this information. I could play the same game and remove information from his page and say: "The information in the page was self promoting and superfluous and many other things" but as you said this would just deplete wikipedia. I would like to restore the page for the Automated Imaging Microscope System. Listed are the journals in which details of the AIMS system and the it's results are published:

Long list of journals cited by BV, removed by Katie, restored by Gnowor

Estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged female mice; Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2010 Feb 16;31(1):15. Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice; Neurology & Neurosurgery, Para. 488, Page 99, Sec. 8, Vol 152.2, 2007 Novel methods in computer-assisted tissue analysis: Customized regional targeting of both cytoplasmic and nuclear-stained tissue; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 42, Issues 1-2, January-February 2007, Pages 141-142 Tracking changes in hypothalamic IGF-1 sensitivity with aging and caloric restriction; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 42, Issues 1-2 , January-February 2007, Pages 11-12. Insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells are selectively maintained in the paraventricular hypothalamus of calorically restricted mice; Int J Dev Neurosci. 2007 Feb;25(1):23-8 Age-dependent loss of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor immunoreactive cells in the supraoptic hypothalamus is reduced in calorically restricted mice; Int J Dev Neurosci. 2006 Nov;24(7):431-6. A study of insulin-like growth factor-I receptor immunoreactivity in the supraoptic nucleus of young and old female B6D2F1 mice; FASEB Journal, April 2006, 357.5 Caloric restriction reduces cell loss and maintains estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the pre-optic hypothalamus of female B6D2F1 mice; Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2005 Jun;26(3):197-203. A survey of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the hypothalamus of young, old, and old-calorie restricted female B6D2F1 mice; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 39, Issues 11-12, November-December 2004, Page 1771 A comparison of estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in the arcuate hypothalamus of young and middle-aged C57BL6 female mice; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 38 (2003), Issues 1-2, Page 220 Creating Three-Dimensional Neuronal Maps of the Mouse Hypothalamus Using an Automated Imaging Microscope System; Experimental Gerontology, Volume 35 numbers 9-10, December 2000, page 1421 Automated Imaging Microscope System; Linux Journal 2000, Issue 70, Februrary, Page 32-35 Why is it, that the details of the Automated Imaging Microscope System are published in these journals and yet details of the AIMS system are not fit for wikipedia? Is it not worthy because I only listed 12 publications and the minimum is 15? I only say this tung and cheek. Or is it that wikipedia has higher standards than the following journals: Experimental Gerontology, Neuro Endocrinology, Internation Journal of Developmental Neurosciene, FASEB Journal, Linux Journal, Neurology & Neurosurgery If the answer is yes, then I think that says volumes about the people making the decisions to remove content from wikipedia.

I am sorry for my tone and if seems to be a little too direct, and if I have provided too much information, I only did so, to provide as much information as I have available; but when I see injustice I think it is the obligation of all of us to shed light on it and to educate and to inform, and I feel that is the best way to go forward. Bondiveres (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the section you added (restored within collapse by Gnowor), BV, and it's now apparent you just don't understand. KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on topic ban for User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran

Based on his lack of understanding and continued refusal to abide by WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and his ongoing harassment of User:Crusio, I propose a topic ban for Bondiveres and his IP from Wim Crusio, Talk:Wim Crusio, Paola S. Timiras, automated tissue image analysis, AIMS microscope and their related articles, broadly construed. He should also avoid interaction with User:Crusio and is not to edit the pages or talk pages of articles Crusio edits.

I need a checkuser to determine if these three accounts are related. If so, he must agree to edit from only that account.

Since it's the holidays, I may timestamp this to keep discussion going. If admins want to reword or change my proposal, propose away. I'm very tired and I need to rest a while. Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Katie,

I thought the purpose of wiki was to share information and not to suppress it. A "Discussion on topic ban" this sounds like something that takes place in China or North Korea. Please restore my comments and let this discussion take it's natural course. I am not sure if your actions are what Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created Wikipedia. Please do not suppress the free flow of information and thoughts. If your reply to my statements are "you just don't understand", you might at least be a little more specific and engage in a civil discussion that pertains to the topics at hand. I have taken the time to discuss the events that are outlined and I think I have brought up a number of valid points. I thought people such as your self would be willing to talk about these points so a mutual understanding can be reached. I am afraid the statement "you just don't understand" is not very constructive. Please outline your point of view and if I am unable to dispute your statements I will, agree with you, and I hope the reverse is true as well. All the best. Happy Holidays. I await your reply. Bondiveres (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support see the following:

I removed the aforementioned content from the Wim Crusio talk page ---,[11], and BV restored it [12]. He began a disscussion on my talk page [13], to which I responded [14]. I again removed the irrelevant personal commentary and attack from the Wim Crusion Talk Page [15].

Hence, based on the discssion in the previous section, and what I have added here, I think an indefinite topic ban is in order, until this user is able to state their case for having the ban lifted. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Steve

Once again, the reason that this entire series of evens has taken place is because of deletion of information. I had hoped the free flow of thoughts and opinions and allowed to be expressed. I fear this may not be the case here. I would hope if someone disagrees with something can freely discuss issues without fear of being censored. If you disagree with someone, then please says so and give the reasons and less the other person reply and so on. That is how a civil society is supposed to function, even one that is online. I await your reply.

I did read your comments on your talk page and can I assume that this is the correct place to discuss this topic and if it is, then why did Katie place a ban on it? If this is not the correct place please let me know where the correct place is. Bondiveres (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per free speech/China/Korea arguments here. And Bondiveres, if you disrupt this discussion with attacks like that again, I'll block you temporarily so the discussion can proceed in a reasonable manner. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarek thank you so much,

Thank you for a well put statement. Please tell me how else I can refer to system, where comments are removed from an open discussion? I am open to all suggestions. I only made reference to the afore mentioned regimes, because this is type of information deletion and blockage that takes place on a routine bases, and has been in the news of late. I would welcome your suggestions on how to classify this action. All the Best. And thank you once again from a well put comment. I await your reply. Bondiveres (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support:

By directing BV away from this given topic, it will give him an opportunity to constructively contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia and learn WP policy. Refinement of Steve Quinn's application for lifting of the ban: After several months BV of active constructive participation in other areas of the encyclopedia according to policy, I think that BV should have the opportunity to argue from policy for the lifting of this ban. I propose this as a one time opportunity, with a bad faith request by BV of the lift of this ban being grounds for this ban becoming permanent.

Additional IPs with similar behavior and Articles that might be subject to Topic ban:

(This info found via Article Blamer upon inspection of Articles currently on WP that have cites similar to the ones used by BV)

Extended content

71.133.206.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Additions of similar links to Preoptic area[16](2007), and Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor[17](2006). Edit history also includes edits to Paola S. Timiras(PST) and AIMS, although edits outside of this subject area as well. Public computer? Last edits by IP are to PST in 2/2009. 4.42.226.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Addition of similar links to Estrogen receptor[18](2006). Edits to Phenomics, Ageing, Estrogen receptor, Calorie restriction, Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor. Last edits May 2006. 84.63.16.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Addition of similar link to Australian Plant Phenomics Facility[19](11/2010). Only edit by this user. In addition, Sgaran had this edit to Calorie restriction. I realize the first two IPs are too stale for a block, and the single edit by the last IP isn't very troublesome. Still, based on similar edit pattern, I propose the following pages be specifically included in the topic ban (although they probably would've already fallen under a broadly construed ban): Australian Plant Phenomics Facility Estrogen receptor Ageing Estrogen receptor Calorie restriction Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor Preoptic area

Thanks for everyone's time on this.--Gnowor^T_C 04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Inspection of BVs edit history shows not a single edit that was not related to the Sgaran walled garden or made to harass me. A topic ban would therefore in practice not be much difference from a block. I also add that BV has "seeded" his personal attacks against me over several pages and I repeat that I would greatly appreciate if somebody would remove these. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note restored after redaction by BV.--Gnowor^T_C 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor, perhaps you would be so kind to restore the redaction that was made by Katie as well. Crusio's comments are false and inflammatory. I would like to place this on the record and hope that these statements are not redacted. Crusio's false statements of walled garden's are personal attacks on me and I strongly protest, and I wish them to be removed. I can not stress this more strongly. I can not abide his presumptuous and false statements. Bondiveres (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I believe that Katie's removal was to try to keep this discussion short and readable rather than listing several journals. You've asked, I've restored. Your removal was another attack on the user you're accused of attacking.--Gnowor^T_C 19:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gnowor for restoring a part of this section. Crusio's statements regarding walled gardens are clear attacks on me and I would like him to stop this reprehensible behavior. I find it perplexing how a man who is purportedly a Director at a french research institute can make false statements and put them on the record. And the evidence of these actions are written by him just above my comments here, and the statements are signed by him as well, and therefore there is no doubt of his guilt. I can not understand how someone like that can engage in such actions. I ask him most kindly in light of the holiday season to reconsider his behavior and to act more becoming of a person of his rank. I ask him most sincerely to stop his attacks. Thanks. Bondiveres (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Walled garden is a technical term used here on WP that you can read about via this link. It is not an attack. His statement that you don't have a single edit outside of the arena is accurate. His accusation about your dissemination of attacks on him and the article about him are also accurate according to your edit history.

More importantly, your continued contributions to this discussion focus on Crusio. This discussion is currently about your actions, and in every post, you try to deflect by saying "he did it first". Regardless of who started what/when, you need to take responsibility for your actions, which are in violation of a number of concrete Wikipedia policies, and for continuing to take up the community's time.

Also, notice: Despite having every opportunity to present your case via this discussion, users with no prior involvement are siding against you. This should be another reason to reflect on your actions.--Gnowor^T_C 19:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban BV's conduct seems to be the problem at the moment. He appears to be using this internet site as a WP:FORUM for making personal attacks on an editor through his real life position in the CNRS. That is completely at odds with the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

One more note. Crusio's dislike of my comments regarding the size of his personal wiki was greeted with thanks by the user Katie. She wrote the following after a very nice comment that explained the issue, she wrote: "Thanks again for the message." Please refer to my talk page in order to see her comments, they are very well thought out and written down. Thank you Katie. Bondiveres (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• It should be clear to all involved and uninvolved editors by now that BV is just playing with us. Somebody block him already, this has gone on long enough. --Crusio (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Bondiveres, why don't you go see how many times I've typed 'Thanks again for the message.' It's called 'courtesy', not 'I agree with everything you've ever said'. KrakatoaKatie 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran#24_December_2010. I was so tired I forgot to hit the save button and request the CheckUser. That's fixed now. :-) KrakatoaKatie 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Crusio, Please do not refer to me as "this guy", I take the greatest offense, from your comments. I can not imagine using such a term, in order to refer to you, because I have more respect for the people that have taken time to look at the issue at hand. Once again I would hope that others can see the level of your discourse. I ask most kindly to change your tone. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

BV's manner of posting comments here is unhelpul. Using the phrase "this guy" was clearly not an attack. Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I beg to differ. It is a most offensive form of disrespect. I am quite certain you would not refer to Dr. Wim Crusio as "this guy", I most certainly would not. Please comment. Bondiveres (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That is an unreasonable interpretation, particularly when referring to non-native English speakers. Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"This guy" is slightly pointed slang, but it's nowhere close to a breach of civility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Crusio was listening to Jimi Hendrix and got in a romantic mood ;-). Anyway it's about the last thing I'd get upset about. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that I have devoted a great deal of time and energy in order to participate in this forum. I respect all those that have taken the time to do so as well. I find it very very offensive that Wim Crusio says otherwise. There are many other activities that I could be engaged in at this time of year, but I feel very strongly that I can not just bow to injustice. Once again I ask you please stop your attacks on me and try to act more in accords with the members of this forum. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. You have been told that on multiple occasions. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope your next comment, BV, responds to the last two lines of this post by me.--Gnowor^T_C 20:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Gnowor. I tried to look for the two lines you referred to, but I can not see which are the once the you mean. Please post this here, or just post a few words so I can search for them in your link. Thanks Bondiveres (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments below.--Gnowor^T_C 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

More importantly, your continued contributions to this discussion focus on Crusio. This discussion is currently about your actions, and in every post, you try to deflect by saying "he did it first". Regardless of who started what/when, you need to take responsibility for your actions, which are in violation of a number of concrete Wikipedia policies, and for continuing to take up the community's time. Also, notice: Despite having every opportunity to present your case via this discussion, users with no prior involvement are siding against you. This should be another reason to reflect on your actions.--GnoworTC 19:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose Full Ban

Despite the situation escalating to a Topic Ban discussion, BV continues to focus on matters unrelated to the Topic Ban. I propose this now be escalated to a full permanent ban. I feel that a permanent ban is appropriate as BV's only contributions have been to matters related to this discussion. I also propose that users associated with BV according to the results of the checkuser be included in the ban.--Gnowor^T_C 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support:

1. As nom.--Gnowor^T_C 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I honestly thought a topic ban would do it, but he just doesn't understand how much disruption he's causing and he shows no signs of backing off. He's made no article edits since October and he's using the servers to cause trouble instead of improve the articles he claims don't have enough detail. We've tried to show him the light but it's futile, it seems. KrakatoaKatie 21:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Per almost everybody else commenting here, BV simply does not get it. His attitude towards wikipedia seems to be disruptive at the moment. Unfortunately an indefinite community ban seems to be the only alternative at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
4. I have no prior involvement with this editor or this specific issue, but I've read the commentary here and on various talk pages referenced here. Either BV doesn't get what he's been told over and over again, or he's deliberately ignoring it to press his agenda, but in neither case does it help the project to have such a person editing. My feeling is that unless he shows immediately that he's capable of editing in a collegial manner according to our policies, he should be shown the door until he can prove that he can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Neutral/Comment:

