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

Continuation of Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)/Barong

After reading the history below and given some recent events I thought I should bring the gross incivility at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) to attention.

I am inexperienced with linking diffs, but these are the most flagrant lines in the discussion: "fuck that. I'm a person and I will not let you list me there "don't be a troll".

In addition there are massive assumptions of bad faith, and many diffs that while not being particularly objectionable in terms of language or personal attacks, are still leading to an atmosphere of stunning incivility on that discussion. Specifically there are a lot of 'wink and smirk' type comments ( 1 2 3). While not being on their own worthy of a ban or other action they show the level of discourse quite well. using winking emotes and baiting while linking to irrelevant RfCs to cast aspersions are not the kind of behavior I'd expect from an editor who has been warned for his behavior.

Given everything below it seems that consensus was to allow him an account to edit under and "try to get it right", his immediate engagement in personal attacks and contentious editing obviously show that further action is needed. Rather than turning a new leaf the user seems to have immediately started a contentious repeat MfD and acted extremely poorly in its course. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The MFD may not succeed but it has received some endorsements and is perfectly reasonable. The comments cited may not win any awards for civility but aren't beyond the pale, given the circumstances where Barong believes the list is targetting people (including him, before he removed his name). Rd232 ^talk 00:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that it does, given that he was given the ability to create an account below with "the hope he turn over a new leaf" and immediately went to work insulting, insinuating and instigating. It's clear he does not understand the behavior expected of him and his return to incivil editing merits another look at the community ban proposal. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, HominidMachinae. Perhaps you do not realise that Barong often adds a wink to his edit summaries. He is not smirking or being smart, it's just a thing he does. The above diffs, while they show he was angry, hardly seem to warrant opening a ban discussion. The recent one failed, after six days on the board. I am pretty sure the community is done with this thread and these recent diffs are not alarming enough to warrant a community ban. I would suggest you allow this thread to archive without responding any further. Thanks. Sincerely, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've said my peace I have nothing more to add, I just felt it should be added given what was said under the resolution before about turning over a new leaf, ect. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct if I'm wrong. Is Barong & Jack Merridew the same editor? GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. cf User:Barong. Rd232 ^talk 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume the Barong account will be blocked. Why isn't the IP blocked? GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume too much, and why on earth should that IP be blocked? ;> Barong 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Another recent example is "yes, we know you're a wp:dick, colonel ;". I agree with HominidMachinae that this is not the behavior expected of an editor who is being given yet another last chance. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• HM's prolly another sock.
  Moar clueful eyes needed at:
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination)‎
  It's wiki-game-play with the intent of creating a class of attack page that can survive an MfD. Rangda 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I was wondering who Rangda was and find it is yet another name for this same editor. What is the smiley for rolling one's eyes? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this user doing? And why? And what reason is there to allow him to continue? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Same user account he changed his sig. N419BH 06:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But he is supposed to have only one account, yet makes no effort to keep to one account, makes almost no main-space edits. The discussion below seems to claim that the situation is a mess. Personally I don't see that. It's a rude trolling sockpuppeteer. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

you're talking nonsense. i have tens of thousands of useful mainspace edits on dozens of projects. I have more mainspace edits to the id:wp than you have to the mainspace of this project. and do not forget that we've met, before: Tu-154 crash, for example. Barong 11:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As a side note since forgetting to sign back in after a session expired the people voting for deletion over at the linked MfD are convinced I'm a sockpuppet of some retired/banned/whatever user or a user on the RIP list. I consider accusations of sockpuppetry to be the height of assuming bad faith, especially over a simple mistake any user could make. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

HM, this is a prime example of what Barong is up against. The stigmata seem to encourage other editors to run to ANI and stir up drama for any perceived offence, however minor. If you think a user is being uncivil, there are ways for you to deal with that. If your think that a user is not following a policy, or even (heaven forfend!) a guideline then there are ways for you to deal with that too. Heading straight to AN/I to seek blocks, bans, public whippings etc. is not the first step in dispute resolution. pablo 11:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he *is* uncivil, and using multiple accounts, and he was unblocked through an agreement with Arbcom which he has now negated. And yes, there are ways of dealing with this. What way do *you* propose? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me to be using precisely one account.
What I suggest doing re incivility is the same as you would do with any other editor - discuss, warn etc. What I suggest not doing is attempting an end-run round an ongoing Arbcom case. pablo 11:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

think dude knows about wp:A/R/CL? ;> Barong 12:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@HominidMachinae, the reason people think you have been here before is not because you forgot to log in, but because of your unusual pattern of editing for a new user. Of your 200 edits, most are to wikipedia-space: most people do not end up at an obscure MFD discussion on their 200th edit.

@OpenFuture: Rangda links to our article on a Balinese goddess queen. You have used an incorrect link! User:Ranga is an unused account with no edits. Barong is not editing with multiple accounts.

@GoodDay: Why would you assume the Barong account would be blocked? The user was specifically told by an Arbcom member to open a new account. --User talk:John Vandenberg#Jack ;)

@Everybody: The case is now before Arbcom. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

you mean User:Rangda, although sulutil:Rangda is more interesting. Barong 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

John *asked* nicely. Barong 15:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)

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.

Further discussion at this point serves no purpose. The ban discussion has been made moot by what appears to be something like a return to normality (there is an ongoing Arbcom discussion to confirm). It's in the interests of all to see if this mess can be left behind, which means giving the user a certain chance, under the new account (User:Barong), to show that they can get along. Rd232 ^talk 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

---

While there was an active ANI thread about the behaviour of 125.162.150.88 (talk), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive692#Editing_from_125.162.150.88_.28Jack_Merridew.29, the IP was blocked for edit warring on Template talk:Rescue [1]. After not editing for a few days, the IP has gone back to similar behaviour:

• 4RR on Template talk:Rescue [2]
• See also: [3] [4]

This IP is apparently an editor who was previously banned by arbcom for harassing editors Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick and for socking Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Request_for_clarification_and_indefinite_block_of_Moby_Dick.2C_April-May_2007. The user was unbanned Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion under an agreement. The IP withdrew that agreement [5]. (Under the agreement he was allowed to edit from only one account, User:Jack Merridew. See also [6].)

This editor attempts to cloud the issues by claiming everyone else is harassing him, eg Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive692#Sortable_tables_RFC and [7]. Pursuant to [8] I have not notified the IP of this particular thread; the previous thread was only recently archived [9].

Although ArbCom is discussing this User_talk:Risker#User:125.162.150.88, User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Jack_.3B.29, enough is enough. Propose community ban. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG for all the insistent detractors would be the proper outcome for this. Gimme should be de-sysoped as unfit. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

• Oppose community ban. From what I've seen Merridew is more hasslee than hassler. Reyk _YO! 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew Let arbcom handle it, they unbanned Merridew, and imposed the account restriction he now seems to be disregarding. They get to clean up the mess. Chester Markel (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• I don't claim that stuff like [10] is acceptable behavior, though. Chester Markel (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. Some examples of his comments include:

as an unhelpful idiot; further rationale on my talk. Vulcans are supposed to have some sense, and SoV wadded-in on the side of teh toxic trolls infesting this site.

rv fuckwit; ya, you trolls have outted me)

His comments are not helpful toward building the encyclopedia and he appears to be trying to be semi-anonymous when acting as an IP, making inside jokes with his friends and then loudly claiming outing when anyone points out his publically known identity. Silverseren^C 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As noted above by Chester, Jack has also willingly decided to over-rule the Arbcom restriction, by his own words. Silverseren^C 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Without going into the specifics of this particular case, the Arbitration Committee will rarely stand in the way of a community decision to remove an editor from the project. Risker (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  But you'll stand in the way of a cluful editor who called you on your bad block of GregJackP and make a plain allusion to privileged information while warning me off. Jack 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk)

• Regardless of the ban proposal though, what is Arbcom's response to Jack saying that he won't be following the restriction? Silverseren^C 05:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as he's evading his ban. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• He can't be evading a ban, as he isn't banned. He is merely restricted to editing from one account. Silverseren^C 05:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well then, ban him for continuing disruptive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support community ban per Silver seren, subject to reversal if checkuser indicates this isn't him. No need to allow Merridew to continue his attacks. Chester Markel (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I am aware, User:Jack Merridew is not banned. His main account is indeffed because it was compromised, so even if it is him it is impossible for him to comply with the arbcom restriction to edit from "Jack Merridew" only. N419BH 05:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The edit restriction is to edit from a single account, not the Jack Merridew one. So, thus far, in editing just from his static IP, he has been following the restrictions. But now he made a comment to the case section that he is refusing to follow them, which presumably means he is now making other accounts. Silverseren^C 05:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The restriction limits him to the account Jack Merridew by name, with the exception of an approved bot account. His main account was editing on March 26, so checkuser might be able to determine if it was really compromised, or just assumed to be because of extremely disruptive editing. But if a compromised account were the only issue, he could have created a new one such as "Jack Merridew II" to comply with the arbcom decision to the best of his ability, and refrained from characterising editors as "fuckwits"[11] and such. His recent contributions have been most unhelpful. Chester Markel (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is a sad situation where an intelligent and potentially valuable editor with truly disruptive tendencies has managed to garner a lot of friends in high places due to his good aspects; which can be quite excellent. Those that have experienced and know his bad aspects are often at odds with his supporters: like we're talking about two different people . But there's no separating the good from the bad; and multiple editors have not been "harassing" him - that's absurd. It is ultimately ArbCom's call at this point, so I personally think a community ban proposal here is doomed. His increased negativity, game playing and marked incivility, especially over the last several months, has been unfortunate indeed. Doc talk 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  "sad"? "unfortunate"? Bullshit, you want more than anything to get me. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Look at the links to the off-wiki stuff. There's definite harassment and attempted, detailed outing there. N419BH 05:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Then he should have privately contacted arbcom, if the material could have been shown to originate from present editors. There's no justification for swearing at and insulting everyone. This needs to stop. Chester Markel (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)What off-wiki stuff? Are you referring to the link to a webpage made 6 months ago that he mentions himself [12] as a smear? He has posted on the Wikipedia the claim that his real name is "David", that part of one of the names of one of his socks even. And does anyone believe that's a real picture of him? Where would they find it at? Did he create that "smear" page himself, to then blame others for making it? Dream Focus 05:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Agree that the IP is running afoul of WP:NPA. No comment on the rest of it. A checkuser is not going to confirm whether or not an IP and a named account are related, as that would be a form of outing. I'm having a hard time judging this whole situation. N419BH 05:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
        • In that case, almost every participant in this thread would have to be blocked for "outing". The policy does not support such a spurious result: Merridew does not get to edit via IP, then claim that any linkage of the IP and his account via checkuser violates his privacy. The privilege of concealing one's IP address only applies to editors who take measures to avoid public disclosure, by editing through named accounts only. Chester Markel (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
        • He has openly admitted that it's him several times: this is not an imposter. Doc talk 06:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I cannot comment on that. Although any IP can say they're anyone; it's a frequent tactic used by trolls. N419BH 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree. Let's block the IP now for either being Jack Merridew, and disruptively editing, or impersonating an editor. The remainder of the issue can be sorted out when the accounts are linked via checkuser, great similarity in editing styles, or some other means. Chester Markel (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
              • It is the same person. He admits it. His close friends and non-friends alike know that it's him. The IP is in freaking Bali. Mystery solved. Doc talk 06:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm fairly certain it's him based on behavior pattern. Just playing devil's advocate for the rest. Nothing is confirmed here, we're still basing everything on speculation. N419BH 06:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • I realized who he was after his 26th edit and told him so. This was inspired by this, BTW. And, as I pointed out on another page, "See also: Lord of teh Flies"[13] on the RfA reform board isn't exactly hiding in plain sight. To claim "outing" after you said that, well... Doc talk 06:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                    • That one's in the checkuser policies. They won't publicly connect a specific IP to a named account. They might connect a large range, an ISP, or a geographic range. But revealing a specific IP could be used to determine the person's real life identity. N419BH 06:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                      • This situation does not require CU assistance. Doc talk 07:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                        • But what if it did? Is this the new way to sock Wikipedia: edit from an IP, secure in the knowledge that Checkusers will never connect it to a named account, notwithstanding that the IP is already disclosed when one is editing with it? Then such cases might have to be referred to arbcom, and the IP/accounts blocked with "please contact the Arbitration Committee" to avoid publicly associating the sock with the sockmaster. That sort of thing foists an impossible workload upon the arbitrators. If the privacy policy really is so twisted, which I doubt, then it urgently needs to be changed. Chester Markel (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see this recent statement from the AUSC. Risker (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a whole lot more complicated than some guy editing from his IP. If you really want to get the full perspective you'd better start looking through all the arbitration proceedings and ANI threads that have affected Jack and his sock drawer over the years. You'll also need to look through the contributions of the IP. For admins, this will be a bit easier as Jack had links to them in his now deleted userpage. There is a ton of information to digest. Some of it is good, some of it is bad. The whole thing makes me believe that this particular thread is missing the boat. There's a whole lot more going on here, both good and bad, that the regular ANI reader doesn't know. This is really one for the Arbitration Committee to handle. N419BH 08:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support His recent actions alone are justification for his banning. Dream Focus 05:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ban evasion isn't an issue here, as none of his accounts was banned, and the decision to limit him to one account is not really being violated in spirit, if perhaps it is in letter (per those above). It's his behaviour right now that's the real issue, with his outpouring of profanity directed at others, and this is going to eventually net him a ban if he keeps it up. I'm not in favour of a ban for the time being, since the normal results of this sort of incivility would be a short block, but I'm quite sure he will get banned if he keeps this up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Merridew's incivility does not occur on a blank slate. It needs to be considered in the context of the prior history of disruption which required Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion to be decided at all. Chester Markel (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But isn't deceiving the community via dodging scrutiny by using IPs an issue? How can WP:CLEANSTART apply here when we well know who this is? The only other question is, why is this being done? I am not going to pry, but I can see why this is irking quite a few people. –MuZemike 06:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scuttled" is listed as the userpage for the accounts. And clean start doesn't appear to be being invoked as the IP claims to be Jack. N419BH 06:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He claims to be Jack only when it suits him: otherwise it's off to the false outing/harassment claims. Who removes a SPI notification with, "rm wp:hounding"? Are editors supposed to know it's him, and not to "hound" him with standard notifications? Or what? Doc talk 08:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, I'd have the same thought except that he's self-identified as Jack Merridew, which means no deception. If he's previously been less than upfront about it, as some here have suggested (I haven't seen the whole history), then yes, that's a definite strike against him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack's been very open about his past. N419BH 10:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing as the committee is discussing this, is there an urgent need for admin action right now? Let Arbcom earn their inflated salaries. pablo 11:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  See also

  {{stuck}}: teh ac doesn't usually resolve disputes, it prolongs them. The emergence of the ARS is due to the failure of the two E&C cases. The 2005-ac borked my initial case with white cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Propose a temporary prohibition on his unregistered editing to go along with the one-account restriction. Should put a dampner on all this is-he-isn't-he disruption. Pick an account and stick to it, and let it be a record of your actions that you may be held accountable by, like the rest of us. Skomorokh 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support community ban explicitly set to terminate if ArbComm determines new conditions under which the individual involved is allowed to edit and the individual complies with all initial conditions set by ArbComm. This more or less resets the situation to where it was before he was previously unbanned by ArbComm, since his own actions to compromise his own account made the previous ruling nonfunctional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. A little recent history here. Recently David applied to have the last of his Arbcom restrictions lifted Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Further discussion and was treated rather poorly. Note in particular Coren's remarks. After this he decided to withdraw his services, a la John Galt. He quit using the Jack acct, switched to the Gold Hat account. No one blocked him for doing this. People on the arbitration committee knew that Gold Hat was David; I told Elen so myself. Fast forward a bit, to the discussion on My76Strat's talk page after his failed RFA. David makes a pointy edit that not only is RFA "borked", so is Arbcom. Elen eventually blocks him for repeatedly re-inserting this post. Apparently she thought it was just some random troll. Had she already forgotten who Gold Hat is? This was a bad block because the post was not vanalism or a personal attack. Meanwhile no decision is forthcoming as to whether David is to be permanently tied to the Jack Merridew account. Why on earth would he want to be tied to that account, when there are at least two libellous pages tying the Jack Merridew account to his real life identity elsewhere on the web? I would swear a bit too if that happened to me, trust me on this. But recent threads have proven though that swearing alone is not a blockable offense, much less reason for a ban. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban. I don't know Jack very well but I'm well aware of who he is. If he had come to Wikipedia with the expressed intent to restart his Wikipedia activity in a civil manner, from a new registered account (and only one account) I'd support that. But he's being openly defiant, he doesn't want to abide by the terms set when his previous ban was lifted even in spirit, let alone by the letter. His present behavior does more harm to Wikipedia than good. Much of what he's doing right now just boils down to a violation of WP:POINT, specifically where he says, "The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle." While the statement is true, this kind of activism isn't going to help anything. -- Atama頭 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban He is again, or is it still, thumbing his nose at everyone. He purposefully killed his two accounts and now he is playing games with everyone. This is ridiculous already, enough is enough, CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As per my usual position about draconian solutions. A "ban" is precisely the wrong sort of way to handle Merridew at best. Collect (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and immediately overturn block. Read the Arbcom restriction again. Jack is restricted to one named account "Jack Merridew". There is no restriction regarding editing "anonymously" from IPs. He's not socking if he isn't editing from named accounts. Furthermore, Jack has no access to "Jack Merridew" as he scrambled the password to it. All this was done as a result of an Arbcom decision to keep his editing restrictions in place indefinitely. Those restrictions stem from a 2005 arbcom case which was later proven to be messed up. Jack's been fighting his way back ever since. I think in light of these circumstances the fact that the committee hasn't accepted over two years of mostly stellar editing and has kept him restricted would make one just a wee bit upset, no? Civility issues yes, but nothing to warrant an indef. block. And he isn't violating any restrictions by editing from the IP. And we don't block IPs indefinitely. And he's stated that IP is a public wifi hotspot. So he's not the only one who might try to edit from it. Unblock the IP and let arbcom handle it. N419BH 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