1. I respectfully disagree. I have put forth a large body of information that supports my position. I am willing to answer any questions that are put forth, but I only ask this they be put in a respectfully manner. I have taken a great deal of time to provide as much information as possible. And ask that you consider both sides to this issue equally. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It so happens that people who edit Wikipedia and are wiki-notable tend to have more detailed biographic articles than those who don't edit here. But Bondiveres has been harassing Crusio about this issue and a few other issues, for instance proposing for deletion a bunch of biographies started by Crusio (e.g. [20] [21] there are some more in his edit history.) I find these actions troubling. If Bondiveres cannot find something else worthy of his attention on Wikipedia shortly, an indef block or ban for harassment seem inevitable and warranted. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo098, as you can imagine I would like nothing better than have to reply to comments that are posted here. But the fact is, is that comments are being posted here and I assume that you expect a reply to them. Please do not chide me for responding to comments directed towards me, and say me time would be better spent updating wiki. I would like very much to do so. I hope you understand this, I think most people would. 64.85.252.225 (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• "I would like very much to do so". Well, then start doing that and show us what you can. I have worked today, went shopping, posted here on this board, and in between created 3 new articles and edited/expanded several others. You can do that, too. --Crusio (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So you're admitting, IP, that you and BV are one and the same? Because if not, your comment here is a little odd since you haven't responded to anything as yet. KrakatoaKatie 01:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not support a permanent ban, because BV is very capable of making useful contribution here, once he learns not to make edits on his own projects and not to engage in quarrels with other editors. But at this point I see no prospect that a topic ban will work, for too many other pages are getting involved. In order to prevent further disruption, and what seems to amount to harassment of at least one of our best editors, I suggest a block for one month, including ip addresses used, and the ip address above. At the end of that time, if the ed. should return and make useful contributions--great. If he continues as he is doing now, a permanent ban will be in order. I am slightly involved as I closed one of the afds in question, so I ask any other admin to review and do the block. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to thank Crusio for his comments and I agree with him, and as a result I would like to propose the following:

1. I will honor and adhere to a 6 month self imposed moratorium on any changes to the wiki pages that are in question.
2. I will devote my time and energy to upgrading other wiki pages.
3. In 6 months time I will start a dialog with Crusio and work with him in order to arrive at a status quo that both of us can agree with.

I sincerely hope this proposal meets with your approval, and if so, I hope all of us can consider this matter closed. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• BV, I am personally willing to accept this (let's keep the spirit of Christmas alive). However, you might first convince us of your good faith by removing the personal attacks on me that you put on several talk pages (insofar they haven't been removed yet). If you do that, I will support this solution and I'd even be willing to help you edit articles in the coming 6 months with advice on WP policies/habits/guides (but there are many good editors all over the place, so I'd understand it if you'd rather work with them than with me). However, despite all holiday spirit, I do want to add that I have no more patience with personal attacks, so at the first recurrence, we'd be back here. I don't like to be at ANI (for one, all the changes here clutter up my watchlist), so I do hope that you're sincere: WP can use more academics willing to share their knowledge. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that BV should remove the inappropriate material placed on several talk pages. After that I support BV's three part proposal, with one exception. Although, Crusio is willing to help out, there are many good editors from whom advice and guidance can be sought. Hence, there is no need for BV to focus soley on Crusio for this, especially given the situation. I have to admit I have misgivings about BV "starting a dialog with Crusio and working with him in order to arrive at a status quo that both of them can be happy with". The status quo appears to be is Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and from experience I know that Crusio supports these. Editing is not really about what certain editors are happy with; and being in agreement with guidelines and policies is satisfying. I am sorry to bring that up, but in advance it may be best to bring it out in the open. Problematic editors in the past have used this "happy" justification, or a some similar variation, for contradictory editing and argument. I bring it up so Crusio, and other editors don't get caught up in having to fend off additions or deletions that each can be "happy with", as a justification. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wise words, Steve. You're right that just a compromise between BV and me would not be enough to restore any of the deleted material. After all, I didn't delete that stuff, I proposed it for deletion and after hearing the arguments from both sides, the community decided to delete. Anyway, let's see whether BV shows good will and removes those personal attacks. If that shouldn't happen, then I won't have much faith in this solution either. --Crusio (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I started removing the inappropriate material from the User talk pages. I had to make sure I have definite grounds for removal. My justification is "Remove inappropriate content. Please see edit history and content removal per WP:TPNO, and User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, specifically no personal attacks, and do not misrepresent other people. It might also be considered vandalism.

So everyone can see what I am doing, here is the first removal [22]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As per Crusio's request, I have initiated the removal of the material he has requested, starting at his talk page. I then went to a subsection of Gnowor's page and the message says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.". Please advise me as to what to do regarding the afore mentioned message. I await your reply. but in the mean time I will continue the clean up. Bondiveres (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all the material I could find, excluding the material in the Gnowor subsection, because of the message stated above. I will deleted the material, but I await your instructions on this matter. Bondiveres (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies that I haven't been able to participate in this discussion over the past couple days. Been a bit busy with Christmas. I'm assuming that BV is referring to the dialog here which was immediately antecedent to the discussion here at ANI. I put an archive box on it, but if Crusio would prefer that the content on that page be removed, BV can feel free to do so. Additionally, per all of my previous comments, I'm looking forward to BV constructively contributing to the encyclopedia. I do agree with the modification that changes to the contested pages should be done by consensus and not by BV & Crusio alone. Hope everyone is enjoying the holidays!--Gnowor^T_C 20:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also changed one of the points of my proposal, and replaced the words: "happy with" to "agree with". I reference to Steve Quinn's and Wm Crusio's comments. When two people agree upon a compromise, it is not always the case that one or both are "happy" with the agreement, but it is something that they can accept in order to move forward. Bondiveres (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gnowor for your guidance, I have removed the material. In response to your comments regarding an agreement between Crusio and my self. This is to avoid the voluminous amount of discourse that has taken place thus far regarding the contentious wiki pages. If we can agree on the content of a page or if it should be re-instated, it then will be commented on by the larger Wiki community. I very much would like to avoid, and I am sure Wim agrees with me, this endless stream of content that does not enlighten the general public. Bondiveres (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for coming in late today (Santa brought Katie one of these and she's still setting it up! such problems Katie has, I know... :-D) Looks like the spirit of Christmas has sprinkled charity and goodness all around! That's what I hoped would happen by bringing this to the attention of the community, and the community didn't let me down. BV, I could give you a kiss, and I'll shut up now so I don't mess up the work! Yay! :-) KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Katie, but please don't tell my wife. :-) To all; it's getting late here and it's time that I get to sleep since my better half is already partaking in that activity as I write these words, and tomorrow we head for the mountains for a few days of skiing. I wish all a very happy new years. Bondiveres (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Would a rangeblock work here?

I seem to have upset someone, they're sending me their best wishes on my talk page and IP talk pages. :-) See [23], [24], [25]. There really is a Wayne Besanko (article deleted as an attack page)but I doubt this is the same person. It's obviously the same as Waynebesanko (talk · contribs) that I did block as a VOA, who among other things was busily vandalising with IPsocks at Proton Saga -- see the article history [26]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look to me that a rangeblock is appropriate here. I'll semi-protect the article for a week and see if that helps. --Nlu (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed that the Waynebesanko above isn't the one I first blocked, I blocked Waynesbesanko (talk · contribs). Waynebesanko (talk · contribs) is not blocked but should be. Hm, am I too involved to block a sock calling me a f****** c***? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, Doug. My assumption of good faith is still intact, tho taxed greatly. My conscience won't allow me to block a user with no contribs. My tinnitus may be interfering with any quacking. Tiderolls 14:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a plain 'ol username block in order unril they identify to OTRS? Franamax (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

He continues to use IPs not just to vandalise my talk page, but to impersonate other editors and vandalise their talk pages: See [27] - he used that username to vandalise my talk page: [28]. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley civility concerns

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say. Perhaps more people could make their New Year's Resolution to Wikipedia:Forgive and forget. Rd232 talk 02:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disclosure: I've had conflicts with WMC, so I'd ask for someone uninvolved to look at this, and I'm suggesting no particular course of action. His edit summary calls me a "twat" [29]. Now, I'm thick skinned so personally I'm not bothered with him sounding off: although twat "a vulgar synonym for the human vulva, vagina, or clitoris," isn't one of my chosen self-descriptions, and I'd sooner have a more erudite rhetoric deployed against me. Spartaz, however, is less forgiving and gives him a three hour block. His response? "Good grief have you nothing useful to do with your time? Oh well, I'll add you to the list". "Fool" is just another bit of poor invective, but the list bit is menacing. He then follows this up by calling his fellow admin "incompetent" [30] and then in another edit summary "Spartaz joins the twat list". (What's this list?) My main complaint is there's little style to this invective.--Scott Mac 15:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Part of the problem here is that once the admin powers are bestowed there almost never taken away despite incidents like this. Perhaps if this fellow cannot remain civil and show proper decorum when commenting on others talk pages their admin powers should be revoked, at least temporarily. --Kumioko (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC) (a) WMC has not been an admin for a year and a half; (b) he was already blocked for this specific misdeed. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I note WMC got a huge 3 hour block for such puerility. I think many admins would give longer blocks for such repeated incivility, to be sure. WMC appears to have been warned at least once in the past, so I suggest that the fact he can be blocked is not a huge surprise to him. Collect (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Short blocks like this are generally deprecated, as they tend to inflame rather than to give time for reflection. Note Spartaz also violated WP:TPG by restoring a section of WMC's talk page that WMC had recently deleted.[31] This supports the view that Spartaz intended to inflame. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Scott, you seem to have forgotten the rest of the sentence you quoted: "...but is more widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English". Cherry-picking half a quote (see quote mining) to make another editor look bad is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) No, I don't doubt it is a derogatory epithet (I took that as read) - but it is one because of the sexual overtones - see also wanker and motherfucker.--Scott Mac 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If I use naughty words can I get blocked too? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Yes. --Conti|✉ 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Poop. Wee wee. Botties. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC) "Can", not "will". :) Context is everything. --Conti|✉ 17:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Just an informational point. As far as I can tell WMC is no longer an administrator.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Comment: short term blocks seem to be popular but they appear to be against WP:Blocking Policy, which says that blocks cannot be punitive and only designed to protect against or deter disruption. I can't understand how a 3-hour block can protect against anything. Either we enforce civility or not. - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) See above. Given that the short block was combined with the arbitrary restoration of a section of WMC's talk page there is no doubt that the block was deliberately meant to inflame the situation further. Unfortunately it appears that Spartaz succeeded in his goal and the block has now been extended for a week. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) The 3-hour block definitely had the opposite effect in this case: the behavior was repeated shortly thereafter. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I've blocked him for a week. Referring to other editors as twats or idiots is unacceptable. Continuing to do so whist blocked for this and then after the block expires shows that short block wasn't effective. If this user continues to behave like this on their talk page whilst blocked I will revoke their ability to edit their talk page. Adambro (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) This seems fairly appropriate. Trebor (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Ongoing civility issues from WMC are a concern. A one week block is certainly appropriate; although I get the feeling we've gone through this before. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Agree. Good block. Being baited is no excuse to respond inappropriately. (It's a reason to scrutinize the behavior of those doing the baiting.) Jehochman Talk 16:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Actually I think a week is an over reaction for this. I'm personally not offended, I have been called worse in my time but whatever. Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If WMC undertakes not to repeat the offense, he could be unblocked early. I do not think the block needs to be shortened. He's had many prior incidents of this nature; a strong response is appropriate. Jehochman Talk 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC) But you criticised me for the first block. Good grief! Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, the three hour block was pointless needling; it got him good and angry so he ended up with a much longer block. That's exactly what we should like to avoid. Jehochman Talk 18:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) You surely aren't suggesting it would have been better to block him for a week or a month instead? Leaving a polite warning would have achieved what? Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) In response to Jehochman's re an early unblock, considering this user's block log, I'd be a little sceptical as to the credibility of any statement from him that he has learned to behave more in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I think that there becomes a point where "Sorry, I won't do it again" can't be taken seriously and so protecting Wikipedia from further disruption should take precedence over allowing a user to edit, which is after all a privilege, not a right. Adambro (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Because people with long block logs are manifestly incapable of learning? This is the kind of rhetoric that makes Wikipedia suck. jps (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) That wasn't what I was saying. I am sure anyone is capable of learning but there comes a point where I think it makes more sense to let a block run rather than unblock on the basis of a "Sorry, I won't do it again" when history suggests that might not be accurate. If the purpose of blocks is to protect Wikipedia from disruption then in circumstances such as this I'd suggest it is better to err on the side of caution rather than rush to unblock. If we simply accepted any claim that a user won't repeat previous behaviour regardless of what their history said then we'd never block anyone for more than the time it took them to request an unblock. Clearly as time goes on and a user's behaviour seems to remain the same, the credibility of promises to change must diminish. If it was that I didn't think this user could learn then I'd have blocked them for an indefinite period, not simply one week. Adambro (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Nope, you don't get a bye for that explanation of your fatuous argument. Looking at a block log tells you nothing about whether a person who says that they won't do something again is likely to do something again. You actually need to show that the user has a history of doing that. There could be evidence of that in a block log, but you actually have to show it's there if you're going to be taken seriously. Claiming you looked at WMC's block log and came to the conclusion that you couldn't take him at his word is insulting to him and to those who know that he always trustworthy to a fault in doing what he says he's going to do. People who think credibility diminishes in proportion to block log length are either incapable of or too lazy to actually look into the situation. Don't fall into that common trap. jps (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Three cheers for Joshua (JPS). The length of a block log is merely suggestive. Another relevant factor is the age of a block log entry; I think an entry more than five years old is virtually irrelevant and ought to be automatically deleted. Another factor is who made the block; if it's an admin who has been desysopped, for example, then that ought to be automatically deleted too (such incidents could still be cited using diffs). And even after you go and shorten block logs as I suggest, the remaining entries should not lead to confirmation bias, especially since some blocks are (gasp!) too long or too short or improvidently made. As for WMC, he might try the milder "twit" instead of "twat", but the better course would be something like "mistaken individual".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Bringing this here was IMO an unnecessary provocation of drama by Scott Mac, a usually-wise editor who should have known better than this. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Wrong. He knew exactly what he was doing, and succeeded -- WMC is now blocked for a week. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Scott MacDonald is not provocative; he is too busy creating pages like this one. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Actions of Scott MacDonald and Spartaz Enough. Spartaz explained, Jehochman accepted, there's nothing else do to here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I believe that both Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should warned against further trolling or baiting. It is unacceptable to prey upon an upset or vulnerable user the way they have done here. Needling somebody until they explode so you can then block them, or request that they be blocked, is an odious violation of WP:GAME and WP:BATTLE. I'd like to see a confirmation from both Scott and Spartaz that they will try to help users, rather than trip them up. Scott, your post looks like it was designed to cause maximum ruckus. That's a misuse of Wikipedia. I can think of much better ways you could have handled this, and as an administrator, you are expected to be sufficiently clueful to figure things out for yourself. On the other side, I would like to see a confirmation from William that he will not use inappropriate language to describe other editors. Normally it is inappropriate to block a user merely for uncivil language. However, I am aware that William has been warned about this in the past, so he should not be given much slack. On the whole I see fault with both sides of this conflict, and I'd strongly recommend that all parties avoid interacting with each other for some time. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC) What on earth are you on about Jehochman? Historically I have supported WMC as a clueful editor who makes a big difference but calling someone a twat was beyond the pale and some response was necessary. Restoring that section was an error caused by an edit conflict and multiple windows. Sometimes you guys read too much into Occam's razor. Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your explanation about the edit conflict. I consider the matter of your involvement resolved. Jehochman Talk 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Jehochman I'm sure you don't actually understand how supercilious and pompous you sound here otherwise you wouldn't have posted in this way. You need to demonstrate a bit more AGF and fact finding before jumping to conclusions. You really have no locus to judge me or my actions without speaking to me first and doing appropriate due diligence. If I shot from the hip like this at work at the bare minimum I would expect to be reprimanded if not disciplined and I am astonished that you find nothing wrong with your actions. You owe me an apology. Spartaz Humbug! 8:01 pm, Today (UTC+3) Section restored, I'm sure this was an accident. Spartaz Humbug! 8:07 pm, Today (UTC+3) Spartaz, it is rude to demand apologies. Your subsequent responses here reinforce my concern that you were inept at handling this matter. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC) And yours show how self-important you are. The difference is that I assume good faith while you were all for hanging and quartering me for an honest mistake before you got the full facts. I know which side I'd rather be on. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I fail to see how I baited him. I hadn't interacted with him in weeks, when he needlessly called me a "twat" in an edit summary. If anything he was trolling and I didn't at that point react to it. I then noticed him upping the game with several attacks on the blocking admin. Since I'd had conflict with WMC in the past, I thought it best to bring it here for neutral people to examine. I didn't ask for a block, just for a review. I also disclosed my previous conflict with him. Sorry, but this is his doing and his alone. I consider this accusation to be scurrilous.--Scott Mac 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC) You could have turned the other cheek and walked away. You say you are thick skinned. Being called a naughty name is hardly a personal attack. If he had made a specific accusation about your character, I agree you would have needed to respond. The editor was apparently overwrought. Adding more pressure is unlikely to improve matters, and will likely make them worse. Whenever his block ends, I predict his behavior will be less temperate. WMC is effectively being put on the path to being sitebanned, which is a shame, because he's quite knowledgeable and capable of improving many articles. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Scott, on the one hand you make a big deal out of someone using what you think is a naughty word, and yet on the other you say you are willing to make edits on behalf of banned users without disclosing such to the community.[32] Might I gently suggest that you rethink your priorities? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Now you are misrepresenting me in an irrelevant attack. I am willing to disclose anything you want, if you can tell me why it matters. I am certainly not willing to make edits on behalf of banned users, no.--Scott Mac 17:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I fully agree with Jehochman and think there should be consequence for all three editor concerned. Currently only one seems to be blocked, and it is the only one who is not currently an admin. That stinks. Hans Adler 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Spartaz explained his edit, which appeared inflammatory, but wasn't. I do not see how blocking Scott would help matters. My goal here is to help people understand that we do not want to run off potentially productive contributors. Instead we should try to help them. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Ah, sorry, I missed that part and would not have made my comment if I had seen that. Not sure it was on the page before I pressed the edit button. I agree that it's better not to block without good reason, but I am also concerned when admins don't get this and get away with bad blocks. Hans Adler 18:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) (ec) The word "twat" in the UK is normally understood as a schoolboy word on the same level as "prat". It is not comparable to the words Doc Glasgow Scott Macdonald mentioned; he was probably aware of that. Posting this on ANI had the predictable effect of injecting extra drama into the situation. At this time of year people are normally a little more charitable, even north of the Antonine Wall and west of Offa's Dyke. Mathsci (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Depends where you're from as to the strength of the word [33] That said, I'm confused by some of these comments - it's clearly a personal attack and while Scott could turn the other cheek/be charitable, there's no obligation for him to do so. Trebor (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I was posting something similar but got caught in an edict conflict. 'Twat's like 'prat' or 'idiot'. I'm not convinced that this terrible, terrible occurrence (on a user's talk page, right?) is serious enough for a one week block. I suspect we've seen worse behavior by some editors go without such a block. --Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I though 3 hours was plenty. A week seems excessive to me. Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Dicdef. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Forgive me if I'm jumping in where I don't belong. Was just reviewing more on ANI while inspecting a situation above. Regarding, Scott's behavior, I find the initial sentence of his post here to be quite telling: "Disclosure: I've had conflicts with WMC, so I'd ask for someone uninvolved to look at this, and I'm suggesting no particular course of action". It's possible that WMC is on the road to being site-banned. It's also possible that he will reform (however unlikely that might be). Regardless, this discussion of Scott's actions now seem to be provoking Scott. Scott had previous conflicts with WMC and brought the situation here in order to avoid further provoking WMC. Scott could have gone to WMC's talk page and he could have responded perfectly nicely (although, take into account WMC's history). More likely, the situation would've escalated. Most certainly, by posting here, the situation did escalate. Still, given the likelihood that the situation would've escalated by Scott approaching WMC first, and the likelihood that Scott would face similar accusations of mishandling based on conversing with a user he had history with, I'm having trouble seeing what safe option Scott had. If I might speculate, Scott believed that the situation warranted further inspection, and knew he wasn't the one to objectively do so based on history, so he brought it here. Based on the user's prior conduct, he thought direct confrontation with the user would have been risky. He came here, declared his conflict, and let others decide. To take action against a user who has taken actions for which there is a good faith explanation seems a bit too much. Maybe WMC is valuable but he's taken actions for which there isn't a good faith explanation. Scott is a valuable editor/admin as well, and there is a good faith explanation. That's why I propose that this discussion end.--GnoworTC 17:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Rather than posting to ANI, WP:WQA would have been a good alternative. That board is for smoothing out rough conversations. ANI is for requesting blocks. Scott knew or should have known that posting something inflammatory here had a 99.9999% probability of WMC being blocked. "Oh me oh my, I'm not asking for a block on my habitual opponent, but look, he called me something naughty. Whatever shall we do?" Another option would have been to walk away. Bringing the situation to ANI was just about the most provocative choice possible. Jehochman Talk 17:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC) He could've walked away or gone to WP:WQA, and there could have been a number of other users chased off by WMC's actions in the meantime before someone decided to bring it here. So Scott can go to WP:WQA in the future. This may have been provocative, but it was a bad situation from the start, and the situation was initiated by WMC's actions. And there's the good faith explanation for Scott's actions.--GnoworTC 18:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I don't agree. He should have gone to WP:WQA. That board is very good at de-escalating things. This one just the opposite. The instructions above tell editors to post to WQA for civility issues. This board is only for requesting administrative actions (blocks). ANI is not for dispute resolution. Scott took his prior disputes with William, using the naughty word as a pretense, and successfully shopped for a block. Well done, except that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for that type of sport. Jehochman Talk 18:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Well, it seems we have a disagreement. Again, I'm not saying that Scott definitely acted with good faith, nor that he definitely acted with bad faith. I'm just assuming good faith. I think our disagreement is you don't believe my good faith explanation is plausible. Perhaps this is why I shouldn't have jumped in, as I don't have much( or any) experience over at WP:WQA. If WMC had done that to me, I might've brought it here. I might've been wrong since it's a WQA issue. We do hold admins to higher standards. Given WMC's history, I can see how even an admin might think WQA was an inadequate forum. Even holding an admin to a higher standard, I think the best course forward is just to advise Scott that WQA would be a first stop next time. You've made clear that you think the situation was handled poorly, Jehochman. I neither agree nor disagree. Scott is now aware that handling situations like this in the future might be regarded as "poor-handling", and at that point, I'd agree that action should be taken. What do you wish to see here now?--GnoworTC 18:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I wish to see recognition by the community, or even better by the editors involved, that the goal is to save users from trouble, not to help grease the skids. What happened here was a bad result and should be avoided if at all possible. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate your opinion. Jehochman Talk 18:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If this helped the discussion move forward, I'm happy to assist. I apologize if I got anything wrong by arriving late to the game. Scott, do you agree that based on this experience that bringing editors with whom you have a prior negative history to a non-AN/I forum would be more appropriate? (Apologies if this seems forward, trying to close discussion)--GnoworTC 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Scott MacDonald reported a deliberate pattern, not an individual instance of bad language. Views may differ whether this was wise, but he definitely has done absolutely nothing wrong. - BorisG (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) The List? Is anyone else concerned about this "twat list" that WMC mentioned? It could have just been said in a sarcastic, though clearly still deprecating, manner, but it could also mean that he is actually keeping a list of the users he dislikes. I think this is almost a bigger issue than the incivility that he has exhibited. SilverserenC 18:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I'm leaning towards "figure of speech." Unless he's got an on-wiki list, there's no way to verify any actual list. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Ooo, ooo! If it's on-wiki, let me know. I'll personally send cookies to everyone on the list!--GnoworTC 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC) WMC has quite a fan base that will support any action he does, including repeatedly calling other users "twats." He's done that to me at least three times, so I'm sure I am on his list, wherever it may be. He has lost all touch with whatever it was that originally led him to contribute here and now seems to delight in adopting a condescending and deeply insulting attitude toward everyone that won't kiss his ass. Unfortunately the application of slap on the wrist blocks and topic bans has only encouraged this nasty unproductive behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC) This is a meta-issue, not one that we can solve here. Wikipedia allows and even encourages incompetent people to do its governance and become administrators. People of higher levels of competence (such as, for example, those who have received PhDs in academic subjects) tend to bristle at being subject to the incompetence of those with power. This is why academics don't often rise very high in the fields of business or politics where incompetence is often a selling-point. Those whom WMC has chided are almost always, on the whole, deserving of criticism. Whether they accept the chiding as a form of criticism or hew strictly to the WP:PUNITIVE model of Wikipedia is just another measure of their competence or lack thereof. jps (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) There's an old American adage: "If you're really lousy at what you do, there's always a chance you can work your way into management." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC) There is a list, and if you're worried about it, you're definitely on it! jps (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Where is that list? I want to see it. And if I'm not on it, I'm going to feel dissed. :'( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC) "WMC is a silly pudding." There, that should get me on the list. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Interestingly (ironically? obviously?), simply calling WMC names is not one of the criteria for list inclusion. jps (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Here's a Jack Benny classic. Go to the 4:20 mark.[34] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If there is a list, I'm on it - and who gives a fuck about Billy Tantrum's non scientific opinions anyway? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC) And some admins wonder why many editors think that double standards exist... NW (Talk) 22:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Allright everybody, he's blocked. Let's just agree for the moment to uphold the block and go have a glass of eggnog. (with lots of booze in it). Goodwill toward men and all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Hell yeah! Have a Merry F***ing Saturnalia! Celebrate the blocking of the a****** with incivility of our own! Good on, y'all. You're really making Wikipedia a better place with your word censored because use of one of its derivatives resulted in a weeklong block! jps (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) The list and the addition of Spartaz to it appears to be here. It's not really that difficult to find this list once you start looking, given that it was the very next edit WMC made after the edit that Scott MacDonald questioned back at the beginning of this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I have rarely been as pessimistic about the future of this project as I am right now, having just finished reading this thread. MastCell Talk 05:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC) User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say‎ up for CSD 10 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Best to take the hint, ResidentAnthropologist. If you want drama on Christmas Day, please just switch on the TV. Mathsci (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This, I predict, will not end well. jps (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Someone with good sense has stepped in.[35] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Restoring an attack page is good sense? How do you figure? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC) at MFD now Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say I have to agree with Bugs this is the most blatant violation I have ever seen from an experienced user. I am not one for drama but this crosses so many lines. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC) You have 261 (and counting) edits to WP:AN/I, compared to 198 edits to your top 10 articles combined. It seems to me, anecdotally, that these sorts of ratios are increasingly common (even from people who profess a distaste for "drama"). Thus, in part, the pessimism. MastCell Talk 17:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs also has some explaining to do.[36] Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Good grief. If that isn't a deliberate provocation then nothing is. Have we declared open season on WMC? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC) As I explained to TRA, I figured if everyone added their name to the list, it would dilute it and render it harmless. That was my reaction to someone reverting TRA's justifiable deletion of that attack page. TRA reverted my entry and advised a different approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs's excuse seems incompatible with this subsequent edit by ResidentAnthropologist. [37] Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Like I just said, TRA reverted it. Look, a week ago you all were ready to string Barts1a, a relatively inexperienced user, from the yardarm for posting a short list of editors he didn't want on his page. Meanwhile, you have this lengthy "twat list" of the user WMC's making, a guy who's been on here for years, and a list which you all are defending. What's your excuse for that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I did not comment in the discussion about Barts1a. [38] Note that Baseball Bugs made this edit to ResidentAnthropogist's talk page.[39] Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I didn't say "you", I said "you all", meaning the general group here. And what I told TRA is what I just told you a few lines above here. TRA had deleted that entire garbage of a list from WMC's page, and someone added it back, which they should not have done as its presence is a violation of the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I really wonder about you people sometimes. Don't bother responding, as I'm taking this page off my own personal t'watch list for awhile. Merry Xmas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) If you expect everyone to agree with you all the time and not argue their own viewpoints, maybe Wikipedia isn't a good fit for you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC) What the? I don't understand this response from a bunch of users. We've found this "twat list" and we know it's that page because of the addition here, which subsequently notes this diff. Both of those prove that it is indeed the "twat list". So why is everyone defending it all of a sudden? I'm really confused. SilverserenC 19:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC) User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration i clearly a list of people who disagreed with him in An AFD. No ambiguity there The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This seems to be the exact, textbook sort of list that WP:UP#POLEMIC says shouldn't be allowed. SilverserenC 19:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I agree this shouldn't even be t Afd - it should have been administratively deleted and WMC should have received a warning for promotion of battleground mentalities.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The problem comes when not all editors think there's a clear equality between the way WMC's being treated and the way we treat administrators, for example. Above, one admin refers to WMC using the words "who gives a fuck about Billy Tantrum's non scientific opinions anyway", and yet didn't get a block at all. I know it's not quite the same, but we've blocked WMC and are now smacking him with an MfD: people are concerned that he's not getting fair treatment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC) And what have you, an admin and incoming Arbcom member, said to LHvU about this? Perusal of his talk page history shows the answer is "nothing." You make a big deal of pointing out that he didn't get blocked, when you have the ability to block him yourself. Even if you don't think it's worth a block (and that's a reasonable argument) you could mention to him that this isn't appropriate -- given your position within the community he might even listen to you. Instead you make this show of hand-wringing without actually doing anything or even mentioning your concerns to the person in question. Wikipolitics at its finest. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) If you are going to discuss this with Chase me, please do so on his or your talk page, since it is not related to the subject of this section. SilverserenC 20:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Per "centralize drama" I think it's better to keep all the discussion in one place (i.e. here) than to spread it across multiple venues such as user talkpages. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Might I ask who you are? You seem to have started editing just a few weeks ago and almost immediately started joining high level discussions that only experienced Wikipedians get involved in, which implys that you are one as well. SilverserenC 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC) MMmmrrrow! jps (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC) It is a valid question. A month old IP jumping into a discussion is cause for questioning, especially when said IP started editing in policy areas from their very first edits. SilverserenC 22:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Validity really has nothing to do with biting. Just because our concerns are valid doesn't mean we should bite them. jps (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I just asked who they are, I didn't bite them. I pointed out that being in high-level discussions from their first edit implies that they are an experienced editor. What in there is biting? SilverserenC 22:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Reads to me like you're doing a whole lot more than "just" asking who they are. I have no idea who you "are", and it is, in theory, the right of every user to be as anonymous as they chose to be as long as they don't violate site policies. So if they aren't violating site policies, you have no business asking them who they are. The only thing left is an insinuation that this anon is violating site policies. That's what it looks like to me that you're doing. jps (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This is a frequent contributor whose IP changes every now and then. For a while it was 66.127.52.47 (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you, Mathsci, that is all I wanted to know. SilverserenC 22:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This has nothing to do with fair treatment. This has to do with the fact that that list is against policy here on Wikipedia, which is quite clear. Any actions taken by other users either for or against the idea of "fair treatment" is not being neutral in doing so and should excuse themselves from the discussion. This list should be looked at as if it was made by a completely random user and whether, under that view, it should be deleted. I would think that it should be quite clear that the answer is yes. SilverserenC 19:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that enemies lists on user pages are suddenly just perfectly OK, then? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Indeed, i have added a space for WMC to have a statement be copied to the MFD page. He can still edit his talk page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Man people really need to WP:AGF [40][41] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Man, people must stop behaving in a pseudo-officious manner and templating the regulars, not to mention either being circumspect or pretending to be able to read the future. And you cite WP:AGF in this issue? Are you up for an irony award? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC) How is asking for WMC's comment "templating" him? SilverserenC 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Templating is a style of non-communication that does not require actual templates. It's characterised by a mock-impersonal style and a usually inappropriate pretension of officialdom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC) To be literal about it, TRA substed Template:Db-attack-notice and Template:Db-csd-notice-custom on WMC's usertalk.[42] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Yes because of WP:Twinkle The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) @Silver seren, Indeed, I have hardly edited anywhere WMC has and people are screaming bad faith, in fact in October I asked him for advice. Its not like I have an axe to grind The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think WMC's comments on the climate change AfD reach the level of attack or vilification evoked at UP#POLEMIC. If they do, it's probably enough for WMC to adjust the phrasing a little bit. My own reaction to that section is that it seems to point at systemic problems with the AfD process itself, among other aspects of wikipedia. The mention of individual users is secondary to that. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Even while blocked [43] the incivility continues. Will there ever be real, lasting consequences for WMC? Here's the thing, he does things he knows are wrong. He gets blocked for it. He makes nasty condescending remarks about the admin who blocked him, making it personal. Now that admin is too "involved" to ever be seen as neutral (especially by WMCs personal cadre of followers who relentlessly attack anyone who criticizes him) and the pool of potential admins to deal with his inevitable next incident of deliberately crossing the line is once again smaller. It's a neat trick, and I have to admit I fell for it and took the bait when I blocked him a ways back, only realizing after that I'd been had. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Apparently not "had" enough because you're still clamoring for him to be tarred and feathered just about everywhere you go. You've assumed a lot of facts not in evidence here ("he does things he knows are wrong.") and have generally stunk upcaused problems every place you've trod with your thinly veiled innuendo and vague pronouncements about how evil people who might disagree with you are. Vendettas aren't very fetching. jps (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC) This is very much a personal attack and I suggest you retract it. SilverserenC 21:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Support personal attack on Beeblebroks. I'll make another: of all the fatuous posts in this thread, Beeblebroks' post just above is the most fatuous; the most predictable in matter, the most hackneyed in style. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC). Is this edit [44] any better? Mathsci (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC) And an administrator said that?! Ouch. :-O [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC) No, nor this. Let's make a list. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC). What part? When I said he stunk up every place he trod? I wasn't being literal, but seeing as how some don't take well to that level of complicated metaphor, I'll retract that bit. jps (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC) There is no positive purpose to that page. It lists people that he dislikes and people that have disagreed with him. While it may not list personal attacks against them, I can see no positive purpose to the list existing. SilverserenC 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Pâte de coing, delicious with ewe's milk cheese WP:IDONTLIKEIT!!! jps (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC) No, WP:UP#POLEMIC. SilverserenC 21:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I must have stumbled into The Argument Sketch. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC) In Provence at this time of year, as part of the thirteen desserts, we drink vin cuit and eat pâte de coing; in Berkeley and its hinterland, I suppose properly adjusted natives might possible consume some kind of locavore oak-smoked alfalfa sprout smoothie topped with sushi shavings; in Denmark possibly Gammel Dansk; and elsewhere people might indulge in that highly dangerous beverage egg nog that figured earlier in this thread. But occasionally one can have too much of a good thing with unexpected results. Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) No you haven't! jps (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC) You just answered yourself. These diffs have not been used in dispute resolution and have, indeed, been on there for months, thus showing that they are not being used for that purpose. SilverserenC 22:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC) We just got finished a few months ago with an arbcom case involving most of the people on the evil, evil list. Many of these diffs were from after that case closed. Many of those diffs document legitimate concerns that WMC is not equipped for at least six months from the end of the climate change case from even petitioning arbcom to ask that they be dealt with. Some people are a glutton for constant WP:DRAMA. Others are patient. I don't think that giving, say, eight months lee-way to see what happens in that regard is too much to ask with respect to the keywords "timely manner". jps (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think adding any time they have been blocked has anything to do with the arbcom case. I assume you are talking about the climate change case? SilverserenC 22:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC) You don't do you? Well, there are other opinions out there as you surely must be aware. jps (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Motion for 3 month Civility Probation for WMC No need to keep this open any longer. NW (Talk) 22:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I propose that WMC be subject to a 3 month civility patrol. In the event that he makes any additional uncivil statements (or statements that appear to be uncivil) he can be immediately block by any uninvolved administrator for growing lengths of time. Basket of Puppies 19:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Support As nom. Basket of Puppies 19:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I've heard this guy in debate/lecturing style in a social situation and have huge respect for his expertise. However, his influence (and that of some others) on these articles has become harmful. I've made repeated efforts to improve the presentation of the topic and found only obstructionism. I've abandoned the effort. Whether WMC is the main problem or only the most obvious I can't say but reigning him in is overdue and necessary. Sorry, mate. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose As there's been controversy about bringing this concern here, I don't believe this is the best approach for WMC to get the message. This is probably appropriate at a future date if he gets brought to WP:WQA. I, like Wikipedia, and am not a crystal ball, so I hesitate to impose further sanctions at this time without additional action by WMC.--GnoworTC 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) It paints a target on WMC's back. He will get get into trouble quick enough as it is if he steps out of line.... Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Administrators can already do this without recourse to this motion. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) "Civility patrol"??? Does that mean that WMC will have to do around patrolling for violations of civility? C.f. my comments about incompetence above. jps (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC) As per Tijfo098, this seems to me to be what would happen anyway though with some degree of judgement required by an admin as to whether a particular incident merits just a warning or an immediate block. Just like with anyone else, we don't need specific consensus to say they can blocked for incivility and I don't think it is a good idea to say that any uncivil comment can result in a block because I think in some cases a warning might be more appropriate. Adambro (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Let's not encourage civility blocks. Until incivility raises to the level of outright harassment, other responses are better. Jehochman Talk 21:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Agree with Jehochman - I'm dealing with real harassment now and this isn't even close. KrakatoaKatie 22:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Hah. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Sock wave I would very much appreciate it if some of the editors whining about alleged or trivial infractions would also help patrolling the climate-related articles from the permanent influx of obvious SPA socks. See e.g. Special:Contributions/Staterii, Special:Contributions/Melktoast, Special:Contributions/Fendi99. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Nobody cares about stuff like that. In fact Arbcom (or at least Risker) came out strongly on the side of Scibaby in the Climate Change decision. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Moving forward Wikipedia is on a downward spiral. We now have artificial civility issues, topic bans for experts etc. etc., while the encyclopedia itself is rusting away as Stephan Shulz points out above. The only way this is going to change is for editors to violate any measures taken to enforce such non-issues. So, Admins should unblock William right now, regardless of consensus and William and other topic nanned editors should violate their restrictions. Admins should unblock them against consensus for topic ban violations. That will destroy the ridiculous ArbCom system that exists right now. Only then we can build a better system; we can only move forward by first having a Bastille Day here on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Request This thread having lost its entertainment value and deteriorated into the usual tired arguments, can we now put a hat on it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC) No. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC). Dang. Are you sure? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Yes. I've only just gotten started with the personal attacks.[45] Bishonen | talk 01:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