See below, Arbcom have dealt with it; they unbanned him under an agreement he explicitly broke. IP editing has nothing to do with it – he is community banned. Skomorokh 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, per Diannaa and Arbcom's general ongoing mishandling/ignoring of this situation  pablo 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban - It seems as if Jack Merridew has decided that rules don't apply to him, that's the subtext not only of this particular set of incidents, but of his long editing career under previous IDs. I understand that some folks think that he is a good, or even excellent, content provider. I cannot gainsay them, since I've never looked into his contributions in that way, but I have no reason to believe that they're not correct. If so, then it's a shame that an editor who is otherwise such a benefit to the project seems to be constitutionally unable to act within the confines of the boundaries that the community has set up for itself, either directly or through their elected representatives. Jack has been given many chances to show that he wants to be a viable part of the community, and his ultimate response has been to thumb his nose at us each time. I don't believe it's any longer worthwhile to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• support ban Jack doesn't play well with others. There was an attempted deal that might have maybe had a chance to work. He's stated explicitly that he's not interested in that. This is enough already. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. Enough BS already; I've read the sub-threads below as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Just your average WP:DIVA. He's already getting too much attention here. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • fyi, I was involved in the issues that were the impetus of that essay, although it wasn't directed at me ;) Barong 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - and I agree with User:Diannaa's comments above. One of the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions was "2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing" which he complied with, and over the course of more than a year made thousands of edits that benefited the project. Then when he sought to have his restrictions lifted, he was treated shabbily and it seemed to me that reference to the Gold Hat account was flimsy and opportunistic. If he was, at that point, such a threat to the project, there should have been something stronger to point at than Gold Hat; Gold Hat's contributions were minor and innocuous, but rather than look at the good Jack Merridew had done, Gold Hat was the focus. If Arbcom was aware of the Gold Hat account and did nothing, couldn't that be interpreted as not opposing it? It would have been fairer on Jack if Gold Hat had not been permitted to edit from the start. If I was in his situation I'd feel angry and betrayed, and if that's what he's feeling, that's what's being seen in his recent edits. Rossrs (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban Jack has wilfully defied what he agreed to with the Arbitration Committee. The restriction is incredibly clear- one account and one account only. No Gold Hat, no IP editing. One account, and the name of that account must be Jack Merridew. Given his knowing disregard of that restriction, there is no other option- if you agree to clear set of unban conditions with the ArbCom, you must either keep them or be rebanned. --Courcelles 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  it is inappropriate to tie me to things such as http://www.pissitupthewall.com/2010/11/wikipedia-lock-your-kids-up.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban per N419BH and Diannaa, but implore Jack to stop the outbursts before he digs himself into an even deeper hole. -- œ^™ 08:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban Just the past week's pattern of grotesque incivility and personal attacks on other users and even an admin should be enough for a ban. However based on his history of wikihounding other editors with whom he has issues with, massive sockpuppetry, and routine incivility in edit summaries and talk page comments, it's mind-boggling to me that he's getting any support whatsoever. At no point has he been apologetic about past or current actions, and he seems to believe that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's time to end this toxicity.Shemeska (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Shemeska (user contributions), I'm curious to know what brings you here. Aside from 2 updates to your user page, your last contribution to Wikipedia was this comment at ANI also about Jack Merridew on 7 June 2010, which was your only edit for 2010 outside of your user page. You comment about "fellow travellers (who) defend (Jack) at each step of the way". Quite hypocritical, considering that your next edit, almost a year later is this one in which you join in with "the fellow travellers" who wish to see Jack Merridew banned. You're absent for almost a year and then when Jack's in trouble, not only do you know about it, but you feel compelled to comment upon it, while your interest in Wikipedia aside from Jack, appears currently to be zero. Well, I feel compelled to comment on someone who appears to be wanting to just join a lynch mob, but otherwise have no stake in the outcome. ANI should not be about people taking sides and casting votes to make up numbers, and I can't see anything more than that in your participation. I am curious how you knew about this ANI, and why in 2 years of editing, your edits consist of only 4 edits (2 adjustments to your user page, and 2 ANI comments supporting a ban of Jack Merridew.) Why are you so interested in Jack? Rossrs (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. (@Shemeska: and you seem to believe that there's a special rule about the heinousness of being rude to admins. "Massive" sockpuppetry? Oh, get a grip.) I expect it's too late: a new Peter Damian case (and what a waste was that?) seems to be already taking shape. The "Jack Merridew" case is all about timing: with exceptionally poor timing at the ban review motion, as if expressly chosen to humiliate a proud user, Risker and Coren expressed intolerant resentment of Jack's "defiance", of "thumbing one's nose", and "horsing around with collections of accounts" (yes? so? would you like to look Bishzilla in the eye and repeat that?).[14][15] I notice Atama and ChronieGal happily adopting these expressions above — altogether, this poll reminds me of the IRC discussions amongst poorly informed users I've listened to, of all the triumphs we can easily and cheaply enjoy against Peter Damian, heh heh. Risker's point that she would have been prepared to lift Jack's remaining restrictions if only it weren't for his "defiance" is downright depressing.[16] What kind of time was the ban review "Jack" had requested to say that? It was too late, as Elen of the Roads pointed out: "Jack" was already expecting the sanctions to be lifted, he had no reason not to expect it.[17] Because those sanctions were vestigial, they seemed to have no other purpose than to humiliate an annoyingly non-humble editor. So is that what the arbcom is about: humiliation? No, I don't think that. I think they do their best. Some of them merely suffered a disastrous failure of imagination in this case. :-( "Jack"'s anger and disappointment at this point is understandable; and, sadly, having been fucked over, he went on to angrily misbehave. He's doing the digging himself, which is why I fear a continued downward spiral, but certainly it was arbcom that handed him a spade and encouraged him to use it. P.S. I would take it as a personal favour if the users who are all over this thread — you know who you are — would rein themselves in a little. Do you really have the impression that your input here is winning hearts and minds by sheer vindictive repetition? Bishonen | talk 14:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC).
• Hold/Pause until this has been clarified. (thanks Sko). I did notice that the language from 125.whatever.whatever.88 got a bit OTT rough around the edges recently, but it seems there's enough confusion here to frustrate just about anyone. It's been a while, but IIRC, "Jack" was/can be quite a valuable content contributor, even though I seem to remember that he could stir up some ka ka from time to time. However, I don't ever recall him stating that he was out to "bring down WP" a la PD.— Ched :  ?  16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like the Arbs aren't going to answer that [technical] question. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per Courcelles and Shemeska, among others. This is an ugly mess, and I understand the opposers concerns, but from what I have read in this too-long thread, it appears that this editor is abusive and proud of it, not to mention flouting ArbCom. Long history of violations and personal attacks. Let's pull the plug here and now, as I am tired of this kind of user who pushes others away from the project. Not convinced banning an IP is bad either. Jusdafax 20:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per above. Guaranteed in a year, Jack will try to come back yet again to game the system with sympathetic arbcoms willing to give him yet another chance. Jack gets off-wiki blowback because he has a long history of being nasty to editors. Okip 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per above. I've never been able to understand why this person hasn't been banned and why they have been continually allowed to periodically show up and disrupt the project. If they really wanted a clean start and were going to play by the rules, they could have returned as an IP or new account, followed the rules and never been noticed. This has never happened, as they continually fall far short of acceptable behavior eventually. A community ban would let any editor revert unaccceptable behavior on sight. Such threads as this overlong nightmare will disappear, leaving only the occasional blip when someone acknowledges "Jack was here, blocked indef as sock of banned user, thread closed". Let him get his jollies elsewhere. Whatever he might contribute in worthwhile content is not worth his continued disruptive presence here. Heiro 02:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban if it's still being considered given Rd232's offer below and Jack's acceptance of it. As he has agreed to "register a new account, and to edit exclusively with that account" this seems like a reasonable way to meet the spirit of his ArbCom restriction (until and unless ArbCom says it isn't.) 28bytes (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, largely per Bishonen above. The whole story of the lifting the old sanctions, not lifting them, re-imposing them, protesting against them, trolling against them, replacing them with new ones, etc etc ad infinitum, has only been a perpetuated drama for drama's sake, and bears no relation to the actual, productive editing that we have seen from Jack in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Barong/Jack Merridew is an excellent contributor who definitely has a clue. We want to be retaining editors like him, not saddling them with useless restrictions. He has more than made up for past transgressions, and ArbCom's reticence in removing the sanctions makes no sense. If you muzzle anyone too long without need they're going to act out. Please don't drive off another good editor. AniMate 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I fail to see the reason to ban him. He has been open about who he is and tbh his incivility isn't that bad yet. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, and recommend that this discussion be closed. This thread in no way resembles a reasoned, balanced discussion about the merits of Jack's participation in this project. AGK [•] 17:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban Continuing and recent bad behaviour including edit warring using multiple identities, gross incivility, harassment and canvassing. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban: as my momma said, if you surround yourself with people like that, you're bound to turn into them.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  I liked Support ban worse than Sauron, better. See also: Rangda ;> Barong 12:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thread's dead, baby. Thread's dead.
  (although it's really helpful for the battleground-types to self-identify;) Barong 11:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In violation of unbanning conditions?

The history is a little convoluted, but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion seems to indicate that Jack Merridew's original ban was lifted with this condition:

User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account.

The amendment to this augmented the condition as follows:

User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.

As his February 2011 request for amendment failed, and he subsequently withdrew agreement to the above conditions, it seems to me as if he is editing in violation of the unbanning conditions and therefore banned. Am I missing something? Skomorokh 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; that's why I was confused when I started reading this ANI. Why are these motions being tried again here when a ban is already in force? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He posted his password, thereby corrupting the Jack Merridew account. Nobody put a gun to his head. People don't do that by accident - it's your password. By doing that he willfully broke the binding agreement to edit only under the Jack Merridew account on March 25, well before his declaration of withdrawal as an IP. Is the AC agreement binding? Doc talk 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a ArbCom motion which was passed by 9 arbitrators at the time, so yes. An indefinite block would be replaced on the main account, but obviously, that's a bit confusing given it wasn't the main account which prompted this. (Additionally, main account was blocked in March as "compromised account"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification filed on this point. Skomorokh 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since ArbCom couldn't make a consistent or intelligible statement regarding the Gold Hat account (first it was deemed OK then a few weeks later it was a "bad idea"), I have little faith that any "clarification" from them is going to do more than further muddy the waters. Assuming they succeed in putting together something that's not blatantly self-contradictory. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I have indefinitely blocked for several reasons - recent disruptive behavior, personal attacks [18], the likelyhood that he's now violating the prior arbcom findings, the apparent likelyhood that he's going to be community banned in the section above.

Subject to usual community review etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the right call. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He has specifically stated that he will no longer be following the restriction. For all we know, he could already have another account up and running, if not more. Furthermore, it is a common fact that we generally block people when they made statements saying that they plan on making disruptive actions in the future and Jack has specifically stated that he has decided not to follow the restriction anymore, thus this, combined with his other recent actions, show that he has become overly disruptive. And an indefinite block is not forever, GWH specifically stated that it is until Arbcom makes a decision or until this community ban proposal is decided. This is to mitigate the disruption that Jack has already been showing. Silverseren^C 20:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

An appropriate block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not appropriate. At best it's incompetent. Please read WP:IPBLENGTH. Any administrator worth their salt knows that we only indefinitely block IP addresses in extreme circumstances. Perhaps a block was warranted, but this isn't the way to do it. Even should the community decide the public hot spot IP Jack is using needs to be indefinitely blocked, there are templates that should be placed so it can be tracked because indefinitely blocking IPs is so rare. That didn't happen either. Even rookie admins know better. AniMate 02:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then can you fix the block so that it's still a block, but in the proper format for IP addresses? That shouldn't be too difficult to do. Silverseren^C 02:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the format, it's the length (or lack thereof) that's the problem. We only indefinitely block IPs in extreme circumstances, usually because they're an open proxy. Also, I don't think I should be the admin to deal with this block. I've had too many negative experiences with most of the complainers above and agree with too many of jack's positions. If anything, I'd prefer to give him a warning or block for a month. AniMate 02:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have unblocked the IP. Firstly civility blocks don't work and the length is way inappropriate to the offence. Secondly an indef block for a public ip is not an acceptable policy based action, thirdly I am not seeing a clear consensus to ban Jack above so blocking the ip for that reason at this stage is inappropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that you did not, as required, discuss the unblock with the blocking admin before undoing it, rather unblocked first and then told him that you had done it. Bad form, very bad form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

George hasn't responded to the comments on his talk so it clearly offline. We shouldn't ready do controversial blocks if we are not here to discuss them afterwards so I didn't feel that leaving a token message or waiting for him to come back was appropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, no one can ever do a "controversial block" if they aren't planning on being online for the next 12 hours or so?

Further, unblocking on the basis that "Civility blocks don't work" has nothing whatsoever to do with policy, and everything to do with your own personal opinion. You are free to have that opinion, and to avoid making civility blocks because of it, but it's not policy, and it's certainly not a reason to overturn another admin's block, especially without discussing it first. Your action was neither collegial nor appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither was the original block but we can leave a public ip blocked while we sit around waiting for George to come on line shall we? I'd be less inclined to unblock if it was a user account block but for an indef of an ip? No that's perfectly justifiable to act without waiting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that you investigated and determined that others beside Jack have been using this IP lately, and so are acting to protect their access to Wikipeia.

You did do that, didn't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Good unblock. Clearly the right thing to do. Reyk _YO! 04:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is he or is he not in violation of the AC agreement? Has it expired? Is it being ignored by the AC as well as Jack? We all have to follow rules around here, despite what IAR is often misinterpreted to mean. When you're on a restriction you abide by it, you don't play pointy games and make up your own version of the rules. Doc talk 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that he is. Reyk _YO! 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? I know that you've defended Jack in the past (from a quick search I just did), so without any explanation for your current comments, it looks as if you are just repeating over and over that Jack didn't do anything wrong without actually looking at or considering exactly what he has done wrong. Silverseren^C 04:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)How do you figure? He deliberately corrupted the accounts after his bid for a sock cavalcade fell through. Mind you, he said just two months ago, "These accounts are my history, and I'm not seeking to walk away from them."[19] Then he found out he couldn't have his socks. This horseplop about him being ashamed of what others say about him off-wiki is just ridiculous. His ED page has been up for ages. Doc talk 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He's stated that he's not going to comply with the unban conditions, and he's engaged in extreme uncivility. This shouldn't be that complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock confusion

I am somewhat confused on the unblock here.

I was online for some hours after issuing the block, contrary to Spartaz' comments. N419BH asked me to consider reversal and I did not respond to him, but that does not mean that I didn't read or consider his comment. N419BH made similar ANI comments before regarding Jack and they had been addressed in the discussion about the ban (and otherwise) above already. Nothing novel was in the unblock request other than that this was "Unblock him" rather than "Don't ban him". Admins are required to be engaged, but we're not required to respond to *everything*...

The unblock was apparently 9 hrs later. No, I wasn't online for 9 hrs after issuing it. Not a reasonable expectation.

The unblock seems to have hinged on three alleged flaws; one, that there was no consensus to ban Jack, two, that this was alledgedly a civility block, and three, that this was a permanent block on an IP. None of these was true.

This was a block for all of:

1. No personal attacks
2. Disruption
3. Violation of editing restrictions

The personal attack was clearly a personal attack - the exact phrase was "Oppose as an unhelpful idiot". This is not a civility issue, it's a personal attack. NPA is NPA.

A very large number of editors and admins have commented that his recent behavior was disruptive.

While there is still active debate about whether he's violating the editing restrictions, there is a majority opinion that he was. I don't know that it rises to the level of consensus, but it clearly has more "He's violating" than the alternative.

Regarding the unblock reasons -

1. There was an 8-2 expressed support-oppose opinion balance at the time of block, with significant additional discussion that by editor count was similiarly 75% plus supporting ban.
2. I used the phrase "personal attack" in the block message [20]. Civility was not mentioned once.
3. This was not a permanent block on an IP. It was an indefinite block, and I quote, "Until the situation is clarified with regards to a community ban, Arbcom decides to do something, or another administrator decides to override based on their review of the situation.". It was indefinite to indicate that it was not a short-term bandaid, not to violate our permanent blocks on IP addresses policy. In cases where IPs are effectively uniquely identified to a known problem user we're allowed to bend the IP block policy in any case, but in this one it was certainly acceptable to leave it "To be determined" while the rest of the above were sorted out. If you feel that it's grossly inappropriate to do so under the IP blocking policy, I ask that you explain how you think we're going to enact a ban if one is consensused-upon above? Do you think we can't ban him if he only uses IPs now?

Spartaz - The best practice here is to try to discuss with the blocking admin, or if that fails to get consensus on a noticeboard that the block was improper. We don't mandate that, but we do ask for admins to use due care and good judgement when acting otherwise. It does not appear to me that you used due care and judgement here.

I appreciate Jack's long constructive history as much as anyone else, but bending the rules to let him keep abusing people when he's clearly started doing so and indicated he has no interest in stopping was not a good call. Had the block actually clearly violated policy you could have gotten a solid consensus on that here within minutes. That the opposite happened should be an indication that this was a bad unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• It was a bad block for a start. You don't indef people while a ban discussion is in place and you should know by now that we don't indef IPs without a very good reason and calling Sarek an idiot is far from a good enough reason for that. Your whole argument presupposes that there is widespread support for a block and there wasn't. Blocking while there is an ongoing discussion is just bad manners and substitutes your opinion for a forming consensus.We already know that you are pretty much the most extreme proponent of the civility block here and that your opinion does not therefore represent a community consensus. You should have proposed the block before enacting it and then listening to consensus on it. There was no justification for acting unilaterally when there was already a discussion in place. I don't see a consensus to ban and 70-80% including a number of very involved editors is far from a consensus for a community ban. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to avoid "very involved editors" - the closing admin is supposed to factor in prior entanglements, but that does not mean or equate to disenfranchising those with prior negative interactions with the potential banee.

Blocking while a community discussion is in place is like blocking while an arbcom case is in discussion - unusual, but not unheard of. Both happen. I have done both, without any being challenged that I can recall. Being the subject of an arbcom case or a community ban discussion is in no way a get out of jail free card that allows people to disrupt or make personal attacks or violate existing sanctions or other policy. We are obviously and carefully conscious of not keeping people from participating in discussions on their own fate, but that doesn't mean they can do anything they want and get away with it.

I do not understand how you can look at the discussion above and feel that I am adopting a particularly extreme position with regards to Jack here. There's clearly a consensus that Jack's being abusive and has violated policy in several ways. Whether that results in a ban or not is up to the community, who are still arguing over it. Many of those advocating not banning have advocated blocking for the recent events.

Again - You're making up straw man arguments that you allege are why I blocked, which are not what I blocked for, and not what I said I blocked for. You seem to be the only person disputing that the stated arguments are valid. A number of persons disagree with banning him for them, but you seem to be saying "No, they don't count at all", which does not seem at all reasonable.

I'm all for having uninvolved admins review and use their judgement, but there's something wrong here. I am not going to do any wheel-warring of any sort. Would you please disqualify yourself as well from any further action and step back, and let others handle this? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we indefinitely blocking IPs now?

This is an astonishing bit of overkill. We don't block IPs indefinitely, especially when they've stated they're editing from a public hot spot. AniMate 01:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apparently we do. Not open editing's finest hour. pablo 01:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A one year block on the IP would probably be sufficient. Chester Markel (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Some IPs are static enough in that they could be indefinitely blocked. Other reasons may be that the owner requests as such. Finally, we have some open proxies which must be indefinitely blocked. Please see Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses and Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia for details. That is not to say that the indefinite IP block was appropriate, but I just want to point out that some IPs are indefinitely blocked and why. –MuZemike 08:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'd point out that most of the tens of thousands of IPs in CAT:OP are no longer open proxies and should be unblocked. Indefinite blocks for IP addresses are only OK when they are kept under review. It is often too easy for the blocks to remain unreviewed. A fixed expiry, even if it's years ahead, prevents this kind of oversight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Note about this IP

I have asked a steward to check IP 125.162.150.88, and he has verified that it is an open proxy with three ports open. It is also on several blacklists. Given the discussion in this section, I will not automatically reblock this IP but will await some other thoughts; however, on this project we normally block open proxies for a year. If there are no specific, policy-based objections to my doing so in the next 3 hours, I will block it at the end of that time per our usual process for blocking open proxies. Risker (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't "and agrees to not edit using open proxies" part of the unban agreement as well? What does that mean? Doc talk 04:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that at all. However, the IP was already blocked once today, and then unblocked. It would be poor form for an arbitrator to wheel-war; hence the advance notice with the detailed reason why I intend to reblock this IP address. This is an IP that would normally be blocked by any administrator who identified that it was an open proxy, whether or not a troubled editor was using it. Risker (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it's time to shut this door, and shut it tight. There is a clear restriction on the books that this individual can only edit using the "Jack Merridew" account. No exceptions. It's time to block this IP, and actually enforce the ArbCom's ruling. Courcelles 04:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is no problem blocking an open proxy. If this doesn't wind up being the final answer, I note that Arbcom provided a sanction provision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion: "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans". This would allow the matter to be raised at WP:Arbitration enforcement for a full discussion. If a block was issued, it would be a {{uw-aeblock}}, which would in theory give it more finality than a regular ANI block. If even this prospect is too divisive, the matter could be handed to Arbcom for them to consider a motion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

the year-block clause was lifted by the 2009 motion further down (when I was commended for a clear return, yet still saddled with a few restrictions). The ac need to pass a motion; they've been stuck on this since January. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the section which says:

After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agreed to unblock his account on December 9th, 2008 with the above conditions.

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.

2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.

3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

...So are all publicly accessible networks open proxies now? If they are we'd better start blocking every single school, university, company, and private unsecured WiFi network in existence. We'll also have to block every cell phone network. Get busy. N419BH 05:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP is a public hotspot offered by a restaurant to patrons. A few people even know the restaurant. The IP is the Indonesian national phone company's, one of their 'Speedy' (DSL) connections. Such connections are the norm here and the Jack account edited for years on the prior IP that was serving this restaurant (which was 125.162.164.51). I also informed John Vandenberg that I was on this IP a month ago ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I interpret Risker's comment as stating that the open proxy determination was based on a port scan, not local accessibility through a wireless network. If this is the case, then the IP can be used by anyone on the internet, from any location. It's not our fault that the computer isn't properly secured. Chester Markel (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if this is true, and Jack's comment that such connections are "the norm" in Indonesia, then are you saying we'll have to block the entire country from editing? N419BH 06:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

By "the norm", he seemed to mean wireless connections with local public access, not actual open proxies. Chester Markel (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that scanning IP addresses, and finding open or closed ports, can never confirm whether an IP is an open proxy. So many bad proxy blocks are based on finding open ports. Blacklists are even less trustworthy. If this is an open proxy, someone else should be able to prove it by using it. I think that's quite unlikely. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The steward has given a wrong assessment of this IP. How about he creates an account, and it is block for a week for the various incivilities, and then he come back and resumes where he left off, given he loves us so much and couldnt quit ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And how exactly do you know that the steward is wrong about the IP address being an open proxy? Silverseren^C 07:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

doubleplus-clue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Stewards are often wrong about open proxies :p There is no evidence that this is an open proxy. Please ask the steward to use it for editing, in order to be convincing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has provided a shred of evidence to support the theory that it is an open proxy, and Occam told me it wasn't. Based on purely technical information, that IP is extremely unlikely to an open proxy, and the steward should be trouted. Additional information which can be obtained very easily corroborates the story given by Jack. Of course it could be an elaborate trick, .. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely isn't an open proxy. I've used a tool which tests the IP checking if it is a proxy or just an IP, the results showed that it is in fact just an IP. Bidgee (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No tool can be definite about that. You might get a good hit rate, but it can't be definite. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I read the the statement from an arb that this was a proxy and blocked it per policy so I'm slightly embarrassed to finish reading the section to see its proxy statement is in doubt so I unblocked it again.. Just to be clear as the unblocking admin I have no problems with an open proxy being blocked - if that is the consensus of what we are dealing with. I'm hardly covering myself in glory today so I'm going to bow out and take my kids shopping for the rest of the day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah Spartaz. Good decision to take some time with your family. Perhaps not moving ahead on something that is still under discussion might be a good idea in the future.