J. Hartwell Harrison

User:Carmarg4 insists that the lead sentence in J. Hartwell Harrison must be the form that was used by the subject, and the citation be removed for fairly fixable reasons. I have directed him/her to WP:MOSBIO in edit summaries, and even posted a note on his/her talk page, but it has since been removed and ignored, and my edits undone. Since I don't want to start a WP:LAME edit war, I've decided to bring it up here. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Carmagh4's last edit, protected the page, and posted the following on his talk Please stop removing information. The correct first name is better than an initial, and a cite without an author is better than none at all. I've protected the page pending ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection seems a little excessive. Was that what you intended? I think Carmarg4 needs to be encouraged to discuss issues like this before we reach ANI. Could the article be unprotected now and we see how things go on? Adambro (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Aside from this action being perhaps too big a hammer, the way it was handled (reverting to a version that appeared in the middle of the edit war and leaving a talk message that supports one side) feels contrary to WP:PREFER. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In my view, we have no source showing Dr. Harrison used the name John himself, and therefore we cannot assume that his first initial stands for John. Also, in my opinion, a cite without an author cannot be evaluated on reliability or verifiability, and is therefore not acceptable.Carmarg4 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure tat this isn't a matter for ANI - it's more a content dispute. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely a content dispute - a warning to the editor and an instruction to discuss the matter on talk before making any more reverts would have been appropriate. Changing the page to your preferred version and then fully protecting it is not. Trebor (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in the citation I added - I can look for an author, but I'm not sure why you just couldn't look - it seems to be a book that it's from, which should be reliable.. Connormah (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you scroll up of the PDF, you can clearly see 6 authors listed - S. P. Desai, M. S. Desai, D. N. Wood, R. Maddi, S. Leeson and N. L. Tilney. Connormah (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that was a valid cite, and the claim that there was "no author" was completely spurious, I see no problem with the revert-then-protect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, read WP:PREFER. If a user's edits are "wrong" then talk/warn/block the user, don't protect the page. Trebor (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It was only my intention to protect until the matter was dealt with here. It was not a matter of "preferring" a particular version, I've never heard of this guy. It just seemed to me that repeatedly removing information and a citation was not good faith editing unless the name or cite were obviously improbable or wrong. Anyone here can remove the protection if they wish. I'm being to remember why I normally only visit this page if asked to do so. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, I was being a bit blunt and focused on procedure. Assuming both editors were acting in good faith, I'm not thrilled by a revert and protect (just because it makes the "losing" editor feel a bit powerless); but you explained your reasoning (which was perfectly sound) and said it was temporary "pending ANI" so it was fine really. It's not exactly a critical issue. Trebor (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The protection on a preferred version was a minor procedural error. I wouldn't worry about it too much. If someone really wants to be fussy, then revert Jimfbleak's edit through the protection, leaving the "wrong" version protected. The protection itself might have been slightly out of order too, but in this low-activity article, since the protection is already there, I'd say to minimize drama by leaving the protection in place (up to a day or two) while the issue is sorted on the talk page. That avoids a lot of hostility such as 3RR warnings, blocks, etc. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reduced it to a one-week full protection. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Carmarg4 has done good work on the article and shouldn't get discouraged. S/he just has to understand that a biography normally documents all of a person's names. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Unresolved

 – Activity continues, apparently.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ClemmingsEnd (talk · contribs) needs an indef block and all edits removed as they are blatant hoaxes. They are very elaborate, but links provided as "references" go nowhere and are there purely to deceive. Thanks, AD 17:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, ClemmingsEnd looks like a sock of Jake Picasso (talk · contribs) to me. They seem to share the same M.O. - JuneGloom Schmooze 00:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they haven't all been checked. (I tagged a page of his for speedy deletion as vandalism not long ago.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the same person, right? DarrowFebal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there a checkuser in the house? Are there other sockpuppets spewing similar hoaxes? I strongly suspect that Gary Howard is a hoax like the others. Antandrus (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope I have not gone overboard, but I have blocked User:DarrowFebal and deleted the new article. This is likely not a coincidence. Review welcome --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You were right. Turn over a log and see only one bug, and you're probably not looking hard enough: look at this for the archive, and check out these enormous categories: [46], [47]. Looking at a few of the contributions, it's obvious that it is all one person. Apparently a range block is impractical. Antandrus (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this one is the earliest known account. Reaper, the picture is on Commons, and has been there for a long time. It was probably chosen randomly for the hoax articles. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following are the same person, and indeed, Jake.picasso:

• ClemmingsEnd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ken Donovan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DarrowFebal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PoleKobe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SherbotLemon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 15:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! To anyone else helping with this -- always remember to check what-links-to for anything you delete as a hoax; this person often adds those links using an anon IP (typically BT Internet), for example most recently 86.170.56.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and you can catch a lot of other nonsense that way. Antandrus (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a really good idea. In fact it was the re-use of the photo that tipped me off that this was another fake article, so I checked to see if the pic was in in any other articles. We could watch-list the whole set of vandalised articles and get alerted to further activity that way, too. You should come to ANI more often, Andtandrus. Verrrry helpful stuff. :) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Era warring

Earlier today I found a series of edits by Scoobertjoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Hanukkah in which he changed the era style from BCE/CE to BC/AD first diff, second diff, third diff. I checked his contributions and found a few other examples of the same thing, so I reverted them all. He responded by reverting all my changes to his preferred era style (diffs:Hanukkah, Begging the question,Yemenite Jews, Rainbow, Humanism) and leaving this unhelpful dissertation on my talk page explaining why he's right and the guideline is wrong. I've dealt with this kind of disruptive editor before and nothing ever convinces them to stop, short of an indefinite block only to be lifted upon a promise to stop changing era styles (which they never agree to). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note on the user's talk page. Steven, there is no reason to assume this person is going to behave a certain way, or to call them disruptive right out of the gate. You need to assume good faith. The person thinks they are doing us a favour, and they have not read our style guidelines. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing BCE/CE to BC/AD on articles connectred with Judaism does not strike me as a "good-faith" activity. Those changes should be reverted, if they haven't been already, and if he keeps it up, throw him to the wiki-lions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Baseball, above.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I also note that his user ID looks like a subtle slam at Jews; and that he's got a peculiar editing history, of which spot-checking indicates no useful edits at all. He started this BC/BCE thing in the fall of 2009 or so, so he's obviously come to wikipedia with an agenda, and might well also be a sock of other editor(s) who've been on this rant in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure all the changes got reverted. You make some good points, and the editor should be watched. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that he hasn't read our style guidelines and is trying to help us goes far beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith, since he made that post on my talk page and reverted back to his preferred era style after I pointed out the guideline to him. Please take time to look into the history of a notice before replying. As I said, I've dealt with this kind of problem before, and I've only ever seen one course of action that resolves it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

His username is a semi-subtle way of saying "Dog Jew", which is unacceptable, and I've reported him to WP:UAA for it. As I said there, I think he needs to be not only indef'd, but also SPI swept for socks. But one thing at a time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Steven, Baseball, and Epee. The editor in question is using WP as a battleground and self-righteously showing no consideration for other perspectives. The WP policies are designed to keep such behavior in check. This looks like a clear case where strong sanctions should be applied. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

May I also point out that the rant he posted on my talk page is copy and pasted word for word from this article on an online encyclopedia project for right-wing Christian home-schooled middle schoolers. Checking his edit history will also show that he prefers American spellings over British (a favored hobbyhorse of the Schlafly crowd) on an article about Formula One racing. Nope, nothing disruptive about this guy, it's just a perfectly innocent attempt to improve the encyclopedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed his change from "tyres" to "tires" just to Americanize it for no good reason. He also posted a number of editorial remarks about cars, with no supporting source, but that's minor stuff. His first time messing with the BC/BCE thing came in October of 2009,[48] and he's only edited sporadically, at least under that ID. Since that rant is a blind copy-and-paste, maybe its contents could be looked for in other places in wikipedia? In any case, thanks to his editing topics, we've got a pretty good idea where he lives. If he won't stop, maybe I should send my cousin Vito up the Hudson, to "explain" a few things to that boy. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not necessary, Bugs, but I'll say one more thing. Dianaa, I just noticed that your account was only registered in October of 2009, so you may not be familiar with the history behind this. There was once a HUGE battle on Wikipedia about this very topic. It went on for weeks (if not months) and the only way anyone could find to stop it was to declare a cease-fire, leave all existing era styles as they were and deal harshly with any cease-fire violations. This whole thing was a large part of the reason Andy Schlafly and his allies decided to take their marbles and start Conservapedia in the first place (that and American v. British spellings - I know, lame). Anyway, the basic policy (as far as I understand it) is that to keep this kind of thing from breaking out again, it's necessary to come down hard on anyone who tries to reignite it. Suffice to say the copy-paste from Conservapedia and the nature of the edit-warring make it pretty clear to me where this guy comes from and what he's trying to do.

But, you're the admin. I trust your judgment. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this inquiry has now been escorted away by the Indef Angel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys; good catch. I guess I was being a little naive, as the battle of which you speak was before my time. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm in assuming good faith. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to drag this out unnecessarily, but I figure his copy/pasting the entire text of a Conservapedia article to my talk page is some kind of copyright violation, so I redacted it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Might it be worthwhile to see if that copyrighted text appears elsewhere within wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it does. I found the Conservapedia article by doing a google search on the first paragraph in quotation marks and got this one hit, so I figure it's ok. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If it did, it might have led us to some socks. Or lemmings, at least. No such luck, it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Looking more closely at the quote he cribbed from fascio-pedia, he copied it so blindly that he failed to notice a typo where they said "rules" instead of "rulers". What a loser. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I googled [common era has no real meaning "common era has no real meaning"] and found a number of entries in various websites that had parroted that site, many of which seem to be based on earlier versions of the article or on the original version from that Aschlafly character almost exactly 4 years ago (which figures).[49] However, only the site itself turns up when I google the mistake: [birthdate of one of their rules "birthdate of one of their rules"] The mistake was introduced on May 21, 2010, by a user named WillS.[50] Looking at the article's history, it's interesting that one valiant user said Aschlafly's original work read "like a Cotton Mather sermon."[51] Now, having been to that site a number of times, I must go get some Lysol and disinfect my machine. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There's one thing they apparently do that I agree with 100%. They apparently require registration to do any editing, even on talk pages. On that score, they've got wikipedia beat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as convinced as you are that IP edits are evil. Conservapedia these days make it very hard to sign up at all, and their rules about blocking are draconian. I made one, only one, post to Conservapedia ever: Someone asked whether its founder actually went to Harvard Law School. I said, "Indeed he did, and he in fact worked under Barack Obama". Five-year block from Andy himself. PhGustaf (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix

A few days ago I opened a complaint here about Lanternix (talk · contribs) and their continual and repeated edit-warring and use of unreliable sources (archived here). In that thread Vassyana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) wrote further incidents of edit warring should be rewarded with week-long plus blocks and/or month-long plus topic bans. Since then, Lanternix has continued to edit war at a number of articles, and has repeatedly used unreliable sources. In the article Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians, Lanternix has continued the edit-war he had been carrying on with another user. Reverts since the prior ANI are [52], [53], [54], [55]. At the article Criticism of Muhammad, Lanternix has revert-warred to maintain unreliable sources, rvs [56], [57] (that reverted the prior 2 edits), [58], [59]. Included in the "references" Lanternix added is the website answering-islam which has been called a hate site by more than a few people. On Egypt Lanternix has also been edit-warring to maintain a collection of unreliable sources and op-eds and ignoring the complaints of several users on the talk page. The latest reverts are [60], [61] and [62]. Finally, on the talk page for Egypt, a sock of a banned user had made a comment. I, as is common practice and in keeping with WP:BAN, struck those comments. Lanternix has edit-warred to remove the strike-through, effectively meat-puppeting for a banned user. The reverts are [63], [64], [65]. Within the last week, after being given a "final" warning, the user has continued to edit-war and has even violated the 3RR yet again. A very long block of this user is long overdue, and I request that it finally be made. nableezy - 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I became aware of User:Lanternix on a WP:AE request about Nableezy, where Lanternix removed all Egyptians from list of Arabs [66]. Lanternix appears to be the garden variety of nationalistic/ethnicity-focused edit-warring POV pusher who spares no bullets [67] in his WP:BATTLE. Someone Wikipedia could well do without. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An additional revert at Arab Christians: [68]. This user has demonstrated that they will revert to no end, restoring non-neutral material sourced to unreliable sources. The user was just warned about continuing these actions with the warning saying that further incidents of revert warring would be met with extended blocks. nableezy - 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And you demonstrated that you would lie to no end. The revert was accompanied by this.--λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I request that the user be blocked for an unambiguous personal attack. I did not lie, and I do not appreciate being called a liar. That you left a note at the user's talk page does not magically make it so that you did not edit-war at the article. nableezy - 23:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you block people for saying that others lied on Wikipedia, then I would request that User:Nableezy be also blocked for accusing me of lying, accusing me of meatpuppeting, (twice), insulting me by accusing me of working out of retaliation, and for blatantly insulting me in edit summaries by calling my changes tendentious bs and vandalism. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of lying, and the edits you made were tendentious bs, arguably vandalism, and you were meatpuppeting for a banned user by repeatedly restoring the comments made by a sock of a banned user. None of this changes the fact that you made an unambiguous personal attack, and did so here of all places, and should be blocked. But that is the minor point, the larger one is that you deserve a very long block for continuing to edit war following a warning that if you did so you would be looking at week-long blocks and month-long topic bans. nableezy - 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You did accuse me of lying as stated above, and all the above are examples of personal attacks on me and insults against me, none of which were appreciated. Mind you that other Wikipedia administrators have already expressed concern about the incivility of your insults against me! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that a statement you made is false does not in any way compare to calling somebody a liar or saying that they lie. Also keep in mind that another admin wrote the edits that I called "tendentious bs" and "vandalism" are inexplicable. But this is getting way off topic, which I imagine is the point of all this. This section was opened to deal with your repeated edit warring and generally tendentious behavior. I await an admin to comment about this and I am on pins and needles to see if [this warning meant anything at all. nableezy - 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My experiences with this user are limited to Criticism of Muhammad. There, when I attempted to delete some paragraphs which seemed to be novel or unsupported interpretations of primary source material, I met resistance from three other users, including Lanternix. Though I admit I have been somewhat aggressive in attempting to rid the article of this material, I believe I am acting fully in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Initially, Lanternix argued that the sections were appropriately referenced. When I pointed out that the sections used no secondary sources, he seemed to relent, but responded by introducing a number of self-published and unreliable sources (e.g. [69], [70], [71], [72]). Thus far, he argues that "these sources are perfectly reliable" though he has not used any Wikipedia policy or guideline to support his statement. I'm not sure whether this user is simply ignorant of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards, or simply chooses to not abide by them. Planuu (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I dealt with Lanternix at Pan-Arabism, where she/he engaged in exactly the same behavior: Lanternix edit-warred to preserve a poorly written polemic chock-full of WP:OR that was sourced to web forums and opinion columns at non-reliable sources. For an editor who has been here since 2006, Lanternix demonstrates a tremendous ignorance of WP:V and WP:RS. Lanternix seems more interested in promoting her/his POV than in following our policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by User:Lanternix

User:Nableezy continues their edit warring on this site, either expecting everyone to agree with them, or going around filing complaints about them. Of note, the user was blocked for 72 hours, only recently, for edit warring with other users. The user's block history for edit warring speaks for itself.