As for me, I noted that I was intending to make a policy-based open proxy block, but further evidence has persuaded me that there is not universal agreement in interpreting the data I'd been provided; John Vandenberg, who is also an experienced checkuser, has more familiarity with open proxies than do I and I will defer to him. (This is the kind of policy-based reason not to block that justified my not immediately blocking.) This discussion can resume on the topic of whether or not the community has found Jack's/the IP's behaviour disruptive to the point that it feels he should be removed from the project. Risker (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, I've glossed over this IPs contribs and believe I've made every one of the edits so far this year. The ones in 2009 are not me (some vandal at a nice restaurant, or the IP was assigned elsewhere then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is a bit of a train wreck

Anyone got an executive summary of the situation? My understanding of the above is:

1. user:Jack Merridew is participating from 125.162.150.88.
2. Under the terms of the original ArbCom unban, he was limited to editing only under user:Jack Merridew.
3. On 25 April, he withdrew from that agreement with this edit. The purpose would seem to be to be able to adopt a new pseudonym which didn't carry the baggage (i.e. years of being used an a boogieman) of the JM account.

Furthermore, there's another tangent regarding the nature of the IP:

1. 125.162.150.88 is apparently an unsecured public wifi hotspot.
2. It has been argued that this constitutes the use of an open proxy.
3. That would violate the unban agreement even if it were accepted that JM were free to start a new pseudonymous account.

I consider this one to be a red herring given the above facts.

Is there more to it than this?

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack cannot edit from "Jack Merridew" as the account is scrambled and compromised. There is also a question as to whether or not the restriction limits him to "one named account" or "one, named account" (the former would restrict Jack to "Jack Merridew" but possibly allow IP editing subject to compliance with the sockpuppetry policy, the latter would presumably not allow ip editing; the wording of the restriction uses the former). The "Open Proxy" question is a red herring in my opinion. Arbcom is apparently also discussing the present situation privately as noted from a couple postings by at least one of them on their talk pages. Think that's most of it...agree it's a bit of a train wreck. N419BH 08:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's totally lost on many that he was just asking for all his accounts to be unblocked. Is that "shame" of being Jack Merridew? His last post seems to indicate that we must let him edit anonymously in order to protect him from off-wiki attacks. Am I reading this right? Doc talk 08:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to add his actions over the past few days, which are also a part of the report. This includes edit warring and going over the 3RR limit (twice, I believe, or once and then going right back to exactly 3RR after his 24 hours block ended), not to mention the massive amounts of incivility and the recent personal attack made against SoV. Silverseren^C 10:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I think there's disagreement over your initial point 2 above; some read the condition as "he may only edit using the account Jack Merridew" and others as "the only account he may edit under is Jack Merridew". Jack seems to have adopted the loophole in the second reading in editing as an IP. Skomorokh 12:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring, the user formerly known as Jack repeatedly removed this post, part of which constitutes a personal attack. I removed it twice myself on that basis. I am unclear why people would edit war to keep such a post on the page when the post is offensive and derogatory (IMHO). I would like to remind people that the same folks posting here over and over again does not constitute consensus. Skomorokh has posted eight times to this discussion, Silver Seren eleven times to last week's discussion and nine times to this one, and Doc9871 has posted twelve times to the discussion. It is hardly surprising that the IP feels like he is being railroaded. Sincerely, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have no horse in this race. Explain yourself please. Skomorokh 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to explain, really. I was just counting the posts. I agree you and the IP do not seem to have any prior history. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for listing you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice you've counted a few editors who have over-contributed, but I think there's also a problem with an editor who magically appears to rip into Jack. User:Shemeska has only made 4 edits in the last 2 years (2 to his user page, and 2 supporting a ban for Jack Merridew). I've commented here, above. Rossrs (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So, would you people agree if someone were to help the guy post his edits (proxy editing)? After all, he considers the whole thing toxic, and so he should not be concerned about following toxic rules. Scuttled user (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Unrelated trolling struck. TNXMan 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Digging and digging... -- œ^™ 17:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the person whose comment I struck wasn't Jack Merridew - it was an unrelated troll. TNXMan 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• that one's not me, either. but I sure do bring all the trolls out of the woodwork. that's the whole pattern, here. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The counting isn't really necessary, I've posted more times than those individuals have to this discussion. The bottom line is this stems from ArbCom things and Jack's interpretation of ArbCom things, and it further stems from someone storming off in a fury after being "damned" (in his words) by ArbCom for "technical breaches" (in ArbCom's words) of old restrictions, restrictions which he had every reason to believe would be lifted, and restrictions which he had technically violated with no hammer coming down from ArbCom, again reinforcing his belief that the restrictions would be lifted. With that said, was he violating our rules on civility and edit warring while contributing from this IP? Yes. Should he have been blocked for it? Yes. Is he doing these things right now? I'd argue no. I've seen and personally experienced far worse with no blocks given, let alone a full community ban. Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and must serve to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. The question that must be asked is, should Jack be allowed to create an account and edit again, would he be a net positive to the project? I think for those who have seen his old talk page and looked through his contributions as "Jack Merridew", the answer to that question is obvious. N419BH 19:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Shemeska's vitriol is from my having battled grawp re the thousands of NN D&D articles in late 2007. teh wiki-wariors never forget anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough

As a completely uninvolved admin, having read the preceding discussion, I find something resembling a Tortured Consensus (TM) that the user in question ("David", apparently), be required to register a new account, and to edit exclusively with that account (this meets the spirit of the Arbcom requirements, given the scuttling of the Jack Merridew account they specified). The account name should be declared here (or at least to Arbcom, if the user strenuously objects to what would be helpful transparency). If the user rejects this, they have effectively banned themselves, and should be blocked from editing as an IP. Over to you, David. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

G'day mates, all right, here's the new account, from a secure pool of IP addresses, and not an unsecure hotspot at a restaurant. Now it's time for you haters to find a different hobby. Sinceasked0 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC) impersonator, blocked. Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Hopefully this marks a "turning a new leaf" point where all concerned allow bygones to be bygones, and a new spirit of friendly collaboration in the pursuit of developing a great encyclopedia can flower. Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully all the restrictions will be archived. Improving articles in peace is a better job than having to fight over drama here and facing constant hassling from certain toxic personalities, mate. Sinceasked0 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC) impersonator, blocked. Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sinceasked0 (talk · contribs) is not mine. some impersonator. Rd232, this is not a matter for the community. still have to read what's gone on in the last 18 or so hours... Barong 01:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(and I've disclosed this that *is* me). Barong 02:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sinceasked0 is not me; Barong is. cf Barong (mythology). 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK; I thought it seemed off but not enough to publicly doubt it. I extend the sentiments to you that, er, I thought I already had (above) :) Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I already read that. Should the impersonator account be blocked? I cannot do it, I am too involved. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Rd232. -Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I presume the impersonator is someone already permabanned... but if possibly not, such behaviour nearly merits it on its own. Rd232 ^talk 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

dunno, don't care, really. there's an old thread somewhere (email) about my role as 'flypaper'. I am irresistible to a lot of problematic editors. someone commented above about how many are involved. easily 80% of the detractors have a long history with me. Shemeska's a fine example. off-wiki there must be a lot of noise recruiting my old enemies for this. there are a few up there that I take seriously, and I'll have to work to mend those bridges. but for the most part, this whole thread is simply a typical insipid toxic trainwreck; it's what's wrong with this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It was the same troll I blocked, above. If more impersonators pop up, please let me or another checkuser know - they're all probably the same troll. TNXMan 13:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

cockfight

• User:Jack Merridew/Editnotice

The owner of the place I'm staying has 4 cocks entered into a cockfight up in Taman and it starts in just a few minutes. I took pictures of them just before he set out, too. Anyway, the above editnotice contains a story about the Balinese love of their cocks, and I would like it undeleted. Terima kasih. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see why not, so I've done it. Rd232 ^talk 03:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks; User:Jack Merridew/Note switch 2, too (and it may pull in something...) I'll end up asking for it all to be undeleted. Barong 03:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Make a list when you have a minute. On your talk page --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I may just wait until I've done the RfC-style RfA ;) Barong 04:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Light current

Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LC was banned over 4 years ago. He continues to sock relentlessly to this day. On the ref desk talk page, we have editors arguing that if his ref desk edits happen to be "answerable", then they should stand, invoking IAR, claiming it overrides a ban. I say a ban overrides IAR. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore All Rules is "when it's in the best interests of the wiki, ignore the rule" not "do it just for the hell of it". Pretty sure that a sockmaster socks because he wants the attention and is tired of being left on the outside. I don't think indulging him and allowing community participation constitutes the best interests of the wiki unless you're a Conservapedia mole. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but this is not being suggested "just for the hell of it". See a thread here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Proposed_compromise, where a rationale is outlined. Staecker (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • He's banned; He cannot edit, if he does edit those edits must be removed on sight, and if he creates socks to edit, those socks must be blocked, period. There is only one recourse here, and that is an unbanning proposal at WP:AN. Unless the community decides to unban this user, or unless His Honorable Lord Jibmo Wales overturns the ban, the policy is clear. IAR need not apply. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal that a banned user's Reference Desk questions be somehow allowed to stand is being made by a lone editor, and for my part, I don't see any consensus developing around it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What complicates the issue is that other editors respond to a question, only to find their efforts reverted. Based on the argument that a question from anywhere in 1/16384 of the entire possible range of IP addresses must be this one banned user. What if the banned user is part of a school with a thousand children? Now they're all "trolls", and all answers to their questions disappear. Administrators have refused to block the range of IPs for just that reason; why should other editors be more restrictive? We've ended up with a duplicate ANI and Sockpuppet Investigations at the Refdesk talk page. Most fundamentally, the compromise I suggested is based only on the right of an editor in good standing to ask a question which happens to be the same as that asked by a banned user - something which I hope should not be controversial. Wnt (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No one has claimed that anyone that edits from Light Current's range is Light Current. Not one person. However, Light Current has a very specific and well understood modus operandi, and the combination of his behavior with his IP address is a clear indicator that it is him. Merely because people know his behavior, and enforce his ban by removing his questions, does not mean that people have even once claimed that innocent users editing from that range should also be blocked. What has happened is that YOU, Wnt (and near as I can tell, you alone), have taken upon yourself to mischaracterize the work of others in such terms, but no one actually behaves or thinks that way, no matter how often you assert it as though it were true. Its simply not true. LC is an obvious troll, his fingerprints are distinct and recognizable, and it is unfortunate that your answers to his trolling questions get deleted along with the questions themselves. However, that doesn't mean that other people (you know, those people that are not you) cannot recognize him. --Jayron32 03:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll grant that I don't know his modus operandi. Could you point me (and the rest of us) at some resources about that? The Refdesk questions were so short, I never imagined they could carry many fingerprints. Wnt (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that this was explained to you at WT:RD, and you chose to ignore it or discount it there, I doubt you'll listen here, but here goes. LC asks short, contextless questions about subjects which are either a) defecatory b) sexual c)bigoted or d) some combination thereof. An earlier popular subject was the planet Uranus, which can often be mistaken for the english phrase "your anus". LC has apandoned this motif, but other questions are usually easy to spot. Other recent gems have revolved around the size of someone colon, and the proper technique for masturbating a dog. Don't be ashamed, however, if you cannot easily spot him. The world is a diverse place, and we all have different skills. I, for example, am not a really good Basketball player, so I don't spend a lot of time playing basketball against better basketball players. Likewise, if you find that you lack the skills in the area of spotting LC socks, perhaps it would be best if you didn't get in the way of people who are really good at it. Its not a slight against you; like I said we are all good at different things, and that doesn't mean you are a bad person for not being good at identifying his socks. --Jayron32 04:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear - was that pattern described before the most recent round of questions? (And true, I never even thought about the weight of a human colon as defecation-related) Wnt (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

People told you those posts were him, and you clearly refused to believe them. This is all over WT:RD. Lets also make this clear:

• Sometimes, people who are not LC also ask immature, offensive questions. These are easy to spot since LC edits from a known set of IP addresses. We delete other obvious trolling questions as inappropriate, even if LC has nothing to do with them.
• Sometimes, people who are not LC, but edit from the same IP range, ask legitimate questions at the ref desks. These are easy to spot as the questions are usually well thought out, have a context, and don't delve into prurient interests, and don't follow up honest questions with inappropriate trolling later on.

Again, don't be ashamed if you cannot spot these things. People don't necessarily think less of me for my poor basketball skills. --Jayron32 05:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here[21] is what we're dealing with:

"The problem is that you are never going to be able to stop anyone determined (even me) from editing. 8-) People just have to live with it. If you dont like a Q, ignore it, but dont make a song and dance about it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.110.50 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He's been at this for over 4 years. Someone needs to prove him wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Internet seems to be here to stay, and Wikipedia has the potential to last for the long term, too. Eventually, Light current will die of old age. And Wikipedia will still be here. Until then, WP:RBI. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What's curious is that according to this LC goes through so much trouble to be recognized. He has to come to the same place, ask almost the same questions, and never register for an account first. If he simply wanted to have trollish questions stay up and be answered, it would be no challenge at all. One reason why to me the "WP:DENY" argument seems misplaced. Wnt (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Many trolls will do that. They'll play a game that's basically "How long can I last before I'm found out?" Sometimes they'll drop little hints, especially if they're being overlooked for who they are. I recall a troll from a couple of years ago (not LC) who kept editing and talking about the subject of anagrams. He was on there about a month before anyone realized that his username was an anagram of his sockmaster's username. That's what makes LC all the more puzzling, as you say: He immediately makes his presence known. The fact that he keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over indicates he's basically playing "internet ping-pong". The dilemma for him now is that his ever-higher visibility produces an ever-longer list of editors willing to "paddle" him. There are many of those, and only one of him. So it's a battle he can't win... as other trolls have eventually figured out. LC isn't there yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds, I'm not saying what I agree with WNT's proposal, but it was clearly not "For the Hell of it", The effort to completely expunge light-current's questions sometimes becomes extremely disruptive, far more so than if the questions had been answered and allowed to sink quietly into the page history.

Bugs's crusade against this banned user has essentially become the most significant of component of the banned user's disruption.

(I'd also like to take a moment to mention how unusual it is to report a mere talk page proposal to ANI as if it were some oncomming horror. Ref-Desk policies are properly discussed on the ref-desk talk page. Bringing it here was simply canvassing.) APL (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is more nuanced than that. The situation here is that LC has two advocates that feed his trolling behavior. Both Wnt and BaseballBugs in their own way exacerbate the situation. If Wnt was more understanding of the need not to feed the troll, and if Bugs was a little less strident in his efforts to eradicate him from Wikipedia, it would get boring for LC pretty quickly. Any one of two solutions would work equally:

1) if all of LC's posts were removed without comment or controversy by anyone, that is if they just disappeared and no one complained, objected, or even noted that it happened, LC would have no satisfaction or

2) if all of LC's posts were left alone, and answered earnestly without judgement; that is when he asks about the color of Uranus we all pretend he didn't just make an asshole joke, and instead just direct them to the parts of the relevent Wikipedia article, there's also no fun for LC.

The fun in this situation comes in making an inappropriate question and watching the shitstorm it generates between Bugs and Wnt (or whoever wishes to fight that day). It's not answers he's after, its the shitstorm that his very presense generates. Until we all get on the same page, and decide definitively how to deal with this WITHOUT a huge fight ensueing from the "What's the harm in AGF and answering his questions" and the "Banned is BANNED" camps, LC will go away. I personally couldn't give two shits about HOW we resolve this, just that the fight itself is what LC is clearly after, and as long as we keep having this fight, LC is going to continue to push our buttons. --Jayron32 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What you've outlined is the reason I have stopped deleting his garbage. I wanted to raise the visibility of it (call it canvassing if you want) and let others do that work, as I am tired of getting yelled at for trying to enforce the rules, especially as I had no part in his original ban. That occurred before I even knew there was a ref desk. So I am not interested in being the "designated deleter". However, when some naive soul attempts to answer one of the troll's stupid questions, I'm going to point out who he is - once the latest incarnation has been blocked. Also, as it happens I am currently under an interaction ban with a particular user I won't name. I take that ban very seriously. I expect others here to take other bans equally seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that 1 is impossible. Quiet removal of posts is very problematic. First the questions must be removed before they are answered, or the removal itself becomes confusing and disruptive (As often happens.). And secondly the posts must be removed without errors or potentially innocent questions will be removed as trolls (as also happens.)

Who could be trusted to be the silent-but-deadly troll enforcer? Certainly not Bugs, but who could do better than Bugs?

It's common for questions that were just sitting, answered, after taking up about a grand total of maybe four person-minutes, are deleted, and the resulting confusion costs far more person-minutes.

Causing this disruption for mindless enforcement of "BANNED USERS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST" smacks of dogmatic thinking where pragmatic thinking would be preferable. APL (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not mindless. He was banned for a reason. It is the banned user who's causing the disruption. That's why he was banned. And his recent arguments, that we'll never stop him so we shouldn't even try, are thoroughly bogus. If you don't enforce the banning rule, you might as well not have a banning rule. As I see it, he wants to essentially get de facto "un-banned" without having to go through the proper process to get un-banned; which he would of course fail miserably, because he has not changed his approach since he was banned four freakin' years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Recently an editor proposed writing an abuse filter. I don't know what, if anything, has come of that. Obviously, we don't want to give any details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "mindless" isn't the right word, but "Dogmatic" certainly is. Your approuch is anything but pragmatic.

You seem to be unable to see how completely you've been trolled by this LC fellow. APL (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Only because of certain editors aiding and abetting. If they would SHUT UP about it, and help enforce the rules instead of arguing against the rules, there would be no drama. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, this user's only purpose is the glee he gets from being "naughty" and starting arguments on the RefDesk. If you're worried about confusion due to questions disappearing... well, LC isn't confused, he knows what's happening. If the confusion is on the part of other users, Template:hat the discussion with a simple WP:DNFTT editnotice. Discussion is ended, troll gets no satisfaction. Wash our hands of him until he finally gets bored and moves on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine, IF you could get his enablers to agree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He get's his "Glee" from holding up a hoop and watching Bugs jump through it. If tomorrow Bugs were struck by a meteor, the cycle would end and he'd get bored.

Having a nemesis is fun. APL (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Instead of being mildly insulting, Allow me explain what I mean by dogmatic instead of pragmatic.

Let's assume the following facts :

1) LC enjoys sparring with you, and using you(and others, admittedly) to create disruption. This is pretty much the definition of a troll.

2) Even if you educate all current regulars, There will always be new users and readers to the ref-desk who are confused buy your removal or hiding of seemingly innocuous posts. Human nature being what it is, there will be a time-sucking discussion any time someone is confused.

Ignore the rules for the moment, and just think of what will lead logically to the best outcome. Does it make sense to continue your actions, despite the fact that (because of 1) it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and that (because of 2) it will always be likely to cause a disruption?

APL (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're not willing to enforce the rules, then you should lobby for his ban to be lifted. And if you're not willing to do that, then enforce the bloody rules. You're wrong about a troll getting "bored". LC was trolling and socking long before I came along, and will continue to do so if I ignore him. If a troll doesn't get attention, it just pushes harder. But if everyone stops enabling a troll and starts reverting it every time, then eventually the troll gives up. The problem right now is that we have a couple of youse guys who argue about it every freakin' time that someone deletes one of his stupid questions. It is YOU that is enabling and encouraging the troll. And if that's the way you want to keep going, then un-ban him and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. If you want to start a discussion of lifting the ban because he's especially irritating, have at it. He's far from the most irritating person amusing himself at Wikipedia, though, and he is easy enough to recognize and revert. If you don't want to lift the ban, or can't find consensus for it, then we just continue to WP:RBIrevert, block, and ignore, with as little fuss as possible, until he dies. Or gets bored. Whichever. There are thousands of us and only one of him, so it doesn't really have to be that big a deal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous and emotional false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between unbanning a troll across an entire site, and eradicating his posts at all costs and any collateral damage. APL (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What "collateral damage" are you talking about? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Next step?