Recently, User:Nableezy has been insisting to removed a very relevant section from the article Egypt, in accordance with this user's general trend of downplaying any relevant information pertinent to minorities in the Arab World and Israel. In fact, User:Nableezy is currently topic-banned for a few months from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, and I believe this includes Egypt. The user has been repeatedly violating this ban, and a complaint was recently filed against them because of this. No action has been taken yet with regards to this complaint.

Regarding the user's recent complaints about my edits on Egypt, please refer to the page's Talk Page, where you will find that multiple users have been arguing against the reverts that User:Nableezy insists on instating. After the user called all the references provided unreliable, we (myself as well as other users) proceeded to add what we believe are definitely reliable sources including CNN, BBC, der Spiegel, the Associated Press, ABC News etc. Unfortunately, User:Nableezy continued to insist that these sources were unreliable, and as a result went ahead today - in spite of all the discussion on the talk page - and again removed the entirety of the disputed section, including all of the aforementioned sources added on the talk page by multiple users. Admin Vassyana was made aware of this problem on their Talk Page#Egypt.

The other pages on which User:Nableezy is accusing me of edit warring do not even deserve a reply. On Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians, this is clearly reversion of vandalism from a single user whose contributions are EXCLUSIVELY reverts of my edits on the same page (the user refused to even participate to my complaints about their edits on the Talk Page). Moreover, my edits on Criticism of Muhammed are hardly an edit war, as can be seen from my contributions to the article's Talk Page. On neither of these pages did I, at any time, violate the 3RR rule.

I have had it with User:Nableezy making the environment on Wikipedia hostile for a number of users. I believe it's about time for them to be undergo a long-term bloc (longer than just 72 hours this time, since this clearly did not change their attitude). I will be filing a complaint about the user shortly with the evidence provided above. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 21:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You realize the block you reference was not related to edit-warring and was lifted by the blocking admin as a "fuck up" (his words) on his part (see here)? This is typical of the above, bogus assertions made that any person that looks at will quickly see are false. nableezy - 22:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix and Nableezy blocked

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

I have reviewed the evidence provided by Nableezy. It shows that Lanternix has edit-warred at Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians and at Criticism of Muhammad (in both cases the user with whom Lanternix edit-warred has not yet received a 3RR warning; I've now warned them), as well as with Nableezy at Egypt.

Taking into consideration that Lanternix has had seven previous blocks for similar edit-warring since 2007 (!), and agreeing with Vassyana's assessment and warning from the previous ANI thread, I am blocking Lanternix for a month. Any subsequent edit-warring should result in an indefinite block.

I would appreciate opinions by editors not involved in disputes involving Islam, Egypt or the Arab-Israeli conflict about whether a community-imposed topic ban against Lanternix about anything involving Copts, Arabs, Egypt and Islam might in addition be useful.

Nableezy was the other party to the edit war on Egypt ([73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]). Nableezy has a history of four (non-overturned) edit-warring blocks. Consequently I am blocking Nableezy for a week.  Sandstein  16:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unconvinced by the block of Nableezy - six reverts over a period of nine days, one of which was reverting an edit by a sock of a banned user, and two were reverting the addition of very dubious and completely unreferenced material? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, sorry Sandstein, on those diffs alone, it's a terrible block, seemingly a mistaken attempt at "plague on both your houses" evenhandedness. You could block most active contributors on Wikipedia with this level of proof. Rd232 ^talk 02:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, six reverts of substantially the same material is still edit-warring, no matter whether over a period of six hours or six days. The quality and sourcing of the material is not a factor in edit-warring blocks, except in BLP cases. But I'll be mostly offline for the next few days, so as far as I'm concerned any admin is free to lift this block if they feel it is not or no longer necessary. The reaction of the blocked user is at any rate encouraging, as is the fact that they stopped edit-warring and brought it here. (Addition: I agree that the revert of the sock is less of a problem, but the sockmaster NoCal100 (talk · contribs) is not currently marked as banned, and WP:EW has an exception for reverting banned users only.)  Sandstein  05:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The sockmaster has been indeffed since June 2009, so for these purposes should be considered banned. The six reverts are not "substantially of the same material". And we're not talking about exceptions for WP:3RR, we're talking about whether to interpret something as slow-motion edit warring, for which relevant talkpage discussion (as exists here) should be material. Bad block, please don't do the like again. I've unblocked Nableezy. Rd232 ^talk 08:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy

Inappropriate request, no evidence of actionable misconduct provided. Broad allegations are not evidence. This page is not for resolving content disputes.  Sandstein  16:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Nableezy continues their edit warring on this site, either expecting everyone to agree with them, or going around filing complaints about them. Of note, the user was blocked for 72 hours, only recently, for edit warring with other users. The user's block history for edit warring speaks for itself. Recently, User:Nableezy has been insisting to removed a very relevant section from the article Egypt, in accordance with this user's general trend of downplaying any relevant information pertinent to minorities in the Arab World and Israel. In fact, User:Nableezy is currently topic-banned for a few months from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, and I believe this includes Egypt. The user has been repeatedly violating this ban, and a complaint was recently filed against them because of this. No action has been taken yet with regards to this complaint. On the Talk Page of Egypt, multiple users have been arguing against the reverts that User:Nableezy insists on instating. After the user called all the references provided unreliable, we (myself as well as other users) proceeded to add what we believe are definitely reliable sources including CNN, BBC, der Spiegel, the Associated Press, ABC News etc. Unfortunately, User:Nableezy continued to insist that these sources were unreliable, and as a result went ahead today - in spite of all the discussion on the talk page - and again removed the entirety of the disputed section, including all of the aforementioned sources added on the talk page by multiple users. Admin Vassyana was made aware of this problem on their Talk Page. I have had it with User:Nableezy making the environment on Wikipedia hostile for a number of users. I believe it's about time for them to be undergo a long-term bloc (longer than just 72 hours this time, since this clearly did not change their attitude). I will be filing a complaint about the user shortly with the evidence provided above. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 21:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If somebody would like me to respond to this nonsense I will be happy to do so. But as it was simply copied and pasted from the above Id rather not do it in two places. nableezy - 22:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) You forgot to say that the editor who filed that complaint against Nableezy, User:mbz1, was indef blocked for filing other frivolous complaints (see ANI thread above). Besides, asking that Nableezy be punished here while the AE thread is still open appears to be a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I did not see anything about User:mbz1 being blocked for a different reason, but regardless, I do not see how this pertains to Nableezy's repeated violations. Besides, you can call it WP:FORUMSHOPPING or not, this has no bearing on the facts provided. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Forum shopping isnt quite right, bad faith retaliation is a much better description of Lanternix's actions. This is something those of us familiar with this user have seen time and time again (see for example this, which an uninvolved admin said was "clearly filed in retaliation" for this). No worries though, hopefully the section above will deal with it. nableezy - 22:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Nableezy did not remove [79] the entire section as you claim, Lanternix. He removed some over-the-top unencyclopedic language from opinion pieces which are stated as fact in Wikipedia (usually a no-no per WP:NPOV), while leaving the more factual stuff from WP:RS in place. "Christian Copts are under severe pressure and siege, and usually live in fear for their lives" (in Egypt) reads like a fear- or sympathy-mongering op-ed not a Wikipedia article. I don't see why this edit requires admins to intervene. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC) However it is done, having the discussion as to assertions w/regard to Nab's behavior in one place to the extent possible, as Nab suggests, does seem to be the better approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I quote myself when I say: "in spite of all the discussion on the talk page - and again removed the entirety of the disputed section, including all of the aforementioned sources added on the talk page by multiple users." Please note the word disputed. Yes, he/she again removed the entirety of the section disputed on the talk page, along with all its references. You cannot say that he/she removed "over-the-top unencyclopedic language", he/she removed entire paragraphs as can be seen! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I hereby copy+paste the entire section removed by Nableezy, to respond to Tijfo098's claims that the user removed "over-the-top unencyclopedic language from opinion pieces which are stated as fact in Wikipedia"!!! Please note all the CNN, BBC, der Spiegel, Associated Press, ABC News and other references in the section repeatedly removed by the accused user: Extended reading The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. “ Coptic Christians are minimally represented in law enforcement, state security and public office, and are being discriminated against in the workforce on the basis of their religion. The Coptic community, as well as several human rights activists and intellectuals, maintain that the number of Christians occupying Government posts is not proportional to the number of Copts in Egypt. They are also the victims of discriminatory religious laws, anti-Christian judges, and anti-Christian state police. Anti-Christian laws include laws governing repairing old churches or constructing new ones, which are usually impossible tasks, requiring presidential permission to build a new church, and a governor’s permission to renovate even the bathroom in an already-built church. Anti-Christian judges tend to "legislate from the bench". An example includes an Egyptian court's refusal to grant Muslim Egyptians who convert to Christianity identity cards that display their new religion. On the other hand, converting to Islam does not even require going to court. Copts are denied equal opportunities in recruitment and promotion. Very few are appointed to key positions in the government, and political parties almost never choose Coptic candidates for parliamentary positions. In addition, enrollment of Copts in police academies and military schools is heavily restricted. Along the same lines, very few Copts are granted positions as school teachers or university professors. ” “ Moreover, Copts are usually on the receiving end of anti-Christian hate crimes, the number of which has been rising since the 1970s. Since Mubarak took office in 1981, more than 1,500 violent attacks against Copts left thousands of Christians killed and injured. The violent anti-Christian attacks in Upper Egypt during the 1990s forced thousands of Copts to flee to larger cities in Egypt or to immigrate; a form of unrecognized ethnic cleansing. The last 10 years witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale of anti-Christian hate crimes, including a number of massacres such as the 2001 Kosheh massacre and the 2010 Nag Hammadi massacre. Copts also complain that the Egyptian government and the Egyptian judicial system are doing little to punish such attacks on the Coptic community, failing to prosecute the criminals, and thus leading to further persecution of the Copts. For instance, all the criminals responsible for the 2001 killing of 21 Copts in Kosheh, most of whom were children and women, were set free by court oder. Minor Coptic girls are particularly targeted by abduction and forced Islamization by fundamentalist Islamic groups. ” References The very diff you link to shows that he did not remove the entire section, please take this back to the article talkpage, WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN. un☯mi 22:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Do people NOT read what I say? Didn't I just put " disputed section" in bold? What more can I do? Can someone maybe show me how to highlight or underline words, please?! Yes, the entire disputed section was removed, not the whole section on Christianity in Egypt, if that's what you mean! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I must admit that when you wrote "I hereby copy+paste the entire section removed by Nableezy", I was expecting all of the text that you paste to be regarding the removed section. As for sources; I would be surprised to learn that any of these are considered RS for anything but attributed opinion: http://www.metransparent.com/old/texts/elkosheh_violence.htm http://www.atour.com/news/international/20010514e.html http://www.meforum.org/2599/egypt-persecution-of-copts http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/21/ahmed.chane.christians.muslims/index.html Which you may recognize from the section that was removed. Rather than edit warring over this you should remain calm and take it to the proper noticeboards for feedback, this is *your* responsibility as you are the one seeking to add the information. un☯mi 23:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC) No this is NOT my responsibility, because I am NOT the one trying to remove the information. The info is pertinent and has been there for the longest time until the user tried to recently remove it. And thanks for mentioning 4 sources and ignoring the other 15 removed by Nableezy! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 23:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) While removing sourced information that is presented in a neutral narrative is considered disruptive, that is not really the scenario you are presenting us with. You would have been on much better footing if the material that you wish to see included on the article did not contain questionable sourcing. Please take these matters up on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. un☯mi 23:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, and what if you remove what you call "questionable sources"? (Noting that many would disagree with you on that) Aren't you still left with 15 other reliable sources that still endorse the same material? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 23:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Lanternix, stop trying to impress people with the name of your sources. CNN publishes opinion pieces as well as news, and http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/21/ahmed.chane.christians.muslims/index.html is clearly an OPINION. You cannot state whatever those two guys say as unattributed fact in Wikipedia. Either you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to contribute here, or are WP:POV pushing. Either way, you're not improving the article. Your teaming up with Mbz1 and the other pro-Israeli/anti-Nableezy editors who just happen to show up here or there is just aggravating the WP:BATTLEGROUND. These Copt/Egypt articles are full of crap like this that other editors removed before [80] but you keep adding back [81]. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Tijfo098, if you're attempting to scare me away from adding reliable sources to my material, that won't work. And if you're accusing me of teaming up with pro-Israeli/anti-Nableezy editors (which is not true), you are doing nothing but the opposite (teaming up with anti=Israeli/pro-Nableezy editors). In all of the links you provide above, I have done nothing wrong. These are all statements backed up with references. The fact that they tell an aggravating truth may not appeal to you, but it is the sad truth, nonetheless. I have no problem discussing the reliability of specific sources. In fact, this is what I was doing on the talk page of Egypt. But to tolerate massive deletion of sources material as demonstrated above has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of sources, and is just one more attempt to hide some of the true facts about Egypt. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 23:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Looks like a normal content dispute to me. The issue is not whether CNN is reliable, but how the opinion presented by CNN expressed is conveyed in Wikipedia. Blank reverts aren't nice, but sometimes if the material is too POV, it must be reverted until such time that it is written in NPOV form. - BorisG (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writers. is at the bottom of that CNN page. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) When an RS such as CNN publishes the opinion of someone who "is currently the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University in Washington, D.C., the First Distinguished Chair of Middle East and Islamic Studies at the US Naval Academy, Annapolis, and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution" and is "is considered 'the world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam' by the BBC Radio 2 'Good Morning Sunday' programme" then it might be considered impressive even if not exactly scary.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Article

I believe that the Glenn Beck article page is the subject of editbullying and a place where many well meaning editors are driven off by partisans on both sides. There is a small group of regular editors there, who essentially police the page, and remove reasonable content. Given the controversial and public nature of the subject, I suggest more rigid third party mediation on that page. As it is now, it is essentially impossible to contribute anything meaningful. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Has mediation been considered, either via the Mediation Cabal or the more formal Mediation Committee? –MuZemike 03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The other participant in the Glenn Beck discussion refuses to enter into mediation. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing, personal attacks, and a general lack of attempting other solutions does not leave me inclined to participate in any such process with the editor.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the article continues to be at the mercy of Cptono's blockage. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You do wonders for my ego. And you continue to canvass, BTW. Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying

Can someone put an end to this? A user keeps somehow thwarting Xlinkbot by throwing an unnecessary YouTube link on I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying. It's nothing but spam. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That aggravation is the price you pay for being a deletionist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What?! Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on his deletion, today, of an image I had posted 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Council45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(edit conflict) The user in question is Council45 (talk · contribs). This user has made only about seven edits since January 2010, all of them edits to add a link to the video on that same article TenPoundHammer mentions above, so it looks like this could be called a single purpose account. The user has a red-linked user page, and the entire contents of his/her talk page are notices about the link he/she has been trying to add to that article. Who knows, this may even be the person who made that video, and wants to put a link to it on Wikipedia. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blockable or no? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. However, considering the number of reverts he made on the article within the past few months to get his link back on there, he may well be violating WP:3RR.