What would be the procedure for getting "Light current" un-banned and un-blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey look! It's bug's trademark sarcastic WP:POINT. APL (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

At this exact moment, I want to hit both of you with a trout. Could you stand a little closer to one another? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm deadly serious. I want the guy unbanned and unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, it'd be a purely symbolic move. He is already capable of evading technical bans, and either way damage to article-space will continue to be repaired in the usual way. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As is any user. So why bother with bans? Why bother with blocks? Why bother with rules? Just let the trolls do whatever they want, and screw the ones who actually try to contribute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you simply use the same trout twice, but then I realized that I we might then argue over which of us should be trout-slapped first. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I call your attention to LC's block log,[22] and especially the comment from the blocking admin: "Has exhausted community's patience, per multiple AN/I discussions, and is now creating a series of sockpuppets to try to vandalize us into submission." Does that complaint sound familiar? It's from February of 2007, long before I had any dealings with that user. The "ignore it" theory does not work. And as long as guys like APL insist on arguing about it, the troll will continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So, basically your current course of action requires that an entire class of people "like APL" and "like Wnt" stop existing? Even if your cause is just and your will strong, will that ever happen? Will anything you're doing make it happen? APL (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to enforce the ban, or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My point here is that you're fighting human nature. On two fronts. One one front you're entertaining and encouraging a troll, on the other front you're hoping that deleting or boxing seemingly innocuous posts and their replies will never be found confusing or irritating, brought up, and discussed. You may be able to out-pace the troll, but you will never-ever change human nature on the ref-desk talk page. There will always be discussions of this sort, and no amount of reporting the discussions to AN/I will change that.

I'm fully willing to admit that your actions are Right and Just. However, they are also not working. Even if it's not your fault, they still are not working. (Which I'm also willing to admit. The fundamental cause of friction is that your expertise on this particular troll cannot be effectively communicated to all on-lookers. In article-space this wouldn't be an issue, but on a talk page these anti-troll changes are more than normally visible, so they attract and confuse on-lookers. This is not your fault. It's the nature of the system you're working within.)

What I'm trying to get at, and apparently not communicating effectively, is that the current approach for dealing with this troll on the Ref Desks has failed. (Through no fault of Baseball Bugs.) In this case I define failure as the cure being more disruptive than the disease.

A new approach is needed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have one off the top of my head, but continuing a failed approach is foolish. Especially as it's been very clearly established that this troll is especially persistent and will not likely give soon. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"...will not likely give soon." Right. Especially if you continue to take his side instead of the side of the rules. It is the continued efforts to enable the troll that keep him going. You are not willing to enforce the rules. So you've got LC now. Enjoy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am now starting to pursue the question of what it will take to get LC unbanned. With the shackles off, maybe he could contribute something useful. It could be worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• OK .. first - I wasn't even around (other than an IP and reader) back in 2007 when Light current was banned, so I honestly don't have any dog in this fight. My feeling however is this: If the guys been around trying to get back in over 4 years later, I'd say there's a chance that he honestly wants to contribute here. I'm all for giving someone a chance to edit, improve their efforts, and mend their ways. Soooo .. you can put me in the Support unban section (if we could get around to that after wading through all the TLDR stuff. I suspect it's understood (if it hasn't been said outright) that he'd be on a pretty short leash for a while, and would have to really mind his "P"s and "Q"s, but its a community consensus that counts here. One last note: Blocks are cheap, and if push comes to shove, then I'll spend one of mine if I have to. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The user has made a request at User talk:Glitch Turner to be able to respond to this discussion. They have been told to make any contributions on their talk page, and such contributions should be copied to here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point it may be worth taking a step back to ask whether banning actually includes questions at the Refdesk. After all, banning in general is a prohibition on editing Wikipedia, not using Wikipedia. True, ironically enough, I actually do think of Refdesk questions as edits that build a database of questions which at some future time might allow people to ask a smart computer program a question and get a relevant answer - but many (most) others simply view the Refdesk as a service to readers. If that's true, then asking a Refdesk question might not be something that a ban should prohibit at all! Wnt (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference desk is collaborative and volunteer-driven, just like the rest of the encyclopedia. There's no reason why the volunteers who staff the reference desk should have to deal with an editor that the community has decided is no longer welcome here. I'll also point to the ban policy itself, which addresses the issue of why bans are applied to all editing. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Even so, the bans often don't apply to 'editing' one's own talk page for discussion of the ban - so "editing", in that policy, doesn't mean pressing the edit button, but something more conceptual. Wnt (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that site banned users are allowed to edit their own talk pages, although I would appreciate clarity on this point. The situation is different than that of blocked users, or of article/topic/interaction banned users. In any case, I can see a clear distinction between being allowed to edit one's own talk page and being allowed to edit a reference desk page that half the world (est.) has on their watchlist. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

They aren't. This is explicitly stated at the banning policy, see here, where it says in the chart showing the difference between site bans/topic bans/blocks that the access to a talk page is "usually not allowed". Note that it states that, An editor who is "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as "community banned" or "full ban") has been completely ejected from the project. This would certainly include participation at the Refdesk. -- Atama頭 23:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Ref Desk, I have to say that while there is room for improvement there, I don't see any urgent problems posed by banned users. Surely IAR implies that if a question is interesting enough to be answered, we should do so? Count Iblis (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement from User:Glitch Turner

Copied by request from User talk:Glitch Turner

Statement:

Please consider an unblock of this account. I have exerted much energy and wasted the time of others being disruptive in the past. It was wrong and I apologize for my immaturaty. I believe I can use my time and talents to be a productive member of the encyclopedia. I suggest the following:

1. Initially limited access to only articles or their talk pages to show my ability to improve the encyclopedia. I would also ask for access to my user talk page, and to the user talk pages of those that need to communicate with me for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.
2. A topic ban, restricting me from any edits at the reference desks, as they were my biggest source of behavior problems in the past.

If allowed, I am going to give 100% effort to turning over a new leaf and devote my energy to improvements here. If someone would be willing to help or mentor me, I think it would be even better. Thank you in advance for the consideration. Glitch Turner (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) End of copy Peridon (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is per a discussion on User talk:Glitch Turner and a note posted here by James B Watson which I can't find for the moment. If this isn't in the right place, would someone kindly sort it out for me - going offline. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lifting of ban of Light current

• Support with the understanding he follow ALL policies and guidelines, NOT sock, and attempt to contribute constructively. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (yea, yea, yea .. I know it's not a vote - it's a !vote) (redacted per JB Watson diff — Ched :  ?  12:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
• Oppose for now, however if he strictly follows WP:STANDARDOFFER, stays away from Wikipedia for a full 6 months, then requests an unban at his main account, I would then fully support lifting the ban. If he's serious about obeying the rules, he will obey the terms of his current ban and just stay away long enough to demonstrate that. Given the level of recent sockpuppeteering and disruption, I cannot support lifting the ban today. I would support, however, lifting the ban if he abides by it long enough to know he is serious about returning in good standing. --Jayron32 05:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. He has not shown any interest in obeying the rules. His edits at the reference desk are still troll edits. The only reason to un-ban him is in hopes that letting him edit will bore him faster, but I just don't see letting a troll run amok on the reference desk until he decides to stop as a useful way to keep the reference desk useful for other readers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have seen countless editors have indef blocks lifted in the hope that they'll improve their behavior. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You don't know until you try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously, as this was my idea. It's clear that he really, really wants to edit. I'm willing to give the guy a chance to show he can contribute. And in the meantime, other than this un-ban discussion, I intend to keep my distance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you willing to mentor this editor? 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Revert, block, ignore. There are ways to request lifting a ban that do not include persistent disruptive socking.  Sandstein  21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unbanning, on the clear understanding that it's a trial, that any unacceptable editing at all will result in the ban being reimposed immediately, and that this discussion gives any administrator teh authority to reimpose the ban without further warning. As Baseball Bugs says, unblocked editors sometimes improve and sometimes they don't. If this one does then clearly unbanning will be good. If, on the other hand, he doesn't, then not much harm will have been done in letting him prove to us that the continued ban is indeed justified, per WP:ROPE. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Support withdrawn: see below.JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support conditional that the user accepts that the topic ban from the reference desks is permanent and he will not ever request it to be lifted. I enjoyed interacting with LightCurrent way back before his ban, and he did make many useful contributions to the project, but the ref desks are a step too far - as he says himself, above. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The following comment copied from User talk:Glitch Turner per request. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, my intent above was for a permanent topic ban in my problem area. Glitch Turner (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Now we're negotiating with banned users and dedicated sockmasters? No thanks. Revert all sock edits (including those to the ref desk), block the socks and ignore. And file abuse reports with his ISP. If he really wants to be unbanned he can email ArbCom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is a WP:POINTy proposal, because BB is upset that some editors are defending LC's trolling behavior. I find the continuous abuse of the RefDesk quite telling, and have no more WP:AGF left to give on this one. LC has made it quite clear that he/she has no intention of behaving like a reasonable adult. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[Edit by banned user removed]

Oppose per this above statement by the subject illustrating that he still just doesn't get it. "I'll vandalize if I'm not treated the way I like" is absolutetely completely unacceptable. That behavior, if carried out, would lead to a prompt block of any user. As a threat from a long-term disruptive editor who can't not-disrupt even when told not to? No. WP:STANDARDOFFER with a mentor as responsible oversight of it would previously have been my position ("okay, you say you can contribute? Do it and let the community judge") but definitely not with a threat from the banned editor as his counter-offer. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry .. have a technical question here DMacks. How does that EL "Edit by banned user removed" work to post what it does? Also, could you post the diff? ... I did look through the Glitch Turner accnt. and didn't see that anywhere. Not trying to be smart or badger ... just seems to be an old post, or rather an odd way to repost what someone else said. — Ched :  ?  16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind ... must have been caught up between a cached copy and an edit. Cause I never saw that GT made that contrib. — Ched :  ?  16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - LC is a competitive troll. He brags about his trolling in other sites where popular trolls try to one-up each other. He has no interest in properly editing Wikipedia. He only wants to get the ability to be a more disruptive troll. -- kainaw™ 15:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - LC is being disruptive while this very discussion is ongoing. All good faith on this user has been squandered long ago. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - No evidence that he is anything but a malignant troll. We may be fighting "human nature" (according to APL's comment above), but so be it. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongest Oppose, and it frankly stupefies me that anyone is taking this seriously or wasting time on it. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Actions speak louder than words. Stopping the troll edits would have to occur first, before lifting the ban should be considered. Promising to stop the disruptive editing if the ban is lifted is backwards of the way it ought to be in this case. Red Act (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It's "I'll stop being disruptive if I get the chance to be unbanned" not "I'll keep being disruptive until I'm unbanned." — Moe ε 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[redacted edit by banned user]

He's still trolling. If anyone seriously thinks unbanning this guy would be a good idea I have a bridge to sell you. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - If we let someone back onto the project as capitulation to try to stop their disruption, that sets a terrible, terrible precedent. -- Atama頭 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Normally I'd oppose unban of such a long term problematic user, but I detect here a glimmer he may have finally turned the tide, so I'm supporting ONE LAST CHANCE here, and he must follow all rules and cause no problems or reinstate the ban.BarkingMoon (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Let's have a go - per WP:PRAGMATISM Egg Centric 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose I did support unbanning (see above), but this edit has changed my mind completely. Nobody whose line is "I will be disruptive if you don't do what I want" can ever be trusted to be a constructive editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. One last final maybe chance has long since come and gone. As he's still socking, trolling, and attacking other editors, there is absolutely no reason to think this will change if empowered through a legit account. Kuru (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per JamesBWatson. Do not support negotiating with terrorists. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

New proposal: Return with mentoring/probation

The community seems disinclined to an instant return for this user.

So perhaps a different proposal might work better. At such time that the community decides to allow LightCurrent to return, I'm prepared to mentor him, conditional on him accepting my terms.

I'd propose:

1. Mentoring for a six month term
2. Mentoring would be a form of probation
3. His editing would initially be very restricted - he'd need to earn the trust to edit more freely
4. ...other than the Ref Desks, which would remain off-limit permanently
5. Anything I deemed a deliberate breach of my terms or egregious behaviour, or unconscious breach that I believed was testament to unfixable behaviour would result in me instantly imposing an indef block and returning here to request a reinstatement of the ban

I have some experience of mentoring a few editors back from bans. None of them have been rebanned to-date.

Perhaps if this were to follow a period of no socking by LC, say a month, to fall in line with the intention of the standard offer, the community may be inclined to approve it? --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tentative Support The diff above JBW concerns me. I'd certainly not care to be held hostage by anyone — Ched :  ?  12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I was, I think, one of this editor's strongest supporters, until I saw the edit I have linked to in my last comment, and I also believe have a history of frequently being willing to give blocked editors another chance when others are saying "no". However, I really cannot see my way to supporting removal of a ban from an editor who has publicly declared an intention of trying to hold us to ransom, especially after just a month. After two years perhaps, maybe at a stretch after six months, but not after one month. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• One more comment. Even as we discuss this, the user is continuing with block/ban evasion and trolling: [23], so the likelihood that he/she will be a nice cooperative editor and refrain from socking for a month looks thin. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The user who made that post does not seem to be the same one as the one who has the Glitch Turner account. I'm thoroughly confused. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to be proved wrong. What are your grounds for thinking that? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They say in their latest post that they're not the same person. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Why are we giving this troll so much attention? It continues even during this conversation. Has there been any evidence in years that they actually want to contribute productively? Archive this whole mess and go back to RBI. LC, just go away, completely, for a few months at least. Show that if you can't figure out a way to be productive with your socks, you can at least not be a negative for some length of time before you try to lie to us all about how you want to help. --Onorem♠Dil 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• And another sockpuppet while we discuss it: Special:Contributions/Excrescence. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the offer posed by Dweller reveals an editor who must have an admirable amount of patience, I don't believe the banned user has shown the least bit of good intention in any way, quite the opposite in fact, as the continued socking proves. I think your efforts will be invested much better by editing the encyclopedia, Dweller, than wasting them on this one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Kind of you, but I'd like to think that a small amount of time invested by me now, could result in a ton of constructive edits from someone who did prove themselves capable of useful editing in the past. Besides, I enjoy helping people - it's the only reason I volunteer for additional responsibilities, and it keeps me fresh for content contribution. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777

This user has been chucking out her usual disgusting 'British nationalist' invective masquerading as comments about NPOV and how it's achieved here or not tonight [24][25]. She's inviting flame wars and then some with analogies of the Union Flag to the German Swastika, and calling other editors brain dead or agents of genocidal empires. It's not even over an article, but a poxy talk page banner. She's not just crossing the line with this shit, she's bulldozing it frankly. Is it really too much to ask she be indef blocked until she gets it? A query as to her behaviour from another editor was unsurprisingly removed as "trolling" in her eyes. MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

With a block log that long and diffs of comments as disgusting as those two, I would say not. However, she should have a chance to defend herself and promise to tone down the rhetoric (a long way) if she wants to, before any action is taken (not that I can do much about it without my mop even if we'd got to that stage). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine#Sarah777_restricted specifies that Sarah may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. It was enforced once, for a week, [26] I noticed Sarah attempted to start a fight at British Isles and Talk:British Isles today. Whatever has caused her new lease of life for this anger, I think it best that she be banned from the relevant articles so that the question of a permanent ban for Sarah doesn't rise again (she is productive in some areas). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to impose an article ban but am witholding action until Sarah has a chance to respond. I have notified her on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest waiting 24 hours from your post on her talk page, which would be 02:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC), to see if she's willing to agree to tone it down of her own accord. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I like Sarah, but I agree those edits were out-of-line. I would be happy to offer any necessary support or mentoring, if it is any help. --John (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Which edits would they be John? Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree up to a point with GWH, however I am inclined topic ban Sarah777 from everything to do with Britain and Ireland, this problem is long standing and recurring far too often. The kind of interactions she's been having (for years) in this area is just not compatible with WP:5P. While I agree also with GWH and HJM that we should wait 24 hours, I have seen far too many disruptive users in this area start flame wars, see that its come to ANI, and then disappear for a week, at which point the 'storm has blown over' so to speak. Therefore I suggest that if there is no reply within 48 hours that remedial action be taken (i.e imposition of topic or article bans) to prevent further disruption of wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 15:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would say 48 hours is long enough to wait. You have to go back to 22 April to find the last time she spent more than 1 calendar day without editing Wikipedia. Maybe that's the cause of this latest episode, a build up of wikistress. But whatever, if she is indeed prone to it, she's clearly never learned how to manage it. There's not much point banning her from just Irish topics, I;m pretty sure that's all she edits, when not making these incursions into the BI arena. MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see how comparing the loathsome Union Jack to the nearly as loathsome Nazi Swastika can merit a block of any sort. It was under that banner that the physical and cultural genocide of the "Great Famine" took place in Ireland. Globally, the British Empire was more genocidal and for far longer than the Third Reich. This is a simple fact. So, I object to tagging Ireland-related articles with that excrescence? You bet. I abide by all the wiki-rules; but i won't be bullied into pretending that day is night. OK? Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is there is no "rule of law" on Wiki. Just a huge majority of British editors over Irish ones. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

...and the Irish ones object to her too! Might be best to put her out of her misery with an indef. DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are article banned from Template:British English for one month. I will notify on your talk and the Arbcom case page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I must say Georgewilletc...I am forming a rather negative opinion of you. It seems you have ignored my point re Union Jack = Swastika. A fairly important point in all this. The English Queen is visiting Ireland in a week or so. But ZERO Union Jacks are on display. Why? Could it be the same reason there are no Swastika's flown in Germany these days? As for Irish editors objecting to me - just about every one who was not supine in the face of the imposition of British pov on Irish articles has been banned or left. What are left are largely the Loyalists and their allies. Not a very statistically valid sample it is that remains. Sarah777 (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

She's the British Queen. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The only place British English is written and spoken is in the United Kingdom. So-called British spellings, on the other hand, may be used, in whole or in part, in other parts of the world where English is the first or a primary language. Canada speaks and writes Canadian English, Australia speaks and writes Australian English, Ireland speaks and writes Hiberno-English. and so on. Whether the Union flag is also offensive or merely irritating, it is, most importantly, wrong on any article except those related to the United Kingdom. Sarah777 is correct to insist on its removal, while those who argue otherwise are standing on quicksand, baiting her. If it had been done correctly in the first place, none of this would have arisen, and those involved are fully aware of the problems and the likely outcome. Bielle (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I must be the first Wiki-editor to be blocked from a template simply for disagreeing with the dominant contra-WP:NPOV pov! Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that, from this comment, you have no understanding why you were banned indicates that this sanction is not going to be enough. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain it then. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pursuing a point of view is not a problem. Expressing it as though you are a 12 year old having a tantrum is. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• - It is clear that User:Sarah777 is completely disruptive in any Irish/British/UK article and I support her complete topic ban from the whole area. Her contributions are detrimental to the whole sector. - she is refusing to accept GWH administrative action against her - lets just get it over with easily and topic ban her completely from all articles connected to Ireland England or the United Kingdom forever. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Great idea! Yes, why not ban all Irish editors from all articles connected to Ireland! That will really make Wiki WP:NPOV. And, pray tell, where have I refused to comply with Georgewillecetra's ban? Any diffs? Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

diff on your talkpage, personally I would block you for the uncivil and attacking comment alone ... "Nope. Not under any Arbcom ruling. Under your piss poor judgement. A template isn't an article, btw. Look it up." - User:Sarah777 - Your opinionated partisan contributions are a clear disruptive net loss to the project imo.Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• The hate speech used here by Sarah777 is quite obviously unacceptable. I've rarely seen any other user display such a persistent battleground attitude and survive on the project for more than a few months. In additionto GWH's page ban mentioned above, I've also banned her from British Isles and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, the main locations of her recent outbursts, and blocked her for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Full support for that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fully support Future Perfect's actions, and agree that her rhetoric is hate speech. I also want to note she has removed the notification of her ban from her talk page[27]. Is this logged at WP:RESTRICT or WP:AE so that others can enforce it?--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Log is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. If she wants to remove the notification from her page, that's her right to do. If she goes on to continue venting on her page, I usually don't tend to sanction that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the link. BTW I just noticed this lovely diff[28] wherein she infers that both of us (2 sysops) are trolls (this is her second removal tonight the other being your edit). With all due respect Future Perfect you might be prepared to allow Sarah to vent on her talk-page while blocked but I'm not. Any more flame edits while blocked and I will extend that block and revoke talk page access in line with WP:BLOCK & WP:CIVIL. She's had years of warnings and lesser remedies being tried and in my view, at this point she is stretching community patience--Cailil ^talk 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 indef-blocked

Do I get this right? Has Sarah777 just been indeffed because she was irate that some WP:POINT violators insisted on putting the Union Jack on the talk pages of Ireland-related articles? Regardless of what she did after being poked like that (the Nazi comparisons above do make me feel rather uncomfortable), this looks to me like the ever popular game of blaming the victim for the disruption. Maybe I misunderstood something, but this is how it looks to me. At this time of the night I can't do more than this superficial examination before going to bed. Hans Adler 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We categorically do not excuse behavior if taunted or baited, if one goes way over the line in response. Sarah777 went way over the line and appears to be exhibiting behavior and opinions that are difficult to reconcile with successful ongoing Wikipedia editing. We're not a battleground and she's clearly seeking one now.