Note: The user under discussion here had not been notified yet, so I just notified him/her a few minutes ago. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't violated 3RR, but he's an SPA who's waging a slow-speed edit war. If he reverts once more he should be dispatched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be that Council45 is also user:Rossdv. In the talk archive: Talk:Sting_(musician)/Archive_1#Invited_fans_on_stage, and in the mediation archive:Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-15_Sting_(musician)_trivia. It looks like simple self promotion to me. HumphreyW (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a WP:LINKVIO. Taping musicians in concert may be common, but that doesn't make it legal. I'll explain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Youtube will take down copyrighted stuff if the violated copyright holder complains. Instead of fighting this character directly, would it work to report that violation to the folks who run Youtube? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not the responsibility of a Wikipedia editor to patrol YouTube. It is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to patrol copyright violating links on Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it's our responsibility; I asked, "Would that work?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if YouTube will respond to any John Doe off the Net with copyright concerns, I think the copyright holder would have to be the one to make the first move, and that doesn't address the problem that as long as the copyvio is there, it should not be linked to from here. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, some artists are fine with people sharing audio and video of their concerts, but I'm willing to bet that Sting isn't one of them. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Violent threats via email user

Please refer future questions from this editor to the Arbitation Committee, and/or Philippe or Christine at the WMF. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm frankly a bit astounded at this whole situation and not sure what to make of it or how to handle it, but in a four hour span this afternoon I received a series of extremely vulgar, angry emails from (according to the footers), user:Erik fielding (with whom, as far as I know, I have never had any dealings, especially since their join date was today). The subject lines were all along the lines of "Fucking garbage with many artists's descriptions" and "Are you a fucking piece of shit, not replying to me?" and the last email of the series culminated in the following threat: "If you continue to ignore my two very nice letters (one via email and one in your sick forum), I will find you, regardless of what I have to do to accomplish that, and assuredly put you in the hospital. [...]I am totally honest and trustworthy and never lie or go back on my promises. And, I assure you that if you persist in ignoring me, refusing to reply to my questions via email, and causing me pain and suffering, I will put you, whether you are male or female, in the hospital." The email also expresses regret that it should be necessary for him to have to physically harm anyone right before Christmas. The sender provides what he claims is his real name, email address, phone number, and address. Could very well be false info or him trying to get someone else in trouble, or could be real, I guess. I'm at a medium level of freaked-out-ness right now and not sure what to do from here. Request admin action to block user? Contact police with the identifying information given in the emails? Is this something that goes to the foundation? Checkuser? Arbcom? I have the emails and can forward them as needed if someone lets me know where to send them off to. I am not attempting to inform the user of this discussion. I'm sure that makes me a bad Wikipedian and I'm aware it's not obeying the giant orange banner, but I'm a little scared right now and I will not be contacting him, period.keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Notified, though I suspect the account was set up solely to gain access to the emailuser function. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Risker has blocked the Erik fielding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, so I will merely note that that account is surely [suggestion that turned out to be incorrect redacted]. Gavia immer (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I guess it could be them as much as anyone, Gavia immer, but what makes you think that particular user is the culprit? (ETA: I ask because the emails the user sent me did not mention that article, and were mostly focused on various musician and song articles that they thought were wrong, unlinked, or such things) keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC) He's the article creator and is probably angry that you "de-rhapsodized" it. False alarm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) No relationship between ... and the person behind the threatening account; also no reason to think that there is a relationship there. Contrary to the belief of some, threats of violence toward specific users because of article edits are quite rare. Incidentally, I concur with Chaoticfluffy that there is absolutely no benefit in notifying those who are making email threats; this is a situation where block first, ask questions later is entirely appropriate. There may also be no relationship between the username and any person with that real name; however, given the circumstances I have blocked with an informative summary, recognizing that it may require suppression in the future. Risker (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Well, you know the email contents and I don't - I was guessing based on their ownership behavior on that article and the fact that it's recent enough to have inspired an attempt to contact you. That account does not seem to have an interest in music, though, so it's not them. (After ec): Risker has the bits to know what's up. I'm completely wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Did the OP consider writing back with a 'de-escalating' email simply to say that s/he didn't mean to offend the other editor, that s/he doesn't own the article or control its contents, and that policy governs changes though they're open for discussion'. I don't think anyone should have to cower to threats, but sometimes ignoring someone who is yelling at you and not totally with-it is not the best short term strategy. Ocaasi (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Replying to the email would disclose your own email address to them, which is not a good idea - as well as then having more personal information about you, they could also carry on the harassment and threats by ordinary email, without having to use the Wikipedia mechanism and without being able to be blocked from it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I don't use anything but a throwaway account for Wikipedia email, so I wouldn't be too worried about that myself. Still, it's just as reasonable a strategy to ignore it and let the higher-ups handle whatever is necessary. Ocaasi (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, many people do use a throwaway account - I use a disposable one myself. But it can be inconvenient to actually have to throw it away, as quite a few of us do communicate with others using our Wikipedia email. Also, I've been working in online communities for a good few years, and I honestly think the serious nut-jobs are best ignored - the psychologies of such people are so different to most of us, that trying anything we might deem rational usually only leads to frustration -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Tester

It has come to my attention that this article (section Notes on Contestants) could be under attack. Recent editor activity and current event nature. It may turn out to be another internet celebrity war. -- Cat ^chi? 14:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just deleted that section, looks like a BLP violation, some unsourced, others sourced from a private website. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Range block request

Resolved

See WP:ANI#Would a rangeblock work here? above. Since my last post there he's come back with another IP. I don't want to sp my talk page, but I'm going to if we can't range block - which I think we should if feasible since he's impersonating and vandalising other editors. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

An e-mail to the checkusers mailing list might get faster attention on this than the post here. Unfortunately from a timing perspective, also, a number of people are going to be away or busy for the holiday. Nonetheless, hopefully this can be looked at very soon by a CU with the right expertise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

True. I took your advice and emailed the cu list, and my email was automatically rejected as evidently I'm not allowed to post to it, although it should be open to anyone to post to. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Please send the e-mail to me and I'll forward it, along with a request to figure out what the heck is going on. (And now I really must be out the door soon or I'll miss my train.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Three different accounts/IPs on three different ranges, albeit similar ISPs. Unless massive disruption occurs a range block doesn't seem possible. Brandon (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Vintagekits seeks unblock

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested an unblock.

There is a long and contentious history here, so may I suggest that it would be best if this unblock request is not hnandled by any single admin? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request should be summarily declined for not addressing the block reason and in particular per WP:NOTTHEM. No opinion on the merits so far.  Sandstein  17:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein, here. I see no hint of a change in behavior. T. Canens (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. Given all the hassle and disruption this user has given us over the years, and given the sheer number of absolutely final no-going-back last chances this user managed to game his way out of before he was finally shown the door (at least three), I see no reason why we should have to go through the whole rigmarole again. That's aside the issues that Sandstein notes with the unblock request. Pfainuk talk 17:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: "The actually block was malicious in the first place" should not be accepted as part of an unblock rationale. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock No compelling reason given, user was hugely disruptive (possible record for most blocks?) and the community finally decided that the bad outweighed the good. No reason given to re-consider that position "Time served" is a completely invalid reason and the accusation of bad faith on the behalf of the blocking admin (not sure if that was aimed at me or whoever the now-vanished final blocker was) seals the deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock (non-admin) "time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway" is a ridiculous unblock request, especially when many of the problems that lead to the block seem to have involved incivility and a refusal to work with other editors in a respectful or productive manner. ClovisPt (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support extremely conditional unblock - sorry, but yeah. While I'm not overly impressed with the unblock rationale or lack thereof, Vintagekits has had a history of positive contributions to many articles, especially professional boxing. Were he to be unblocked, I'd require a complete and absolute topic ban away from articles directly connected to Irish or British politics, as well as articles that are Troubles-related. Furthermore, he'd need a community-appointed mentor that would be not of his choice. Were this to go ahead, I'd like to see 3-monthly community reviews and if there were any shenanigans he would be banned from the project. This would need to continue for a year at least. In short; VK is capable of collegial and positive editing - I've seen him do it before, He would, however, need to be extremely restricted in what he could be allowed to participate in. I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I've worked with VK (not always cordially) for a long number of years now - have blocked him, have argued with him, and have been involved in dragging him up in front of ArbCom for one of the longest Arb cases we've had on the project. Nobody is beyond redemption & by way of illustration, I've recently un-indefblocked his POV-pushing counterpart on the other side, with noted success. I'd like to see more discussion and debate before this is summarily closed shut - I can see it heading that way already - and I'd like to invite more admins who have been involved with the Troubles dispute to take part and weigh in here - Alison ^❤ 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Alison but those editing restrictions are going to have to be nailed down really tightly. The Troubles, obviously, and I would probably suggest anything to do with the BI dispute as well, just in case. Also, no editing of projectspace pages at all unless directly related to him (per previous issues at AfD/ANI etc). I'm sure there's more, but it's late here. I'd like to see a decent unblock request though, with an idea of what VK intends working on if unblocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Though I respect Alison tremendously, I think that unblocking any user who throws this much blame around and refuses to acknowledge that their own actions are their own responsibility serves no net benefit to Wikipedia. Good, quality edits can be made by users that do not behave like Vintagekits, whose actions only serve to drive away those very editors. --Jayron32 01:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The unblock rationale has no trace of any desire to change their ways, quite the reverse.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question for Alison and anyone else supporting an unblock: just how many times do you want the community to have to repeat this cycle?
  The WP:NOTTHEM unblock request announces a continuation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, but that alone is a relatively minor point in this case. Surely there is a limit somewhere to the amount of drama that the community has to endure from any individual. Vintagekits has has numerous final-final chances, and has blown them, despite explicit warnings that he was getting an absolutely final and irrevocable last chance. Yes, VK has made some great contribs to boxing articles, but Jayron32 is right to note that drama such as VK's drives away other editors, who don't want to give their time to such a hostile environment. The endless dramas also waste hours of other editors' time in discussing and invoking the admin processes, and in monitoring and reading the many huge threads it generates at multiple locations; VK-style drama imposes huge costs on wikipedia. As to Black Kite's suggestion of editing restrictions nailed down really tightly, well ... we've tried that several times before. Despite having been involved in several disputes with VK, I strongly supported the first such unblock-on-strict-terms (see User talk:Vintagekits/terms) on the strict understanding that it really was a final chance. Why repeat this cycle when we have so much experience of where it leads? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Opppose The proposal to unblock Vintagekits only reinforces the idea that productive, conscientious editors are expendable peons, whereas troublemakers like Vintagekits deserve to be mentored, cultivated, and lavished with our time and attention. It's time for that to stop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, VK is both productive and a troublemaker. If we could ensure he's only able to be the former and not the latter, I think it's worth a try. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But it has already been tried, at least twice, with a huge effort put into drawing up the conditions set out at User talk:Vintagekits/terms (which itself followed even lengthier discussions about whether to try this path). Why do you believe that a further attempt is any more likely to exceed than the hugely time-consuming efforts so far? Is there evidence of a change in VK's attitude? Or some great idea for new terms? Or some better enforcement mechanism?
      Note that so far I have just asked, and not opposed, because I am assuming that you and Alison would not want a return to the Groundhog Day cycles of the past ... but so far I don't see anything from either of you explaining the basis for what looks to me like a triumph of hope over experience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Boris and BHG. I see no indication in the unblock request of a more collegial attitude -- quite the opposite, actually. The correct "time to unblock" will come when the editor indicates their understanding of the disruption they've been responsible for in the past, and makes a credible pledge not to do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• oppose unblock No. No. No. I remember all too well the drama. Coupled with "the actually (sic) block was malicious in the first place"? He needs a heavy dose of clue first. KrakatoaKatie 04:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock There is nothing in the request for unblock that acknowledges their past behavior. MarnetteD | Talk 06:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - a block log as long as your arm and over a year to contemplate, and he still doesn't get it? Bettia (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has done this today...