That said, it would be appropriate for a review of the incident before she went irate to be done. While we do not excuse baitees for their abuses, baiters who taunt someone across the line are treated equally harshly. I have not examined back that far and am busy for several more hours tonight. I encourage other uninvolved admins with some time now to have a look and opine what you find... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No she was indefinitely blocked because after years of warnings to edit in accordance with WP:5 she has continued to violate an arbcom ruling and the British Isles topic probation that are in place to prevent disruption. She has breached site standards for civility and general conduct and after being blocked for a week she continued to do so. Hence HJM's indefinite (not infinite BTW) block. And for the record if he hadn't done it I would--Cailil ^talk 00:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HJM specified "While in most cases inde(fi)nite does not mean infinite, in this case it does". Infinite. I am not comfortable with this. Moriori (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a decision HJM can make, reconfirmed admin or not. It is an opinion only, issued with inappropriate mockery. Bielle (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No mockery intended. I'm simply clarifying for the benefit of later admins reviewing the block what I intend the meaning of indefinite to be, since the software doesn't distinguish between 'blocked until you're no longer a problem', the more usual meaning, and 'blocked permanently', my intended meaning in this case. It doesn't mean it's irreversable any more than a 1 week block is a guarantee that she'd be blocked for 1 week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling is clear that If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Since Sarah77 was previously banned in 2008, and the ruling clearly states that one week is in the event of repeat offenses, can someone please readjust the block to use the correct Arbcom ruling? I'd say the original one week ban is probably the maximum in the spirit of this 4 year old Arbcom ruling. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, can someone point me to the anti-British comments at "British Isles"? I don't see any, and if that's the case, she should not be banned from that page either. As for the rest - clearly anti-British comments were made on those pages, and the Arbcom ruling is clear that Sarah77 may be banned from those pages as per the Arbcom restriction Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My action is supplemnatary to the Arbcom ruling. I made that block in accordance with... just about every behavioural policy and guideline ever written, not because she vioalted an ArbCom ruling. Otherwise, I would have called it an AE block, which really would make my block irreversible, but this is just an 'ordinary' block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should rethink this one - and I'm not sure I'm following. Either the blocks or bans fall within the Arbcom ruling, and the sanctions therein should apply, or you are taking other comments and acting on those independently. If so, would you mind posting up which comments you have decided justify this indef block which you are recommending as being infinite. This is a very serious block. --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HK, a lot of us are sick to the eye teeth with the nonsense from both sides in this British Isles dispute. Sarah has had years to modify her conduct to come into line with the basics of site etiquette. Her refusal to do so is her problem just as LemonMonday's and TritonRocker's was theirs. While HJM does not have the power to permanently block anyone (no admin does) the Arbcom ruling allowed for a permanent topic ban (which was administered by GWH). Sarah777 is indefinitely blocked this is, as HJM explained suplementry to the arbcom ruling - not part of it - it's based on WP:5. Sarah777 now has the standard offer open to her, she can appeal her block directly to ArbCom, or she can have her block reviewed. She does not need any group of editors (who agree with her POV) advocating for her. That will get them into trouble, as it would involve them agreeing with hate speech (the highest, worst form of incivility possible). And understand this plainly HK if I see anyone using or endorsing (whether tacitly or openly) racist, bigoted, sectarian, or any other form of hate speech or chauvinism they will be indefinitely blocked in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and WP:BATTLE--Cailil ^talk 01:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is more sick to the back teeth of the nonsense in the British Isles dispute than me. And while I might believe that the nonsense is one-sided, concentrated from a sock farm showing strong a British-POV, I do sometimes wonder why those disruptive activities have been allowed to continue unchecked for so long, and while the editor is allowed to continue to edit and disrupt to this day. Especially given the amount of times I've been threatened with a topic ban, or block, and yet I *do* edit within the previous 5 pillars. Makes me wonder .... --HighKing (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So anyone who expresses disagreement with this draconian block/ban exposes themselves to being blocked - as a default racist. This is getting too farcical for words. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful Rashers - that's not what I said. And read my remarks in full - I agree with Sarah being indefinitely blocked not permanently blocked. Be careful not to misrepresent other users please--Cailil ^talk 02:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful yourself. There was no misinterpretation of your stark comment above. Less of the threats please. RashersTierney (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rashers, I'm not going to ask you again to stop misrepresenting other's comments. Once more if I see anyone endorsing or using hate speech on WP I will (as will most other sysops in fact) block them indefinitely in line with WP:5. If you find yourself worried by that I can't help you--Cailil ^talk 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no worries in that regard. Thanks for the clarification. RashersTierney (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What he wrote was "She does not need any group of editors (who agree with her POV) advocating for her. That will get them into trouble, as it would involve them agreeing with hate speech (the highest, worst form of incivility possible)." He can't get out of the fact that does not say the same thing as "Once more if I see anyone endorsing or using hate speech on WP I will (as will most other sysops in fact) block them indefinitely in line with WP:5." The first quote equates advocating for someone with active support of an act they might be accused of. Stripped down, what it explicitly says is "advocating for her" equals "agreeing with hate speech". In other words, suspension of habeus corpus and denial of right to representation are brought to mind. The second quote is not saying the same thing, Rashers. You were right to object, and what he did was not clarify but in fact obfuscate what he originally said. I am not misrepresenting anything, it is all there in plain English. Sswonk (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk this isn't a court this is an internet encyclopedia. Don't wikilawyer. You're not allowed advocate for blocked users. Disagreeing with a block is different. Advocating for her DOES mean arguing (wikilawyering) that comments like this are not in breach of site standards. She has been issued with another final warning by another sysop for this. In plain English Sswonk anyone who uses or endorses hate speech will be blocked. I would suggest backing off. Sarah777 has dug a very big hole for herself--Cailil ^talk 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, if to have an admin corps rally to "stop chuntering" means to have them fecklessly use these powerful sociological terms, "racism" and "hate speech", and weaken their meaning as in this case against Sarah, I think the project and also people who are truly victims of racism would be better off having the corps keep their chuntering to themselves. Sswonk (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I intend to review the behavior of all editors in the run-up to this incident. As of now, I cannot see justification for an indefinite block here. I will come back if and when I have anything further to say. --John (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• • This is clearly an arbitrary decision made by some people who wear their nationality on their sleeves. So what if people use analogies which would in PC world (as satirised in "Getting On") be considered offensive? It seems to me that the allegations of "hate speech" are being used as a crutch to further a dispute with another editor and that there is an element of ganging up and "gotcha" going on. Silent Billy (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Silent Billy, have you bothered to check where I'm from (in case you haven't I'm Irish)? And generally be careful of bandying about accusations of bad faith - I take them seriously. I'm expecting an apology/redaction/clarification of the above remark btw--Cailil ^talk 02:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. Indeed you yourself have said that the Admin did not have the power to permanently block the editor. I see that you have said you were contemplating a similar action. Had you done so I would have had to consider your reasoning. But you didn't take the action someone else did and my comments are based on that action. I think the action taken does smack of "bad faith" and that's clearly not your bad faith but that's just my opinion. Do I have to keep quiet or do I have the right to say what I think? I'd be prepared to change my opinion if I saw evidence to the contrary. However it seems to me that the tone of your note is somewhat threatening in its tone and unjustified but I ain't crying about it. I can't what in the editor's posts constitutes "hate speech". "Robust" perhaps. Silent Billy (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• How about this for hate speech which she posted on her Talk page this morning: "British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide. Robust my arse. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify as hate speech in any definition. Sarah777's anger over the injustices against Ireland is of course misplaced, but the text you link to is 100% correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate speech or not, it is obviously meant to inflame and is completely unacceptable. Its correctness or incorrectness is beside the point. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly it's meant to inflame, but poking and making others angry is something loads of editors do without getting even a caution here, so calling it "hate speech" is at least as inflammatory as the original quote. AN/I is not a free-for-all where you are allowed to say anything about others. The comment may be inflammatory, but it is essentially correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Heimstern, the post from OpenFuture is beyond crass and is best ignored. DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd welcome an explanation of what you mean here. There is nothing crass at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have issued her with a final warning. If she makes one more racist, defamatory or otherwise uncivil remark then her talk page access should be revoked. She will remain free to appeal to the Arbitration Committee if she wants her ban reviewed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I endorse the indefinte block of Sarah777 for continued gross incivility and refusal to abide by the principles of WP:5P. I do not support an infinite block and would be happy to see her back under the terms of the WP:Standard offer, which specifically in this case would include a commitment to abide by all policies regarding civility and neutral point of view. I would not support an automatic release from the topic ban upon such a return. Should she accept the standard offer, and subsequently edit in the manner that lead to the current block then I would support a further block of at least 2 years with only a single warning. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 has shown herself to be one of the most singularly battleground-minded editors on Wikipedia. If she is allowed to continue editing here (i.e., if her block is lifted), she should be given no more opportunity to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, which is to say that she should be topic banned from the Britain-Ireland disputes, broadly interpreted.

I share Hans Adler's concern about British editors trampling Irish ones; I've seen it done all too often (the time a vote was used to decide the title Republic of Ireland was a particularly farcical example. How could the vote come out any differently when one side had a clear numerical advantage? There's a reason Wikipedia is not a democracy.) None of this can possibly excuse Sarah777's inflammatory nationalist rantings. Lock the door and throw away the key, whether through blocking or topic banning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I, too, endorse the indef-block. Of course not as a never-to-be-overturned "infinite" block (some of the blocking admin's rhetoric was unfortunate there), but as a normal indefinite block for disruption. As such it was well within the bounds of legitimate admin descretion in dealing with obvious disruption. To be unblocked, Sarah777 will need to demonstrate how she is prepared to mend her conduct, and right now I'm not seeing that she is prepared to acknowledge there's been anything wrong with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Heimstern got it quite right as to Sarah777 (I'm not familiar enough with other aspects of this matter to comment on them). HJ's block is a good indefinite block, and any unblock needs to conditioned on an indefinite topic ban. Before someone starts shouting for my head, I'm 100% non-English (as several Wikipedians can verify). T. Canens (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef block - HJ has done a good indef block to the user. She will have to be civil, not personally attacking others, not be disruptive, and follow the five pillars of Wikipedia in order to be unblocked. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad block, all the way around. We had a contributor here whose contributions were a broad continuum, from good all the way to downright deplorable. That said, her problems were all in one area. She was already blocked for a week- the disruption was controlled, and could have been removed entirely by locking her talk page for the duration of that block. Instead of looking for a solution during that week- such as a community imposed topic ban to anything having to do with the United Kingdom or the Irish-British disputes, or consensus for a community ban, HJ imposes an "infinite block". There was no rush. No pressing emergency that demanded this. We needed to do something, I would support a pretty draconian topic ban that could have ed quickly to an indef, but I can in no way support HJ's actions here. There's a time to mash buttons and a time for sober reflection to defuse the situation, and this was the time for the latter. Courcelles 18:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And, with the greatest respect for you, my friend, there's a time to get off our arse, stop chuntering from the sidelines and show that the five pillars are not just recommendations and those who can not or will not adhere to them will be removed from this community, regardless of how many years they've been part of it or anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And, with the greatest respect for you, is civility not one of the the five pillars or are they just recommendations which you ignore at will. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe the point Courcelles was making was that the community had already "got off their arse and stopped chuntering from the sidelines" and imposed a block and sanctions. You jumped in applied your own chosen outcome of an "infinite block". Would the ultimate outcome of the sanctions have been an indefinite block for Sarah777? Perhaps; but we had the opportunity to explore another potential dispute resolution path which you single-handedly and without discussion closed down. Given the concerns on your talk page that there is a potential appearance of you having a conflict of interest, it would not have hurt to discuss your intent to override the decision of a finite block and sanctions at the ongoing discussion here prior to performing the block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• As another uninvolved administrator, I also endorse the indefinite block as a normal administrative reaction to continued disruption, especially aggressive incivility and battleground-style conduct, as seen in the block log and recent contributions. I trust that HJ Mitchell will unblock Sarah777 as soon as he is convinced that the problems will not reoccur, although given her history this conviction will be difficult to achieve. (In case anybody cares, I'm neither English nor Irish, nor do I have known ancestors of either group.)  Sandstein  19:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Future Perfect's action is was the appropriate one, well measured, strong and fair. I don't think the extension to indef was ideal. Sarah was always gonna swear and insult anyone that blocked her, and this is what happens with users with Sarah's temperament. We have some scope for allowing them to vent, as this is how they reconcile themselves. At worst block access to her talk page for the duration. (It should be noted that generally users in British-Irish matters get away with more abuse towards each other than is the case elsewhere in Wikipedia, perhaps because such abuse is generally more common in Britain and Ireland culture than in North America). The extension brought in Hans Adler, and even though he admitted to not having looked over the case, Hans' comments gave an impression of a divided community voice; in turn these circumstances together encouraged a series of partisans from the topic area to come lend their say. Now the thread is hard to read, and everyone's time is being wasted. She admittedly has a terrible history of conflict stirring and polemicism, but she had been relatively good for a while. There's little point in doing anything more just now however, with what done being already done. With FPAS's bans already in place, once the week long arbitration block has expired Sarah can perhaps negotiate terms for returning to editing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think FutPerf's sanctions go far enough. And that's not to criticize FutPerf at all; he was working within the bounds of the AC case. I think what's needed here is not two or three article bans, it's a full-on topic ban from anything and everything to do with Ireland-Britain disputes. For that, since the AC case didn't offer discretionary sanctions, we'd need community consensus. A topic ban like that is, I'm convinced, the only way to fix this problem, and without such a ban, I continue to unreservedly oppose an unblock. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• As a further observation, I don't think it was ideal that the user who imposed the permaban has a big English flag on his user page and edits lots of British military articles. Nothing wrong with any of this (and indeed most actual opposition to things Sarah wants tends to come in practice from other Irish, with English people generally being clueless and apathetic about the issues), and let me stress that I'm positive he was acting in good faith; however this will lend credibility to the cultural persecution narrative Sarah pushes as an excuse for disruptive behaviour. For future reference perhaps. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I agree. the admin who banned Sarah has the St George flag plastered all over his page. That is not the flag of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland it is flag on one of the constituents of the Union. The use of the flag is quite often associated with "British Nationalists" in the same way that the Eureka flag has been hijacked by similar elements in Australia. I am not saying HJM is some sort of right wing nationalist but admins should at least give a semblance of neutrality and remove such symbols from personal pages. Surely admin status is not to be used to push personal agendas. Silent Billy (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment It is also unfortunate that the indef block (and the emotive rhetoric by the blocking admin) immediately followed a comment by Sarah777 directed at the blocking admin where she states I would also strongly suggest that this Mitchell pov-warrior withdraw his "borderline racist" charge. "British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide, not least in Ireland. Some might even say that an involved admin like HJ should not have made this block. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The message you link to is dated 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC), while HJ Mitchell's block took place at 23:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC). Kanguole 08:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support infinite block Wikipedia shouldn't be used for disruptive ultra-nationalist activism. Comments like '"British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide, not least in Ireland.'[29] tell us pretty much all we need to know about this user. Chester Markel (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef blocks by an involved admin, done in the heat of the moment, reflect badly on the admin and on the admin community that subsequently rallies around one of their own. Sarah777's behaviour was already being dealt with using common sense. An indef block immediately after Sarah comments on the blocking admin should be overturned. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  You have the chronology wrong: see above. Kanguole 08:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block. Sarah has been given multiple chances to stop battling and become a constructive editor, and she's squandered them. She has utterly exhausted the community's patience. —Angr (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777's edits to British Isles

• It turns out she's also been altering the contents of reference quotes in articles, even before she started flaming over flags in templates. Whatever happens on that score, this sort of disruption also needs to be addressed head on, or one day one of these attempted "corrections" of hers is going to go unnoticed, and that's concerning given how often some editors cite Wikipedia itself in these POV disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Intent and knowledge (awareness of whether that was in fact a reference quote, or having thought it was normal article text) is important. I have inquired on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked the reference that Sarah777 altered. Her edit (removing "the Republic of Ireland") does misrepresent the source--Cailil ^talk 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So how does one deal with the use of references that might or might not add to the article's usefulness if they contain offensive content. I mean someone might include material from Der Stürmer in order to sneak in offensive material. Silent Billy (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't follow, how is that "offensive content" ? Mtking (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@GW. In terms of intent, I would look over the edits she made immediately after that one. And in terms of knowledge, I cannot come up with a single scenario as to how such an edit would make sense as a good faith edit if the intended target was plain text. She wasn't reacting to a prior change, she didn't mention a talk page outcome, she never added a new ref, and the only plain text nearby that she could have confused it with, if corrected in the manner she did, would mean it then did not agree with the reference she changed mistakenly instead. Even assuming she was just a mile away from where she wanted to be because she had merely used 'find', then it's pertinent that the phrase "and the Republic of Ireland" appears nowhere else in the article. And the 16 times where just "Republic of Ireland" is mentioned, the proposed correction either makes no sense, or in just one other case, would encounter the same issue as above. Sure, she can confirm it was a mistake now, but unless she can outline the realistic scenario that fits the above, I'm not buying it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick - I understand that you're frustrated here, but you are also involved. You need to let uninvolved admins review and Sarah speak for herself, please. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith and count it as a mistake, a rather egregious one, but we don't indefinitely block for a mistake. Sarah's combative tone and nationalistic hyperbole are incompatible with her editing articles related even peripherally to the Troubles, but I feel there are avenues we should try before enacting a ban. A topic ban with the possibility of mentoring? --John (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, even if Sarah was not aware it was a quote, and thought she was editing Wikipedia's own definition of "British Isles", this would still count as a bad-faith edit. Sarah knows, of course, that the term B.I., in common usage, includes Ireland. The edit she made was attempting to conform the article not to what she knew the world was actually like, but what she felt the world ought to be like. It was a deliberate falsification. This was POV vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, I want to point out that ever since I started some form of informal mediation related to the naming of the Republic of Ireland article and a number of pertinent pages ended up on my watchlist, I have been observing a pattern of English/British nationalists looking for every odd excuse to put references to "British" on articles that are specifically about the Republic. As England has 11.5 times the population of the Republic of Ireland and most neutral editors are sick and tired of these conflicts, the English/British nationalists generally win by their sheer number, even if their arguments are poor. Sometimes they even 'win' discussions in which most of their arguments are transparently deliberate provocations.

As a quick Google search for something like "use of flags for language choice" shows, using flags to indicate languages is not a generally accepted idea at all. This is problematic even for country pairs with no violent history, such as Germany and Austria. [30] The discussion at Template talk:British English followed the usual pattern in which justified Irish sensibilities are painted as eccentric, disruptive and against common sense. Both extreme sides are at fault, but the situation is unlikely to improve while we don't take serious measures to ensure that the concerns of the side that is numerically much weaker get adequate attention. Hans Adler 09:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that using flags is sometimes not very useful. However, in the present case it appears pretty clear that the "British English" tag was added to the talkpage as a mere routine maintenance thing, by an editor who had otherwise no involvement in related ideological conflict as far as I can see, without any ideological motiviation, and most likely – and understandably – without any thought at any possible hypersensitivities. It was factually correct, because the article is in fact written in that variety, just as it should be. And the flag had been on the tag since age immemorial [31], without any objections ever being raised. So, your initial description of the case, that "some WP:POINT violators insisted on putting the Union Jack on the talk pages of Ireland-related articles", seems not very apt to me. Call the use of the flag an unthinking bad old habit if you like, but if Sarah objected against it, she could have easily raised that point in a constructive manner and at the location where it belonged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not referring to the tagging of the British Isles talk page. That just caused an overdue discussion to start. I was referring to the discussion at Template talk:British English, where removing the flag was opposed on the following grounds:

• The editor who proposed it was probably influenced by Sarah777, so the proposal was motivated by "hatred of anything British". (Second comment in the thread, immediately took it into an unconstructive direction. Notice how WizOfOz then parries Asarlaí to steer it back into a constructive direction.)
• Then Sarah777 joined the discussion and made a perfectly constructive proposal. (Double-tagging of articles such as British Isles so that an Irish flag appears there as well.)
• Sswonk goes to the trouble of creating and uploading a graphic that can serve as a substitute for the Union Jack.
• WizOfOz: "The flag should not be removed. This is clearly a politically motivated move arising from an apparent dislike of things British." And another attempt to make this personal: "Out of interest, Asarlaí, why do say people Ireland 'unfortunately' use British English?" This is in response to the concrete proposal by Sswonk, apparently in an attempt to quickly steer the discussion away before it gets any results.
• Sswonk steers back on topic.
• WizOfOz: "It's not a political symbol, it's a flag. It is clearly disliked by some people for no good reason and they are being allowed to introduce a political POV by having it removed. Whilst it's multinational the language is referred to as "British" English, and that's too bad if you're anti British. The flag isn't really the issue, it's the tip of the iceberg. Notice the attmept to have a Hiberno English template - that's really what it's all about, so it seems to me. An attmept to offload any mention of British and any related symbols."
• Then Mabuska comes in: "Some editors want to see any reference to British in regards to Ireland in any form removed." (Indeed. More to the point, some editors on leaving as many "British" odour marks on Ireland-related articles as possible.)
• Mabuska then admits: "The flag is inconsiderate in regards to Republic if Ireland related articles [...]."
• WizOfOz: "a number of editors involved here seem to be campaigning [...] agasint flags in general and it has been stated elsewhere [that this is] a smokescreen to get rid of the Ulster Banner and other British-related flags."
• and so on.

"At some point Mabuska proposed:It should be possible to code the template so that you can add an 'RoI' condition to it that would omit the the flag from RoI related articles wheere it is added to articles with an 'RoI' parameter declared." In this context see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 73#NPOV and navigation templates, which is about a related incident and shows extreme wikilawyering in order to get the term "British Isles" on the Republic of Ireland article. Maybe Mabuska wasn't aware of that, but this proposal was just a reminder of earlier attempts to humiliate Irish editors. Hans Adler 12:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you might think about that debate, Sara777's disruption rampage had begun prior to it, so I'm not sure in what sense it's relevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your both right. Hans is correct there is extreme blatant WP:NOR and 'neutering' of sources going on on both sides. But this does not excuse Sarah's disruption (it's just bad for others who are involved in similar disruption). A lot of the stuff going on in this topic area is incompatible with wikipedia (look above by the remark by Silent Billy - "So how does one deal with the use of references that might [...] contain offensive content"). and everyone involved in altering sources to fit their POV has to stop or has to go. The crowd at WP:BISE got repeat lectures on this very issue at Christmas. Again I will point out the topic of British Isles is under probation specifically the addition/removal of it is sanctionable under WP:GS/BI--Cailil ^talk 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The probation is for specifically the tendentious and repeated addition/removal of British Isles without references or citations, which is already pretty much enshrined in the existing policies or WP in any case. I don't see how Sarah777's recent behaviour comes under that Arbcom ruling. On the other hand, I can see how the previous "Famine" Arbcom ruling is relevant. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the linked diff (at the head of this section) she removed the Republic of Ireland from a definition of the British Isles contrary to its inclusion in a source. Sarah made a number of different statements on that page some about the British Isles topic dispute (showng that her attitudes spilled over or crossed over to it). BTW the WP:GS/BI is a community probation not an ArbCom one--Cailil ^talk 12:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, this bizarre edit of Sarah's, made at around the same time as her anti-Union-Jack polemics, has not been commented on yet. Should we regard it as a mere error or accident? If it was intentional, it really crossed the line into pure vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well certainly she marked a revert as a minor edit - which is bad on its own, but the content changes are well ... bizzare. The more I look at this the more it seems she kinda pressed the 'self-destruct button' all of a sudden in the last few days.
  If she wants to come back or those arguing for her want to encourage her to come back she is going to need to recognize all of this as incorrect behaviour and stay away from everything (discussions, xfds, aricles, talk pages, editors) to do with Britain, Britain and Ireland, Irish history, British history and the British Isles--Cailil ^talk 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sarah777 is a rollbacker and this is a rollback edit summary, so of course it's marked minor. The question is why she clicked rollback in the first place. Recently there have been problems with this site so that depending on which scripts you have installed, you may get the entire page displayed, click on a link, and suddenly the page jumps up or down. At least in Firefox, if a link ends up in the location where you clicked before the jump, it will be activated instead of the link you wanted. In one case I rolled back an edit that I did not want to roll back. The developers know about the problem, but they are very reluctant about fixing it because they think they have solved a performance problem. More votes for the bug could help to get it addressed. Hans Adler 17:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry Hans you're right it is a rollback; and as you point out the question still is why she did it. Maybe it was a bug. It is a really bizarre edit.--Cailil ^talk 21:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well GW, she unsurprisingly confirmed it was a mistake. There was no other plausible explanation as to how it made sense though, if editting the reference quote was not her intent. Her explanation was precisely too words - "my bad". The rest of that time she saved for flinging more arrows at HJM. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:British Isles

Not related to Sarah, but in the whole dispute area and in part sparked by this report. I've requested protection at RFPP but raising it here will probably be quicker - please can someone protect this template so that the claims that it conforms to NPOV by morphing it's state depending on what article it is on, on the flawed assumption that Irish articles are for Irish readers and vice versa, can be (re-)exmined, yet again. I don't know what more I'm supposed to do than what's already been done in terms of showing good faith over this - it's been discussed repeatedly on the talk page, and on the NPOVN noticeboard, and ultimately I even took the issue all the way to Jimbo to get it settled, who unsurprisingly confirmed that no, that's not how we do NPOV and never will be. And that was that, it remained stable in that state, until it was raised as a side issue in here by Hans. Now we have him, aided by User:Mo ainm (Infact, his first and only edit today thus far) who is a very prodigous meat puppet in this conflict area (and a CLEANSTART account with a long history of the same on his old name), continually reverting the template as having 'no consensus', while not hearing a peep out of either of them on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Says the editor who reverted 3 times in 2 hours. Also your continued attempts at outing me when the admin Alison warned you about is laughable.Mo ainm~Talk 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

She can come here and justify that position anytime she likes, it made no sense then, and it's sure as hell causing the site uneeded grief now. CLEANSTART is not, and never has been, a mechanism for whitewashing an account's prior history to leave the new identity free to engage in the same behaviour. MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

She already did, so why should she come back again to placate you and your little crusade. Mo ainm~Talk 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? I know she said some things in the area, but let's be clear, you're saying she's been here before and said it would be perfectly fine for a user with a history of meat puppetry in the British Isles dispute area to vanish and reappear under a different account name, and resume that behaviour? Diffs or it never happened tbh. I'm sure you see the parallels with this current case - should Sarah ever be unblocked and then dutifully wait out her topic bans, can she also RESTART, and feel free to return to calling people WestBrits and such like? Really? Is that what you're actualy arguing for here? As something that would be helpful and healthy for the project? Or is the truth really as ever that your outing excuse is the thinnest of thin covers for what was infact a prior history laundry exercise. MickMacNee (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. "flawed assumption that Irish articles are for Irish readers". What MickMacNee has done was removing a feature of the template that enabled a nuanced approach to the term British Isles. It's the only natural term we have for the "North-Atlantic Archipelago" or "Britain, Ireland and the culturally and geographically close smaller islands", but it is slightly offensive in Ireland-specific contexts. The precise wording is a difficult NPOV question that requires nuanced, context-sensitive arguments, and it's not something that can be decided centrally by a one-size-fits-all template. When MickMacNee's POV lost on certain Ireland-related articles, he ran to the other parent and tried it with wikilawyering. In the context of the present discussion I was reminded that in the end he "won" simply by everybody else running out of steam.
This must all be seen in the wider context of nationalist British editors continually insisting on marking Ireland-related articles as "British" territory. Hans Adler 17:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Wikipedia presents a consistent internal view and makes no assumption whatsoever about the percieved POV of readers of certain topics, is completely non-negotiable frankly. If I have to go to Jimbo before people will accept what is and is not a core principle, I will. That's not wikilawyering, it's called being at your wits end. I see no difference in doing that, than if I had to go and get him to clarify that no, it's not a good idea to use the Daily Mail as a source. You know full well what the perceptions are on that score from some people. Just because a few editors believe that something or other is good or even common practice on Wikipedia (while having no external examples), or that a vested minority want to push for it as it would clearly suit their POV while going against another, doesn't make it correct. I've gone far beyond what is reasonably expected in my efforts to convince you that this bodged up 'solution' on this template was not how we do NPOV. I've gone to great lengths to get outside views, I've even given you directly comparable examples from other disputes - do you see any template morphing going on over the issue of Gdansk? Or closer to home, Derry? No. Take your case to the wider commmunity, and then if you get agreement, you won't have to claim that there's 'no consensus' for any of these pretty Wikipedia-101 views. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You are simply not getting it. I won't speculate why you are not getting it, but the fact is not an excuse for edit warring. One and the same word has different shades of meaning, and sometimes a completely different meaning, according to the context in which it is used. The word "British Isles" is still perfectly good in all international and British contexts. But it is not PC, and in fact offensive to some, when used in an Irish context. In such a context it is perfectly reasonable to replace it, and it is absolutely not OK to prevent this by wikilawyering once the decision to replace it has been made locally at an Ireland-related article. We had extensive discussions about that, and numerous sources were presented to prove that people are beginning to avoid this word and to look for alternatives. But once you have lost in one location you just run to the next one until everybody is too tired. That's not how it works. Forum shopping is simply not allowed, and forum shopping by wikilawyering to remove options from templates is the most despicable form. Hans Adler 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ok guys that's enough. This is not relevant to the case in hand. Hans I'm aware of the problem you're talking about but as an Irish person I can see that there is also a serious issue of 'Irish Nationalist' edits being made as well. All that matters on Wikipedia is WP:5 - any edit out of line with that whoever it's from is a problem. Either take this to dispute resoltion or try ArbCom. ANI is not for content disputes or battles--Cailil ^talk 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange Blocks on Sarah777

I noticed this "article banned" and "indef-banned" being placed on Sarah on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine despite the fact that Sarah has not edited this article since 12 September 2009 or posted on its talk page since 3 June 2009. Why are these notices being placed on this page? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with specifically editing the Great Irish Famine article. It's just that that arbitration case placed Sarah777 under a special parole that allows administrators to enact these kinds of sanctions against her relating to any other page too ("may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks"). That's just what she was doing. Discussion of the whole case is further up on this page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If "It has nothing to do with specifically editing the Great Irish Famine article" why is it being posted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in what has been quoted by Fut. Perf. that would extend the remedy to pages which have not been disrupted by Sarah. Bielle (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's customary that all sanctions done under the authority of a specific Arbcom decision are logged on that case page. It says it right above: "Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here". The bans are from just those pages that she did disrupt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just by way of a timeline Domer. GWH article banned her from Template:British English for one month. Serperately, Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked Sarah for a week and indef topic banned her under the terms of the Famine ArbCom. Her conduct after that result in HJM's indef block. 3 seperate sanctions--Cailil ^talk 18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I read it Cailil, and it is very clear "Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here." Now the "article banned" and "indef-banned" form no part of this Arbcom. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Here" in that line is "log the blocks here", not that interpretation. Furthermore, given that one sanction is "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Log of blocks and bans.", that's exactly the procedure followed. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It also notes that these Remedies were passed on 1 September 2007, that "the mentorship will continue for one year." Were did Sarah "engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks" surly not here or here. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Domer I'd suggest reconsidering your position - if you fail to see how these edits as incivil and incompatible with WP:5 that's your problem--Cailil ^talk 19:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(de-indent) Domer, you're conflating two remedies from the GIF case. First was the general mediation/review/mentorship of the Great Irish Famine article. That ended one year from the date it was passed. Then, we get to the finding specifically on Sarah: Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Log of blocks and bans.. Note, there is no time limit on this one, compared to the other request. Thus, it is indefinite and still in effect now. It states bluntly that she can be banned from any page she is engaging in agressive biased editing and/or anti-British remarks. It also provides a central place for these sanctions to be logged (the GIF ArbCom case Log of Blocks and Bans).

I've spoken with John, and while there is no way that I could be considered an uninvolved administrator (I once blocked Sarah indefinitely as in indefinite till she agrees to stop the disruptive behavior that she had engaged in at the time)), but if I may provide a suggestion.. her actions in this case (both pre and post block) do merit a fairly lengthy block.. if not a topic or site ban. I would suggest the following: Sarah777's indefinite block is converted into a 1-3 month block, and she is topic banned from all Ireland/British related articles until such time she agrees to mentorship with a mentor suitable to community approval. Once she begins the mentorship, all British Isles and Ireland edits must go through her mentor, who will have the ability to end the mentorship (and thus restore the topic ban on Sarah777) at any point). SirFozzie (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd support SirFozzie's suggestion. Although I'd feel more comfortable if she'd agree not make any derogatory remarks (or analogies) on wikipedia and/or a year long civility parole but wont make my support conditional of that--Cailil ^talk 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I could grudgingly support something a bit stronger than this. My first choice, quite frankly, is an indefin ite site ban with a review after six months by ArbCom or the community. If she is to be allowed to return in the foreseeable future (but I strongly oppose an immediate return under any circumstances), it needs to be made very clear what she can and can't do and what the consequences are if she fails to adhere to that. Among the list of things she can't do should be:

• adding or removing the words "British" or "Irish" from any article,
• editing any page (in any namespace) even remotely connected to the BI naming dispute,
• using the word "nationalist" anywhere on Wikipedia,
• making any comment whatsoever on the character of editors with whom she is or has been in dispute,
• adding, removing or commenting in any way on the Union Flag; the flags of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the flag of the Irish Republic anywhere on Wikpedia,
• Using "sic" or scare quote or any other punctuation intended to bait 'opponents'. There should be clear, predicatable consequences (such as lengthy blocks) for violations which get stiffer with each violation.

Before any of that, though, she needs to acknowledge that her behaviour has been extremely disruptive. I'm not trying to humiliate her, but if she can't (or won't) recognise that her behaviour was disruptive, then she can't possibly reform because she doesn't think she's done naything wrong. I will go on record as saying I think this is a waste of time, but I'd be very happy to be proved wrong, so those are the conditions under which, after at least a month, I would be willing to seriously consider an unblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 may not have edited Great Irish Famine since 2009, but she's edited Legacy of the Great Irish Famine a lot more recently. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support SirFozzie's suggestion. --John (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• I must say that I do not think SirFozzie's proposal is a good idea, and is the kind of proposal that will only produce more drama and time wasting. It is merely deferring work from now to the future, which while tempting now of course is unfair to several-month-hence Wikipedians. A mentor is a waste of wiki-resources. Sarah is not a child. If she can't edit independently of a mentor, she shouldn't be editing; her contributions to hotspot issues are largely drama stirring anyway: no net gain even without the resource expense of a mentor. We must not promote the idea that somehow only some people are responsible for their own actions. On the other hand well defined restrictions can keep her from stirring up trouble and drama in hotspot topics while contributing productively in other areas with minimal time consumption in the admin and general Wikipedia community. If she can't obey the restrictions, then that would be it. Seriously, FuturePerfect had this sorted and everything since has just been a complete waste of time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe a mentor will solve anything. The Famine Arbcom ruling on anti-British remarks needs to be enforced (as they were). The remaining issue is a battleground and civility issue. Appropriate escalating blocks are available to deal with this, and we should start with a suitable block period and make clear what the escalations are. Ultimately, either Sarah777 will stay and edit, or decide to call it a day and give up. Same choice as any other editor. Why invent something complicated when something simple and already available will easily suffice? --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afriad I disagree with SirFozzie's proposal too. Mentorship is waste of time. Sarah has been editing here since mid-2006. She know the deal. She doesn't need a mentor. The sad reality is that Sarah has demonstrated herself time and time again to be incapable of keeping her cool on British- and Irish-related topics.

Sarah does good work on non-controversial topics and was very instrumental in building up WikiProject Ireland. She continues to do important work in rating articles. However, her bahavior can be utterly out of line. Topic bans are unfortunately necessary as she cannot be trusted to edit or contribute on sensitive issues.

Regardless of that, however, as HK says, the community needs to start re-imposing hefty and escalating blocks. If someone cannot abide by our basic pillars then they need to be shown the door. --RA (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like saying it, but I too think that mentoring Sarah will be a waste of time. She has had plenty of time and numerous second chances to prove that she can edit in a collegiate manner, but on every occasion she has proven she either cannot or will not. If we really must insist on giving yet another opportunity to prove she can be a positive (not just net positive) contributor to the encyclopaedia, and I'm not convinced her past behaviour warrant such an opportunity, then it should only be under the terms of the standard offer and a complete topic ban infractions of which result in immediate and escalating blocks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also disagree with SirFozzie's proposal. It's been tried before (following another suggestion by SirFozzie (June 2008)) and worked as well as it did with User:Vintagekits - that is to say, not at all. Topic ban and escalating blocks is the way to go. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious from this long thread that Sarah has long been showing a pattern of problematic behavior. Otherwise, she wouldn't have all these blocks. If an editor has problems and makes a genuine effort to improve, that'll be apparent and we should work with the editor. However, if the same problematic behavior keeps being displayed by the same editor, in this case for years, it's time to give serious consideration to whether a project relying on collaboration with others is the right place for that person. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support SirFozzie's suggestion. No criticism of HJM's block but I agree with comments below that Sarah was using British to refer an institution. Within Britain though the term is both officially and widely used to indicate a race - not in the sense of a biological ethnicity, but to define a people who share a common national destiny and look back on a shared heritage. A heritage which despite its dark notes, was so much a net positive in world affairs, replete with such splendour and glory that thousands if not millions of non white people are proud to identify as British. And even with foreign nationals over 50 former members of the Empire choose to remain voluntarily associated with Commonwealth, headed by her Majesty the Queen. So editors should be cautious using the word British in outrageous insults. I also agree with Han Adler's analyses that Sarah seems to have been ganged up on. A substantial minority of Irish seem to share Sarahs anti British POV and they have good historical cause.- their POV and sensitivity should be reflected in Irish articles. So I hope the mentor will protect her from trolling when she tries to make our Irish articles NPOV, but on the other hand encourage Sarah to tread lightly if at all on British articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan and repeated unwanted talkpage messages

I first asked SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to post on my talkpage on October, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, so would someone please remind them that unwanted advice is unwelcome, as are pointless needling comments which have no intention other than to irritate me [32]

I am aware that I do not own my talkpage, but I have been repeatedly advised [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] that repeated unwanted talkpage contact is disruptive and potential harassment. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that TreasuryTag is simultaneously posting to SarekOfVulcan's talk page, and given that SarekOfVulcan's initial comment doesn't appear to be be intended to be disruptive, I'm not seeing a whole lot of merit here. There is something to be looked in to regarding civility here and here. Prodego ^talk 15:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He's posting to my RFA as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you're allowed to post crap on my talkpage but I'm now allowed to post relevant links to behavioural concerns on your RfA? That sounds reasonable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What did you expect. Posting to his page and then prodding him further after irritating him is tantamount to trolling giving your recent history -- trolling in the sense that they serve no purpose but to provoke a response from him. Can I ask what you were thinking there? I suggest an interaction ban between these two.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, Prodego, what do you suggest I do to prevent disruptive messages with no possible purpose other than to annoy me? Are they allowed as per policy? Or was my request that Sarek stop a fair one? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And this one. By crystal clear about this Treasury Tag. I don't care if you were baited or if you felt annoyed. These kind of edit summaries are utterly inappropriate. Incivility in an edit summary is a very serious matter. Take this as a final warning further incivility anywhere will result in your account being blocked to prevent further disruption of this project.
For future reference don't use edit summaries to address others and don't insert incivilities into them--Cailil ^talk 15:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The follow up comments weren't particularly productive Sarek, though I can understand your annoyance. Prodego ^talk 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone violates policies and guidelines, then they must expect messages of notification/warning to the effect from anyone. That they just happen to be from Sarek this time isn't all that relevant. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose interaction ban

I propose and interaction ban between User:TreasuryTag and User:SarekOfVulcan. I can't see any interactions between the two that won't lead to more unnecessary drama. They should be explicitly commanded not to poke each other in the future.Griswaldo (talk)