Merry Christmas! Thanks to everyone for helping keep us sane over the past year and for allowing for fun on this noticeboard. Have a great holidays! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Off topic canvassing. This should be a the miscellaneous village pump, you won't get any support by canvassing here. </sarcasm> Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Cavalry's off-topic vote (for this user is clearly voting, which violates at least 18 acronyms that I can't be troubled to remember now) and encourage Santa and his elves to leave Cavalry a very large lump of coal. :P Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

On the 1st day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: a WP:CANVASS!

On the 2nd day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!

On the 3rd day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!

for the curious, AAANID is similar to WP:AAAD and WP:AADD.

On the 4th day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 4 WP:CIVILs, 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!

On the 5th day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 5 WP:NPAs! 4 WP:CIVILs, 3 WP:AAANIDs, 2 WP:VPMs, and a WP:CANVASS!

I'm out of ideas now. (X! · talk)  · @988  ·  22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye, and a Merry Yaksmas to all! —DoRD (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all and to all "where's the ham?" :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that "WP:AAANID" stands for "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in A.N.I. discussions". X-D Who knows, we may even need something like that. :-D ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, everyone! Hope Santa was kind to you all! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC has been closed prematurely

The RfC, which was started by me on Dec 22 [82], has been closed on Dec 24 [83]. The user who closed this RfC referred to the fact that initial discussion started on Dec 2 [84]. This rationale is flawed in my opinion, because the normal RfC duration is 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template), this dispute has not been finished and the discussion was not dormant. More importantly, the RfC has not achieved its initial goal, namely, the outside input was minimal by the moment of its closure (mostly those users who took part in the previous discussion expressed their opinion there). My requests to self-revert the RfC closure have been ignored [85][86].
In my opinion, the RfC, which has been closed prematurely, should be reopened and the user who closed this RfC should not be considered as an uninvolved user any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please tell the whole picture, you started this topic on December 2, you made no progress let the discussion be archived because you where the sole person with your point of view which goes against policy. You re-started the same discussion again and others have stated its just beating a dead horse which I agree and why I closed it. WP:SNOW may also be relevant too. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I commented on both discussions. Yep. The issue has been debated on and off for 23 days (for anyone else looking, this was the previous discussion) and practically every editor who has commented has explained (in some cases, they've had to do this multiple times) why your proposed addition to NFCI is not tenable. Clearly, if someone thinks there is still useful debate to be had, then re-open it, but I think that the closer's rationale that WP:DEADHORSE is being invoked here is correct. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is supposed to proceed according to some formal rules, and these rules state the time is calculated based on the the first timestamp after the RfC template. In addition, the reference to the discussion that lasted from Dec 2 is quite illogical: obviously the reason behind RfC (that, by the way, was initiated following the advise of another participant of this discussion, Hammersoft) was to involve new users, whereas most users who expressed their opinions during this two-days-long RfC were the same users who participated in the previous discussion. In addition, from my previous discussions on other talk pages I know that the point of view expressed during this RfC is not shared by a significant part of WP community, however, I couldn't address directly to those users, because that would be canvassing. However, we definitely need to give enough time for these users to join this discussion.
Obviously, the RfC hadn't achieved its primary goals by the moment of its closure, so to close it now is both against the rules and common sense. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I wouldn't object to it being re-opened on purely procedural grounds, but I do feel that the discussion has run its course, because the RfC has just ended up re-hashing all the viewpoints from the previous (longer) discussion - with the same result. (Incidentally, if you really wanted more eyes on the issue, it would've been better to post it at WP:CENT). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that during the discussion about the same subject on other talk pages the opinions differ considerably from those expressed during this discussion. Based on that I conclude the preliminary results of this RfC hardly reflects the opinion of WP community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the close was fine, per Black Kite. From what I've seen, there is nowhere near consensus to change the NFCC, and this has been made clear since earlier this month. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

From your comment I conclude you hardly read the discussion carefully. I never proposed to change NFCC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Effectively you are, though, because your proposed NFCI#9 (and remember NFCI is only a guideline, not a policy) would conflict with various parts of NFCC, notably #8. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong. I explicitly wrote that the proposed NFCI #9 (as well as already existing examples) is supposed to deal with only those images that meet all NFCC criteria, including the criterion No 8, so such conflicts are impossible by definition. The problem is that current NFCI list covers not all major cases of acceptable use of non-free images, and this leads to prolonged disputes on other talk opages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If an image meets all the NFCC criteria, including 3a and 8, why does it matter if that type of image is explicitly mentioned at NFCI anyway, though? And NFCI is only a guideline anyway. Could you give an example of such a dispute over an image that meets all of NFCC? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The reason is simple. I faced the situations when the NFCI #8 has been used as a pretext for removal of non-free images that had a strong contextual connection to the sourced discussion in the article's text and served as an illustration for significant historical events. These images were removed because they were not a subject of commentaries per se, despite the fact that NFCC were met (and despite the fact that NFCI is a non-exhaustive list of the examples of acceptable use of NF images, so if they do not meet NFCI #8, it is not an argument per se). To avoid similar problems in future, and because the cases described by me are the examples of acceptable use (per NFCC policy), I propose to include this example into the NFCI list. If someone believes that NFCI #9 can be misused (only good things are possible to misuse), let's re-word it to make it stricter.
In addition, the WP:NFC#UUI example #5, that de facto prohibits to use non-free images as illustration of historically significant events, is in direct contradiction with the Foundation's stance on the non-free content and applies the restrictions on the usage of non-free photos that do not exist in the policy. We need to re-examine this issue and to decide if that really serves WP purposes.
I would say, the main advantage of the NFCI #8/WP:NFC#UUI #5 is that the combination of these two examples simplifies the life of those users who specialize on removal of inappropriately used NFC: these rules are rather formal and, as a result, they are easy to implement without going into the details of the concrete article's content. However, this medal has a reverse side: these examples create problems for the users who work on historical articles, and the balance between the interests of these two groups (which currently is shifted towards the formers) should be observed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I simply made a typo. Is that a crime, now? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No crimes, I just thought you made your conclusion without reading the discussion carefully. I am glad I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The objective of RfCs is to attract outside editors if there is a dispute. In some cases this results in a change in consensus and should be allowed to run its course. If the editor making the RfC is clearly wrong then the RfC will establish that. I would let it run its course. However it could be rephrased because it seems hard to follow. TFD (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I feel I fall on the same side of opinion on the issue of the RFC like with Black Kite or Delta, as Four Deuces points out above, the RFC is to gain wide consensus on an issue instead of limited set of editors (in this case, most that have strong interest in maintaining the NFCC the way it is). NFCC and NFCI reflect consensus, and while I know how most of the NFC regulars feel, they're not the only voices. The only thing we have to watch for is the Foundation Resolution on non-free images, what Paul is asking for doesn't seem unreasonable to consider within that. (This situation is reminding me very much of the date delinking issue with a limited set of voices claiming they were right). This is not to say Paul's attitude is helping, but the RFC should run the course. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of this discussion, and I'd like to comment on it. I'll go and ask the closer if they are willing to re-open the discussion to allow comments to be added. Carcharoth (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat on User talk:Stephen

Hi. User:Barnaby1919 makes what appears to be a legal threat on User:Stephen's talk page with this edit and this edit. The edits are long; the relevant parts are "so have a think about whether you want legal action to be taken against you or not" and "of course if i have to persue a human rights violation action against you the costs of the verification process involved in the case will be charged to you. not to me." As a side note, I have no idea what this is about. ClovisPt (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the quick action. It seems like User:Stephen gets a lot of hostile traffic on his talk page, he could possibly use more talk page stalkers, at least to throw some NPA warnings around. Merry Xmas, ClovisPt (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this person may be a BLP subject. Possibly? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Google cache of the article he wrote about himself, I'm inclined to think that he hasn't yet met the notability requirements, although that could of course change as his career advances. I am sorry to hear about his car, however. ClovisPt (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, we could learn something here - we could certainly cut down on the unreferenced BLP backlog if the references just said "My article was written by me and is verifiable by asking me". Pure genius :) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Internal Server error wikipedia

See WP:VPT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Getting a error on various Wikipedia pages. IT has to do with a COM of somesort. Sorry if this is the wrong page, it most likely is, but what is it? --Hinata talk 21:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Weird, I've been getting this a lot too. — Moe ε 22:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC) The databases on most smaller wikis have been locked for now; synchronization issues, some diffs have been lost over the past two hours. I checked on IRC, they're working on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC) IRC is the best place to go with that kind of thing (#wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.org). Alternatively, WP:VPT or bugzilla.wikimedia.org. Bugzilla should usually work even if Wikipedia itself is down. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC) I reported this on VPT hours ago. No one said anything yet. Not sure why this is at ANI. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

75.65.40.180/Xinbei/New Taipei

I blocked 75.65.40.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours for what I considered to be disruptive editing (including copy-and-paste moves) regarding the Xinbei/New Taipei controversy. (For the underlying factual dispute, see Talk:Eric Chu (the mayor of Xinbei/New Taipei) for more details.) But now I am not sure whether I was too embroiled. I'd appreciate it if someone else not otherwise involved can review the situation. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - stopped the edit warring. KrakatoaKatie 04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Server errors

Resolved

 – I should have read up the page. Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed an increased incidence of internal errors from the servers tonight? I have been doing a lot of fast editing on images and am seeing it pretty frequently. Kelly ^hi! 05:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See the above thread "Internal Server error wikipedia", which has been closed, as the discussion is currently at Wikipedia:VPT#Weird_error_on_loading_WP:VPT. Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. My bad. Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

SPA promoting Dana Ullman at Charles Darwin article and elsewhere

A single purpose account, User:BeatriceX (Contributions), has read a Dana Ullman speculative commentary linking Charles Darwin to Homeopathy and Homeopathic dilutions and is spamming talk pages to point out, against community consensus, that the Ullman article and a quote from Darwin should be included somewhere in wikipedia. She refuses to read or understand the fact that the Ullman article is listed by its journal as a speculative commentary ("Evidence-based CAM will publish in the section Hypotheses-Conjectures-Comments papers proposing hypotheses that are interesting but still lack certain evidence. The paper can be purely speculative, ....").[87][88][89][90] She says she's not attempting to promote homeopathy and that what she is adding is not about homeopathy, but her first section title on Charles Darwin talk was " Darwin and Homeopathy ,"[91] and she is posting on the Homeopathy talk page[92] and the Homeopathic dilutions talk page.

She has been asked and warned to stop her WP:Disruptive editing.[93][94][95]

She is spamming talk pages at Talk:Charles Darwin (→"Darwin and Homeopathy ", and ‎→Darwin experiment on High Dilutions, when the first attempted failed), Talk:Dana Ullman (→Ullman's article on Darwin and Homeopathy - wikipedia), Talk:Homeopathy (→High Dilutions and Darwin's experiments), Talk:Drosera rotundifolia (→Darwin and Drosera), and Talk:Homeopathic dilutions (→Darwin's book on his experiments with Drosera and Ullman's article). She has posted the same passage from Darwin at least 4 article talk pages seeking a place in wikipedia to add this quote.[96][97][

The Homeopathy and Dana Ullman articles have both been the subject of arbitration hearings.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy I think a ruling in the Homeopathy case is applicable to the current situation:

"1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited."

This user is a single purpose account, single-mindedly devoted to adding Ullman's interpretation of Darwin to any possible article on wikipedia.[98] She's making personal comments about people, bringing up other stuff, and generally disengaging editors from editing and into arguing with her. It's disruptive, completely. Considering the nature of the arbitration proceedings, the amount of time wasted on pointless discussions, her refusal to read wikipedia policies, her game playing with other stuff, and her subsequent failure to understand policies from her not reading them, I think it is time for a non-involved administrator to step in.

--Kleopatra (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, she registered only two days ago so perhaps she's just a bit over-enthusiastic. Maybe some uninvolved, experienced editor could offer to adopt her?Six words (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And encourage her to read a single paragraph of policy, rather than arguing against all the ones she hasn't bothered to read.... --Kleopatra (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what's needed here is a bit of coolness and calmness. We have a new user who may just be enthusiastic about something she thinks should be included, so we should assume good faith. What I think we should do is back down from shouting at her and criticizing her style, and demanding she reads this and that page of the rule book. We should just state clearly what is wrong with including this material, and not just keep repeating ourselves. And then back off a bit and give others time to join in - it's still a holiday, and not much time has passed yet since the start of the discussion, and as long as there's no edit-warring going on in the actual articles themselves, there's no urgency. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

1. BeatriceX (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) could be a ban evading sock puppet.
2. I am going to notify them, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions, that they will be topic banned if all the soapboxing does not stop.
3. We don't need users who come here to Right Great Wrongs and import real world battles. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious AFDs

Matthewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated two articles for deletion, and then immediately opposed the deletions and accused himself of being a sock. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugnut (Transformers) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Run. Don't know if it's just plain dickery, or a compromised account, or what. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's one of our standard trolls (Wiki brah/Rainbowwarrior1977/Courtney Akins etc.) Note the extra "t" in the username; it's not Mathewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This kid's usually a number 7. I'll block the latest if no one else gets to it as I'm posting this. Antandrus (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I really like the April-Fools-Day-featured observations Antandrus just linked to and apparently wrote! Especially #60. betsythedevine (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And I've closed both deletion discussions per WP:SK #3. —DoRD (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)