Proposal: User:TreasuryTag and User:SarekOfVulcan are banned from interacting with or commenting about each other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means you are not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of each other.Griswaldo (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because we frequently work in the same area (Doctor Who) and comment in the same discussions etc. I don't see any problems here that can't be solved by us voluntarily keeping a distance from each other where possible: today's conflict only came about because Sarek (for some reason) decided to butt into a thread on my talkpage and escalate things from there. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  If you and Sarek want to play nice then prove that you can play nice. When people don't play nice the only solution is to keep them away from each other. What do you plan to do on your end to ensure that such a ban is not needed? The community needs to be spared the drama so please start considering what you can do to reconcile with Sarek or at least to prevent these types of situations. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I first asked Sarek to try and keep away from me in October. It's not my fault that they declined. It's not my fault that they inserted themselves into an irrelevant topic on my talkpage today. It's not my fault that they followed this up with two needling and useless comments. If you can point to any aspects of my behaviour which has been picking fights with Sarek, I'd be glad to receive the feedback. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your reaction to his comment was certainly under your control and it didn't exactly deescalate the situation. The resulting drama in these situations are rarely caused by only one party, though often preventable if only one of the parties choses to take the high road. Will you consider handling these types of situations differently?Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  What is your specific suggestion? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  All of your replies to SoV (particularly the two linked above), and [38] all seem to be attempts to bait him. While I agree that his subsequent edits to your talk page appear to have been attempts to bait you, I don't think either of you can claim to be a victim here. If you cannot leave each other alone, then an interaction ban may be needed. But hopefully you both can simply disengage here. I'd also note that it was you who "escalated" this to ANI. Prodego ^talk 15:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I did indeed escalate this to ANI, since I felt it was the best way of stopping the needling and un-necessary comments from Sarek on my talkpage. That has, indeed, worked, at least for the present. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)TreasuryTag told Casliber "If you're...so bizarre as to think that linking the word 'Europe' to Europe is a bad idea, then you'll excuse me for not valuing your feedback and asking you to keep it to yourself in future." I pointed TreasuryTag to WP:OVERLINK, which explicitly says "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations". TreasuryTag reverted my comment, leaving his attack on Casliber in place, and trotted over to my talkpage to complain about the "unwanted input". Politely pointing out an error is not usually considered "butting in". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is no polite way to poke a bear.Griswaldo (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  When someone says something really silly, pointing it out is not normally poking a bear. Otherwise we can close this shop right away. Hans Adler 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  While I agree in most cases, bear poking includes posting to talk pages of individuals who have asked one not to (see example #4 on the linked essay). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support; if these two find that being banned from associating with each other is detrimental to their editing, maybe that'll encourage the users in question to try and play nicely. Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - if someone wont take reposnibility for their own actions then we have to hold them responsible--Cailil ^talk 15:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Confirming support after addition of the wording--Cailil ^talk 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Without commenting on the merits of the proposed ban, could we get some wording in the thread so people know what they're voting on? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  If the wording were something as mild as, "TT and SarekOfWhatsit are barred from editing each other's talkpages save for required notifications," then I would be content to support. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  An interaction ban is (taken from WP:ER) "Banned from interacting with or commenting about each other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means you are not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of each other". Prodego ^talk 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Prodego, that doesn't include AN/I, WQA, and other such noticeboards does it?Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  It does. And based on this thread that would be a good thing. Reporting the other user violating the ban would be allowed though. Prodego ^talk 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  You're probably right about that. I assume this also precludes Sarek from taking any administrative action against TT?Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think that is going to be a problem, but yes, it would. Prodego ^talk 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Already done -- I agreed not to use the tools against TreasuryTag a while back.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support a ban along the lines of each posting nothing on the other's talk page, apart from mandated messages such as the "There is a discussion about you at AN/I" type. I would hope to the Gods that they could avoid even the latter, though that might be a triumph of hope over expectation.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - If users are having behavioral problems then deal with them as necessary with our current guidelines and policies, there's no need to add a bureaucratic layer of "I'm not sure if I can post here because he already did" nonsense. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I generally prefer to avoid interaction bans as well - if a user is disruptive we can block them. But this does make things a bit more clear, and looking at the history here that wouldn't be a bad thing. I am neutral in this case. Prodego ^talk 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, because this kicked off by pointing TT to WP:OVERLINK. Hardly the sort of thing that calls for an interaction ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Distressing, childish stuff. That SoV is standing for a reconfirmation Rfa while commenting on TT's talk page when asked not to do so by TT makes it grotesque as well. Jusdafax 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• (EC)Trouts For All: As evidenced at various sections all over Wikipedia TreasuryTag and SoV do not get along at all. Can both editors agree not to involve themselves in the others talkpage with the exception of process mandated notices? Hasteur (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm also concerned because TT has 5 edits to the RfA of a user whom he doesn't wish to interact with. If TT doesn't want to interact with SoV, why is that? Additionally this and this. Talk page comments are not the only issue here. Prodego ^talk 16:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm. I wonder why I opposed in the RfA of a person who I consider to be thoroughly unsuitable to adminship. That was a pretty strange thing for me to do, eh? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I also have support this position. Sarek has likely learnt it is not a good thing to post advice on the talkpages of users you are in dispute with but the worst thing I find in this report is the rudeness and swearing in TT's edit summaries. These two strike me as unnecessarily gratuitously rude - here and hereOff2riorob (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity, does TreasuryTag have any other interaction bans in force at this point?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  No he doesn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Prodego that it's crass hypocrisy on the part of Treasury Tag. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Go chill out I think TreasuryTag and SarekofVulcan should both be mature enough to realize that antagonizing each other does no good. Just avoid each other, I think you could both handle that without interaction banning. If you can't, there are bigger problems. — Moe ε 16:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't think this is the appropriate time. If anything, TreasuryTag deserves a big whack for bringing this to ANI and then reporting his own ANI report on Sarek's RfA in the third person (adding a 'regretfully' for good measure). Must say I admire the chutzpah though!--rgpk (comment) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Presumably Sarek doesn't deserve a "whack" for this helpful and constructive comment then? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  No comment since I don't know the context. But I was impressed by your chutzpah with the third person report! A "I have reported ..." would have been a lot more informative. --rgpk (comment) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I know you were impressed by the chutzpah. You mentioned that above, and you know I read that comment, because I replied to it. I notice that you have (still) avoided criticising Sarek in any way whatsoever, which is also a chutzpah in itself. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  As this is a collaborative project, it's very important to resist the temptation to snipe at other users even if you think they deserve it. Rather than constantly picking at any scab you can find, De-escalating issues will reduce drama and allow more people to get on with building an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

1. I regret to have to note that Sarek has just been reported at ANI for repeatedly leaving pointless and unwanted messages on an editor's talkpage after being asked to stop multiple times. ....translates as...
2. After a spat on my talkpage I have reported Sarek to ANI.

• Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, and Sarek's still tracking my edits and reporting me at every opportunity. Splendid. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  ...and clutching at straws in a seemingly desperate attempt to implicate me in wrongdoing now? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Both can work through this without need for more drama. If anything TT needs a trout for making mountains out of molehills. -- ۩ Mask 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a bad situation, but an interaction ban is not appropriate here. The fact that a user doesn't like the good-faith advice and warnings that other users post on his/her talk page does not make the complaining user a victim of harassment. Perhaps the complaining user should think about whether there's a good reason for all of those unwanted talk-page messages. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to compute the possible good reason for this – ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 18:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments at TreasuryTag's talk page. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support these two users need to stay away from each other for a little while. If they can't do it themselves, it's time for the community to give them a time out. -Atmoz (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Really, it's a bit like when two dogs supposed to work as a team get into a snarl-fest with each other. Either someone needs to haul them both off by their tails, or pour a bucket of icy water over them, or simply not allow them to work in the same harness-string for a while. In the absence of the virtual equivalent of tail-hauling or icy water, the only viable solution seems to be an interaction ban. And I'll add - if two dogs are fighting over a particular toy, then you remove the toy from both of them - so a topic ban may be another alternative or addition to an interaction ban. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake

I really don't know why I start ANI threads. Every damned time, it's turned into a stupid free-for-all in which every editor I've ever had a conflict with turns up to disparage me, nobody focuses on the original issue at all (which was Sarek harassing me on my talkpage – though since that came about through my alleged "crass hypocrisy" I guess it's completely justified?) and nothing get's done. For fuck's sake. Interaction ban, no interaction ban, do what you want. I would say, "Try to resolve the issue as best you can," but I know that would be an unrealistic expectation on my part. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not in conflict with you (at least not from my side) I comment on some of the issues as I see from a NPOV position - only yesterday I supported your position at the interaction ban another user was requesting from you, see my one comment in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Interaction ban.3F - I also don't think Sarek was particularly harassing you (better if he had allowed other users to comment)- you were in the wrong and overlinking. Calisber had pointed it out to you but you had refused to accept his/her advice. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And what's your opinion on this then? Useful? Constructive? Appropriate? A good idea? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarak should have taken the hint and left you to it. However I do think you should have still held your tongue and that your rudeness wasn't called for. I don't think this report was called for and I don't think your comment regarding your own report at Sarek's RFA was called for either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

While some of it was baiting for a reply, you don't need to make the situation any more useless, nonconstructive and inappropriate. By the looks of it though, it's heading that way. — Moe ε 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't recall ever having had any beef with TreasuryTag, but if you are in breach of policies or guidelines, I'd say you were fair game for comments on your talk page. Then you complain someone is hounding you when you just as happily hound him back – if that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's because you are the common problem TT, nobody else. If you disagree, you could try looking for some actual support for this idea that you aren't - I suggest you open an editor review, and you can have free reign to remove or compartment any post from a user you can show might have a reason to have a grudge against you. If the majority of remaining editors agree you're generally an all round collaborative & cluefull editor, then you can cite that link in future cases like this, where you clearly feel you are the victim in the inevitable drama. But in my view, you are the common cause of the drama, and you truly don't appear to see what your problem is, or worse, are fully aware and just working within the letter rather than the spirit. Your only hope if you can't prove this victimisation theory is if someone here will agree to mentor you who you can run your decisions and draft comments/replies past first, before you force the inevitable, and the next interaction ban focusses on protecting everybody else from you. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  ^ What Mick said. When you constantly throw out snide, smart-ass remarks and edit summaries, there's gonna be few people anxious to assist you when it comes right back at you. You reap what you sow TT. Actually, WP:KETTLE comes to mind here as far as a link goes. just sayin. — Ched :  ?  17:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  er, yes. Really, stunning lack of self-awareness. "Every damned time...every editor I've ever had a conflict with turns up to disparage me... nobody focuses on the original issue at all". TT, maybe, just maybe it's got something to with how you conduct yourself. Ever thought of that? DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why a free-for-all? WP:MMORPG. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at TreasuryTag's talk page, I do not see any comments from SarekOfVulcan that would constitute harassment. In fact, SarekOfVulcan rarely posts to TreasuryTag's talk page to begin with. There is simply no defined pattern of offensive behavior intended to intimidate or otherwise make TreasuryTag editing unpleasant. —Farix (t | c) 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are looking at the edit history because it seems that TT is deleting all of Sarek's comments so "looking at TreasuryTag's talk page," would not enable you to see the edits TT is complaining about. I'm not saying that you will agree with TT if you do look at the history, only that doing so is required to see the actual edits in question. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page history. In the last 500 edits going back as far as September 2010, SarekOfVulcan has only posted 11 comments, two of which were block notices and a third was a talkback notice. This is not counting removing an imposter's comment to TreasuryTag and removing a warning that TreasuryTag had removed ealier, but restored by an IP. —Farix (t | c) 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stop this now.

I think the consensus is an interaction ban as proposed above, and if another admin agrees, will they please close this, If anyone thinks there wasn't enough reason before this now, this an/i certain gives enough. The two good editors clearly need some help in returning to more useful things than this, and the time to help them is right now, before things get even worse. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that the number of editors !voting oppose above are significantly outweighed by the number of editors !voting support – because I'm not convinced I see it that way. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- on straight votes, it's 6 support, 7 oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's no consensus, but it should be pointed out that 2 of the "oppose" !votes you counted are the two subjects of the proposed ban, yourself and TT. Without those, it's 6 support, 5 oppose, still no consensus for a ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to trout both editors, but I don't see consensus for an interaction ban here. Rd232 ^talk 13:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. At this point, unless the two volunteer for a self-imposed interaction ban, I don't see this going anywhere. Just stop bothering one another. If you can't both manage that, this may be a good time to take a Wikibreak. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no consensus for a WP:IBAN, but WP:TROUTs for both seems to have it. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I question the basic competence of an admin who seriously thinks they can declare a consensus from the above discussion. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where DGG sees a consensus, but I can assure you he's a very competent admin. -- Atama頭 22:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tussle with him sometime over some very god-awful applications and interpretations of Wp:BLP policy; that tune will change. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles

Maheshkumaryadav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Maheshkumaryadav was recently the subject of a discussion here regarding a slew of articles he created about corruption in Pakistan - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#User:Maheshkumaryadav. User:Rob commented in that discussion at 11:55 6 May that part of the "problem" was the sheer number of articles being created.

Today, Maheshkumaryadav has created another slew of poorly sourced, incorrect and mostly cloned articles regarding certain villages and police forces - Special:Contributions/Maheshkumaryadav. Some people, including myself, raised concerns about this on his talk page. In my case, the concerns got no response and some further articles were created after I had raised the issue.

As an example of the problem, Manipur Police contains a statement that the force has nine departments ... and then lists them as being three. This is elementary stuff and can probably be fixed if someone can find their way around the relevant police force's website. However, the sheer number - as Rob noted a couple of days ago - makes for more work than it should be. That statement about departments appears to have been applied to all of the police force articles, as have the inclusion of sections on officer ranks and insignia which may or may not be applicable to each force.

I have nothing against stub creation but the scale of these is a little intimidating. Is it acceptable practice? I sought the opinion of an admin, who referred me back to here because of the previous instance. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not stub creation, it's creating loads of pages with the same content, all of which is irrelevant. We should not list the insignia of Indian or Pakistani police of the page for every police station, that's self-evident. Maheshkumaryadav doesn't seem to listen to the advice he is repeatedly given. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that villages - however obscure - are deemed to be notable. Are police forces? - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a timed article creation ban. The editor has been warned before but doesn't appear to get it. --rgpk (comment) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is the case, please no more then a week, Sadads (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

-

(edit conflict)I strongly advise against blocking Mahesh. Though his contributions are sometimes a little rash, he has been slowly learning the values of the community and, I think today after weeks of hints, we have gotten partially through to him, and unlike his previous offenses, is not pushing pov rampantly anymore. I suggest instead that we continue to monitor his edits heavily and try to keep an eye on what he is doing. I am currently checking in on his contributions almost every day, and there are several more people watching his talk page, and increasingly his contributions are becoming more useful. Even thought the police department articles are not ideal, the lack of coverage of Wikipedia on these subjects is again pushing forward the issues of the WP:Systematic bias and undoubtedly, as the Indian internet population becomes more and more active (as we have already observed) these articles will get many more careful eyes looking over them. He is being rash, but at this point I don't think administrator action is necessary, and he is not being too disruptive, Sadads (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A block is not necessary. An article creation ban will take care of this problem. He/she can always create articles in user space and asked for them to be moved to article space when they are ready. --rgpk (comment) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The village articles are also a problem. While human settlements are considered inherently notable, the stubs contain literally no information other than the village name along with the state and district its in. No coordinates, no census data, no details. Most importantly, they contain no references. Without at least geo-coordinates, we have neither verification nor any easy way to gain verification that these settlements exist. We don't know where Mahesh was getting these names from, if they're current, nor were we given any way to verify that event the name is correct. Technically speaking, they're all immediately deletable as being unverified. Still, I'm not sure there's anything an admin can actually do here; I guess what we need to decide is whether Mahesh must stop creating unverified sub-stubs, and, if so, whether someone should write xem a very clear warning to this effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am grateful for Qwyrxian's contribution here as I am aware from the history that xe has been involved with this editor previously. While I do understand the intent of Sadads' comments, I feel that there is a limit of tolerance. My gut feeling is that the suggestion proposed by RegentsPark should in theory achieve something but am aware that Maheshkumaradav has previously put forward the argument that WP stifles new article creators. So, it is possible that by stifling Mahesh we could actually alienate him completely. Would that be a loss in the circumstances? Well, I'd like to hope that it doesn't actually push him over the edge but if it does then, frankly, that is just tough. The situation at present seems not to be working too well and if the "hints" are having any effect then the rate of improvement engendered by them appears to be dismally slow. Something (somebody) has got to give way. I am not experienced enough to make a judgement as to where, when or how but the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality. If that is acceptable then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an element of disruption in creating lots of new stub articles at one time and Maheshkumaryadav needs to see that. A timed article creation ban will give him/her the chance to work on creating articles in their user space, so their new article creation tendencies won't be stifled, only channeled more appropriately. We don't want to stifle new article creators but neither do we want to have to put up with the work of cleaning up when an editor creates too many meaningless ones. (I don't question the good faith of the editor but, just because he/she is acting in good faith doesn't mean that the end result is not disruptive.) --rgpk (comment) 23:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. If we make it clear that continued creation in userspace, with appropriate review prior to moving into mainspace, is still ok then hopefully we are all beneficiaries from the situation. If someone throws a hissy fit about this proposal then I would be astonished. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, several of us are monitoring his talk page now, so I think we could handle inquiries/thoughts he is having right now. Again, I would like to reiterate a moderate time of banning though placed on him. He is extremely high energy in editing, and I fear anything longer then a week or two might be a little oppressive, Sadads (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think a weeks article creation block is a good idea. We shouldn't have to hint and explain for weeks and months to get somebody to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see nothing to seriously take issue with concerning his recent contributions in the last few days. The police articles are not about local police forces such as the US small town police forces articles we keep properly deleting, but regional police forces, such as are considered notable for the various US states & are therefore notable in India also. The content in them is basic , but I see nothing wrong in starting with basic content. The articles on towns are highly appropriate though they need at least the demographics and location, not just the jurisdictional material, and he should be encouraged to add the content, not discouraged from making the articles. There is more to be said in each case, but we are better having the articles than not having them. I'm aware of earlier problems with NPOV, but this is another matter. I see no reason not to make them directly in mainspace--stubs are permitted. They are not meaningless, just not as meaningful as they should be. It is just as good an option to start many articles to be finished later as to write a smaller number of more finished ones. This is an area of the world where we badly beed content. Sirtush says "the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality." -- actually, the situation at present favors both ways of making articles. Let those who want to do them in a particular way do so, and not try to inhibit the ones who prefer the others. It would be very highly inappropriate to ban anyone from creating valid articles in whatever manner they care to do so. In some previous cases involving other editors, it was alleged that a large proportion of the articles were incorrect--which, if proven, is indeed a problem (it never was proven, just a few selected errors given which might or might not have been pervasive) . I don't see this is being even claimed here. Qwyrxian, as there is documentation that the places can be shown to exist, why not help trying to find the geolocations instead of objecting that someone else has not done so? (Above unsigned comment by User:DGG) Sorry, transmission error. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment about the "situation" was with regard to Mahesh's work, not the project's policies and guidelines. I also do not think we are better having unreferenced articles which, by WP definition, are actually invalid, despite your apparent belief to the contrary. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the above comment is Sadads'. I have a problem with the final statement--as far as I can see, there is no documentation that the places can be shown to exist. Since no sources were provided, how can I, as someone not from those provinces, have any faith that they exist? I suppose there's some element of WP:AGF, but I know from having worked on other articles by this editor that they have made basic errors or intentional misinterpretations of sources. But Mahesh has given us literally nothing to work from, besides the name. I am not joking when I say that I have no way of knowing where these names of villages came from, and, for all I know, could be entirely fictitious. Again, if he had provided even a single source, like a vaguely recent almanac to verify location or somewhat current census data to verify government recognition, then I would accept the existence of these articles, and actually think them great--I have no problem with the creation of sub-stubs on human settlements, so long as there is at least a little bit of current, accurate, verification.

To me, these articles are essentially a type of reflection of the problem of the other article's Mahesh created that were impossibly NPOV flawed. It's fine to create articles that are incomplete. It is not fine to create articles that are fundamentally in conflict with one of the core pillars. These settlement articles do not yet meet WP:V, and I don't see why they should exist until they do. The Indian Corruption articles didn't meet NPOV, and in many cases couldn't because they were fundamentally mis-structures, mis-named, or undue. At this point, I'm coming to believe that an article creation ban is necessary until Mahesh can show that xe will create articles that meet the key tests of being neutral and have at least a minimum of verification. At the same time, xe either needs to go back and fix the ones already created, or accept that they may be deleted for lack of verification/neutrality. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I only checked one or two, and they did have refs in newspaper articles. If there's not even that, yes, the thing do is to to remind the user to get a ref first before writing, as is universally agreed to be good practice, and to make a priority of finding something for the ones without. (with, I continue,to suggest some help. I think some of the people here have more experience with sourcing geographical data than I, which is my only excuse for not helping directly. If someone who knows how tries and cannot find, then AfD is the way to get gemore general specific attention to material that appears impossible to verify.) And yes, I had realized how this evolved out of the earlier editing--when over general unrepresentative material was appropriately challenged, an attempt was made to provide some hopefully solid and non-controversial background. I think that was probably a good choice. Qwyrxian, I apologize for anything unintended or misattributed--i think you and I have the same goal--our only difference is that I would continue to try to keep everything positive, and a matter of continued encouragement to do it right. Forbidding someone to contribute articles would only be appropriate if they were shown to be not just unverified, but unverifiable. Encouraging them to be more careful can be done without the threat. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't completely agree with you on this. I do agree that Indian villages are probably poorly served on wikipedia and we do need articles, even mere stubs, on them. However, we do have a responsibility to at least minimally fact check the existence of these villages before we create these articles. Mass creation of village stubs makes this sort of fact checking difficult, if not impossible. Maheshkumaryadav is not a new editor and he has a history of creating article stubs on all sorts of non-notable topics as attested by his talk page history and I believe that a user-space only restriction would help him create better articles and will stave of a lot of unnecessary leg work on the part of other editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles in question about the Indian police contains no references, just duplicated content. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I need help to geo tag the villages. Each village is having approx. population more than 1000 people. Help in expanding the village topics can be taken from google. eg. for village Parwala google returns a good info that can be used for that particular article. http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Parwala+is+a+village+in+Barwala+block+of+Panchkula+district+in+state+of+Haryana%2C+India.#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Parwala&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=e84c85f56d8c905a&biw=1366&bih=677 . I am not having enough time to add content to each village article. The persons belonging to those villages are not internet savy and cannot create the quality of stub i have created for those villages (aprox 250 something), but they can improve the stubs i have provided. If the stubs are removed, it might take 5 years form most of articles to come again of wikipeida, but if they are left and improved with geotags and other data, within 12 months they can start growing. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding police articles, these are nearly 10 -12 articles, each state police article is for police force that serves nearly 5 crore citizens (50 million people), there are only 20 something states in India an each have there police state police, these articles are for those state polices. There are approx. 10,000 to 50,000 employees in each state police force. A Google result for individual article will say a lot for the articles like http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Chandigarh+Police Most of the police articles have link to official organization website and with Google search others are welcome to improve the articles.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding discussing of my blocking, that won't serve any purpose, at this point of learning curve and with style of creating articles, i am doing my best. Regarding my being active for last few days, i had time thats why i gave it to wikipedia, but maybe i won't be able to give that much time in future. Like each individual i have may own unique way of working. Because of low internet penetration in India and less computer literacy in rural areas, most of the stubs for the region are being removed compared to developed nations. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you perhaps agree to not making any more articles without references? That would solve the WP:V half of people's concern, at least. Alternatively/additionally, would you be willing to be mentored, as has been suggested before? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mahesh added 21 police force articles yesterday, all of them containing huge chunks of (to me) cloned unnecessary detail. I accept the issues raised regarding literacy, internet access etc but feel that the project should not be moving its standards to suit a geographical area. Inclusion is A Good Thing, but surely not at the expense of standards? Mahesh has been asked before to do some minor expansions of his content rather than "hell for leather" creation and I thought he had accepted that this would go a long way to placating the situation, but it seemed not to happen and there was no response to my messages. FWIW, I have spent a lot of time fettling subcontinent articles, so you can count me among the inclusionists on that score. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to endorse an article creation ban. And, I dont' want to chase away such an enthusiastic newcomer. But this is all falling on deaf ears. He is saying that he doesn't have time to fix up the village articles, yet he has time to keep creating these products. He is leaving a lot of work for others, producing articles that should have consensus first, is moving content out of articles unnecessarily, is asking for our help, while not accepting any guidance. If he has the energy to produce these articles, he should have the energy to stop and fix them up. Some sort of solution is quite urgently required. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the editor in question is not a newcomer and also has a history of apparently improper article creation (see the editor's talk page history). Discouraging editors from creating articles is not something we want to do but neither do we want to be in the position of forcing other editors to do the busy work of cleaning up after over enthusiastic editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm, sorry but this is now getting silly. Mahesh is steamrollering splits of school lists without discussion on the main article, without much regard for the content and without much care. Several people have weighed in on his talk page this morning but I sense that AGF may be wearing thin. He has time to do this but not enough time to fettle the existing articles he has created? - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built can give some of us the perspective to help grow the stubs. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That article you quote is an essay. The policies and guidelines say that content must be notable and verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Furthermore, you should seek [[WP:|Consensus]], use edit summaries, maintain the licensing when splitting articles ... and umpteen other things that you have either not done or (which is great) sometimes have started doing after being prompted. You are not a new contributor here and you are not dealing with new contributors in this discussion. I think that I can safely say we are all familiar with how stubs can grow. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to say that I agree that we have a problem. I've just swung by his talk page to see how he was doing after my encounter. He is simply continuing to create these malformed stubs en masse under the assumption that others are going to rush right in to fix them. WP:COMPETENCY may be an issue here as well. I loathe the thought of dropping a whammy on a well-meaning user, but something has to be done. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Article creation ban proposal

In the interests of figuring this out, either way, I propose the following ban on Maheshkumaryadav: Maheshkumaryadav is banned from creating new articles in article space. He may continue to create articles in user space and may request any admin or other editor in good standing to move the article into article space. He can request a review of the ban after a reasonable period of time and after he has demonstrated the ability to create minimally sourced articles on notable topics. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this ban below. --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The !votes below are pretty much a snow. Can we please instigate this immediately? The contributor is once again creating numerous articles against the advice of experienced editors and is basically riding roughshod over multiple WP policies and guidelines. AGF has pretty much gone here. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Support --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - he's continuing to create contentless articles and lists. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support every article creation I looked at had problems. This is clearly an editor that is willing to improve, but is going forward way too fast. A little time just editing would be a good idea. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support; the user may be well-intentioned but the article-creation has substantial problems and consumes a lot of other contributors' time and goodwill. Spending some time improving existing articles would be good for all concerned, I think. bobrayner (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The sheer volume of unverified content coming at once is difficult to deal with. I applaud the enthusiasm, but it needs to be reined in a bit. -- Atama頭 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - It's great when a good faith editor is interested in article creation; however, in this particular case, valid concerns have been raised over the content and accuracy of the articles and the editor has failed to acknowledge these concerns. Temporary sanctions appear necessary in order to allow the editor to review and address the problems. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I was in support of this before. Then the user said xe was taking a wikibreak, and even had a little productive dialogue going. So I thought things might work themselves out later. Today, xe's back, creating more new articles. While some are good, others are not--Monsoon session, for instance, currently has no sources that actually discuss the concept in detail (it only has sources that mention the word in passing--i.e., using the neologism rather than talking about it). Now that article may be worth keeping if we can find source, so I'll have to do some WP:BEFORE work on it to know for certain, but it's disheartening that once again its going to be up to other editors to do the hard work for Maheshkumaryadav. I also feeling like we're being played with--xe says xe's on Wikibreak, xe says xe doesn't have time to work on the stubs xe created, but xe does have time to make more articles... Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Though I regret having to prevent a user from creating articles, it seems only the best way to keep him from creating any more of these excessively problematic articles en mass. I would strongly suggest a limited time on the ban, with a sanction which will reinstate the article creation ban, if he starts doing mass creation of articles again after he comes off it, Sadads (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Guerillero | My Talk 10:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose: 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh is an new article, created by me in last 10 hours. It seems a quality stub. An article creation ban will devoid such articles from creation. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2011_Saudi_Arabian_protests, 2011_Omani_protests, 2011_Sudanese_protests,2011_Moroccan_protests, Allegations_of_support_system_in_Pakistan_for_Osama_bin_Laden are some of the articles started by me, those were not great stubs when i started them, (can be checked on history of those pages) a ban might result that such needed articles might not see 'light of the day'. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying that you can still create articles in user space if the community approves this ban. You'll need to ask an editor in good standing (I see many on your talk page willing to help out) to move these articles to article space for you. --rgpk (comment) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - whilst supporting the proposal as stated, I would ideally like it phrased to say "... to create at least minimally sourced articles ... ". Encouraging Mahesh to develop existing articles (including his own recent stubs) is a worthwhile thing, and adding "at least" sort of emphasises the point. However, I am probably being pedantic here. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikibreak - within minutes of posting a report about me below (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Sitush_is_merging_articles_in_undesired_way), Mahesh has decided to take a wikibreak, per his own talk page. The final straw appears to have been my actions in reversing his non-consensual splitting of a list of Indian schools. Sorry about that, but he was advised in advance of why the splitting was not a great thing to do without discussion. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• ... and now he is back. Not sure if a good night's sleep really counts as a break. Anyway, another new article has been created by him. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• He just created List of villages in Mohali district over objections. He's made it clear that he intends on creating a new group of stubs. Please block this renegade editor from creating articles. We can't keep up with the trail of debris he is leaving behind. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can we implement the creation block per the poll above, he started implementing the articles, see his contributions, Sadads (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Indef block

I have now indef blocked this editor for blatantly ignoring community consensus (he was well aware of this discussion, and continuing despite it is not really collaborative). As I explained on his talk page, this "indef" is just to be in place until he agrees to no longer create any pages in the mainspace, or until this discussion concludes that the block on article creation is not enacted after all. If I had the technical means to only block him from article creation, I would have done so, but I am not aware of such a possibility... Fram (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now unblocked this editor, who has indicated that he or she will not create any articles until this discussion is finished. Fram (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent OR and lack of discussion/edit warring by Platinumshore

Platinumshore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Platinumshore first appeared in January of 2011 to insert a paragraph into Peak oil. The many attempts to acquire adequate references for the new material (including difs) are documented in to (mostly ignored) complaints to 3RRN: [39] [40] On May 4, after the second 3RR request was not acted upon, Platinumshore again removed tags, and made minor cosmetic changes to the material (changing one discussion thread source for another), again with no discussion.

Assistance was also requested on wp:ea and ORn, though no comment was given. Given that this user refuses to discuss any changes, insists on removing tags such as CN and SYN giving no explanation, and only uses poor sources (such as discussion boards and youtube) for new material in a GA article, and given that this has been the pattern for 5 months, I request that some administrative action be taken.

This user only logs on every week or two to make the same changes, therefore a 3-day block will have no effect on their behavior. 173.10.73.233 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to notify him 173. I've just done that now. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No sign of him editing at the moment. As you say - there are often quite long gaps between his edits. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Platinumshore wrote an initial article on the effects of rising prices which remained unedited and was accepted for over 2 months, then for unknown reasons, possibly political as the tensions in the Middle East increased, was repetitively edited and invalid references were added by people unknown using ip addresses logins only to try to avoid the 3 login warring rule. If people wish to accuse Platinumshore of warring (when in fact he or she is merely keeping article factual correct) despite corruption from ip address only logins to the topic of POSSIBLE effects of rising prices than perhaps they should login first using their real account details so a valid debate can be held by all concerned parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumshore (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

While use of alternate accounts to avoid detection is contrary to policy, unless it can be shown that the ip editors are indeed accounts attempting to hide their identity it should be assumed that these changes are made in good faith. Also, since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone - including ip accounts - you have no grounds to request that ip's should identify themselves. Lastly, you do not WP:OWN the article you started and any edit should be judged on the basis of its adherence to the policies and practices, including reverts by you. You are apparently quite mistaken on how things are supposed to work around here.
Opening the discussion up, I would also comment that the editor referring to themselves in the third person rings a bell with me - and unfortunately in regard possibly to a disruptive editor. Can anyone help here, to put to rest that possible angle? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is not correct either. Platinumshore themselves added inappropriate references. Neither have they made any attempt to discuss this despite requests. If what you say is correct, Platinumshore, then it should be possible to find a decent reference. There is no justification for not discussing this with other editors - certainly not because they are IPs. Unsourced information that is controversial or not obvious should and will be removed.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.

Martinoei (talk · contribs) claimed on my talk page that his blog readers insisted he do something about me - meaning he was canvassed to be a meatpuppet. He then posted on his blog two entries: 1 2 - asking readers to engage in revert warring. His blog is repeated by other blogs, so this has some traction. Along came a series of IP addresses and stale (had not edited in years) user accounts that began revert warring.

Recommended action for an admin:

• Educate Martinoei to appropriate on-wiki behaviors.
• Protect (try semi-pp first) for a few weeks the following articles: Shenzhen Bay Control Point, Lotus Bridge, Lok Ma Chau Station, Lo Wu Control Point, Lok Ma Chau Control Point, Man Kam To Control Point, Sha Tau Kok Control Point. These articles seem to be the focus of the current disruption.

Sign: SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe your complain only is the personal attack on me. Please read his article in User:SchumckyTheCat/Mainland_China before examine the complain, his editing work only impose his political point of view in Wikipedia English. I don't want to change the Schumcky political faith, but he is changing the wording of Wikipedia to fit his political standpoint, this is vandalism. Before you complain me as meatpuppet, please think about your edits in the article.

Administrator, please drop the complain from this guy.

On the other hand, his Chinese nickname 猶太陰莖貓 is insulting Jewish and indecent in Chinese. The exact translation of his Chinese nickname is Jewish penis cat, why Wikipedia English can allow this kind of user to be editor? His nickname is a racism nickname. Please think it carefully. Martinoei (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone offer an english translation of those blog posts and is Martinoei willing to confirm or deny those are their posts? Google translate is making a hash of the text. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, yeah, is there a valid reason for having a racial slur in Chinese on SchmuckyTheCat's userpage? Fences&Windows 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And "rice boy" is another blatant racial slur. Schmucky, please edit to remove racial slurs from your userpage. Fences&Windows 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He actually can't, the page has been protected since 2008. Prodego ^talk 23:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actual link that is red linked above is User:SchmuckyTheCat/Mainland China, which is kind of troublesome.. — Moe ε 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, good point. I've removed them. Cue hanging and flogging from the peanut gallery for being the "civility police"? Fences&Windows 23:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, did somebody call the morals police? Rice boy is a term in the street car scene relating to cars that are done up aesthetically but not better at performance. This morality nonsense is clearly unnecessary IMO. Plus, how would "rice anything" be "racist" if the user himself is Chinese (from what I can put together)? I own a riced-up car too, and that makes me a "rice boy" as well. That's what people are called when they own a riced-up car. I don't get the controversy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"how would "rice anything" be "racist" if the user himself is Chinese" While I agree "rice boy" wasn't necessarily the worst name I've ever heard, let's not open the "it's not racist if they themselves use it" can of beans. — Moe ε 23:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was confused by this too- where I live, 'ricer' is pointed at a person who drives Japanese cars of unimpressive quality but enhanced spiffiness. It's a car-related insult, unrelated to the race of the driver. I guess it might be racist against the people who manufactured the cars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Moe_Epsilon: And still, I've no idea how "rice XYZ" is considered racist in the first place. Rice is a grain seed that grows from a plant in the ground, and is cultivated in Asia, where it is eaten as a staple food. Is there any reason why anyone should find "rice boy" demeaning? If we call newspaper delivery people "paper boys" and young monks that pray in temples "altar boys", why can't we call people "rice boys" in the same manner, regardless of the context of food or automobiles? If this is because of affirmative action or political correctness, then why not make Wikipedia more doubleplusgood by removing all crimethink? Removing things based on assumptions alone seems pretty Orwellian to me. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have an idea, you'd have to ask the people who thought it was a racist term to begin with, I never said it was. I know what rice is, I'm also familiar with the slang "rice boy" in terms of automobiles. :p — Moe ε 02:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we come back to the original topic of this? I can't view the blog posts listed above, but if indeed Martinoei is using his blog to canvass off-wiki, that's got to stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Systematic vandalism from SchmuckyTheCat on Hong Kong related article

Please check the editing history from SchmuckyTheCat

Extended content

22:00, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Martinoei ‎ (top) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.: new section) 21:34, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Tai Po Kau Station ‎ (tighter stub cat) 14:07, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs ‎ (already in child categories.) (top) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by Martinoei (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by Martinoei (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Alexlaw19) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Alexlaw19) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:03, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 06:16, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 06:11, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 428169546 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 06:10, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 428169424 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in POV edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 04:38, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong Section ‎ (grammar.) (top) 02:48, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Samsung SCH-U450 ‎ (top) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Chinese Canadian ‎ (→References) (top) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Chinese Canadian ‎ (→See also) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Twilight Zone ‎ (→Vandals?) (top) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 2 ‎ (→Shinese) (top) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Chinese Canadian ‎ (→Language: why is this in blockquotes?) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (adding unsourced tag. the title says it is from the 2001 census, but we have no concurrence.) 02:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (→List: the ethnic group column was unsourced and subject to an edit war. as contested unsourced material it should be removed.) 01:31, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 8 ‎ (→Nudity in The Simpsons) 01:00, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427940055 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427940363 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by Hillgentleman (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by Hillgentleman (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted to revision 427944529 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) (top) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 428090370 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) 00:54, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 00:46, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427944795 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of long idle user account to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) (top) 00:46, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Futian Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427941594 by Mato; curious resurrection of dead user account to engage in edit war for banned user. (TW)) (top) 21:28, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 21:27, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 20:57, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 334874403 by WPArkansas Bot; this is in China, and belongs in the China Wikiproject.. (TW)) 20:56, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 15:39, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 202.140.105.136 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 10:06, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (fix template.) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious that a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 09:59, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious that a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 03:40, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→May 2011) 18:56, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Requested moved) 18:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:218.250.142.19 ‎ 18:49, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:218.250.143.151 ‎ (top) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted to revision 427941531 by Mato; revert past banned user. (TW)) (top) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427928354 by Qwyrxian; make it easier, just revert past the banned user. (TW)) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by Mato) 17:41, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by Freakmighty) 17:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by 218.250.142.19 (talk); Removing edits by banned user. (TW)) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people (Macanese-born Portuguese people) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by 219.77.91.12) (top) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:15, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Futian Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Immigration Control Stations in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hail and ride ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Request stop ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by 184.144.163.181) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:11, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Need a sock block) 16:36, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Need a sock block: 218.250.143.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), incarnation of User:Instantnood) 16:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (top) 16:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Recent move) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 16:19, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Recent move) 16:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→HK / Macao renaming) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Macanese people ‎ (Reverted to revision 418787963 by 82.110.91.242; citation is reference number 1. (TW)) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Vmenkov ‎ (Macau) (top) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (the category was moved. this is all internal to China) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (the category was moved. this is all internal to China) 15:16, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ 15:15, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with move.) 15:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎←Created page with ' 15:11, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (db-catempty) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:09, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hengqin New Area ‎ (city, not a cross in itself.) (top) 15:08, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→The massive cross wiki war going on right now) 15:08, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→The massive cross wiki war going on right now) 15:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Zhuhai ‎ (→External links: rm cat) (top) 15:05, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (this is all in China.) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ 15:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ 15:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Portas do Cerco ‎ (It is not like China is a different "side", this is all internal to China.) 15:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (this is all in China.) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with move.) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:Macau border crossings to Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:Macau border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:Macau border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:Macau border crossings to Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:55, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with presenting this as intra-country internal border) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China–Macau border crossings to Template talk:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China–Macau border crossings to Template talk:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China–Macau border crossings to Template:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China–Macau border crossings to Template:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:53, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (this is all in China.) st version by Ricky@36) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Sma 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by After Midnight) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Cydebot) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Tidal island ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m British Airways destinations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 120.63.155.29) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Orbital roads in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Rail transport in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Yobot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:KCR-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 58.153.96.209) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:HongKong-rapidtransit-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Colonies Chris) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/April/27 ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Dawynn) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:MTR-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Dawynn) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:XRL ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Hammersoft) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Garden Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Wongm) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m MacDonnell Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SmackBot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Kennedy Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Heimstern) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m May Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SmackBot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of largest cable-stayed bridges ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 12.108.78.146) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of ring roads ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Break-of-gauge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Max Laguna) 13:27, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of flags by color ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 05:18, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (rm ii as without sources, as per talk page notice.) 05:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD C1). (TW)) 05:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (top) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:03, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Rock-paper-scissors ‎ (→External links: rm annoying ws.) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Guandong and HK are peers within China.) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (←Created page with 'This category contains pages on border crossings between Guangdong and Hong Kong. [[Category:Border crossi...') 04:59, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Futian Port Control Point ‎ (it is all in China) 04:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:Shenzhen ‎ (not a subcat of that.) (top) 04:57, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ 04:55, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (my bad, fix it.) 04:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (my bad.) 04:51, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (retitle, to go with rename) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) (top) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) (top) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ 04:48, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (GuanGdong,) 04:45, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Guandong province ‎ (←Redirected page to Guangdong) 04:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Guandong province ‎ (←Redirected page to Guandong) 03:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (this is all in China. The border is between first order divisions that require immigration controls.) 03:40, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427677116 by SchmuckyTheCat; this is all in Chian. (TW)) 03:39, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Escape Clause ‎ (Reverted edits by 64.132.104.226 (talk) to last version by Thecheesykid) (top) 05:39, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (It is not like China is a different "side", this is all internal to China.) 05:33, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (it is all in China) 05:32, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (this is all in China.)

He wastes most of his time to change all Hong Kong related articles as "within China" article, because he thinks Hong kong is just an ordinary city of China. In Chinese constitution, Hong Kong and Macau both are not treated as the part of China due to international treaties and special article of Chinese constitution. Hong Kong resident cannot enter mainland without the visa (Home Entrance permit is required for Chinese Citizen in Hong Kong, Visa is required for non Chinese Citizen in Hong Kong like me. His contribution history clearly shows his systematic vandalisms on Hong Kong and Macau related articles. I really beg the administrator to prompt action against this kind vandalism. I do not have enough evidence to prove his political intention, but so many Hong Kong users will think he is insulting them.

Please check his editing history carefully.

I have idled in Wikipedia English does not means I am meatpuppet. The real meatpuppet will not file this kind of complain and defend the Wikipedia. I vote in metawiki due to my activities in Chinese and Cantonese Wikipedia. Martinoei (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to list his entire editing history, a link to here will suffice. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already been quite clearly addressed on Martinoei's talk page that this is not vandalism. There's nothing here for administrators to do unless there are instances of blockable edit warring, which might lead to blocks on both sides (and keep in mind that many of Schmucky's reverts on this type of article have been of a banned user and would not count as edit warring). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep using the word "vandalism", but I'm sure you don't know what it means - this is not "vandalism". Additionally, your claim that "Hong Kong is not China" is your own POV, and it would take some persuasive arguing to prove that it is indeed factual. The Flag of the People's Republic of China flies full-mast above the local legislature of Hong Kong, so how is Hong Kong not China? Your claim about international treaties and the Chinese constitution makes no sense, as the Basic Law of Hong Kong clearly states Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and although autonomy is guaranteed via the one country, two systems policy, there are no foreign countries or international organizations at all that recognise Hong Kong as a separate sovereign state. Claiming that HKers "will think he is insulting them" is also a gross generalization; can you speak on behalf of all 8 million of them? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong is really not the same country as China, even though they are now ruled by the same regime. They have different currency, different law, different language (spoken and written), different culture, independent border control, and even a different passport! That's correct to say Hong Kong is part of China politically. Just same as saying British India and the United Kingdom are the same country, or Porto Rico and United States are the same country. From a visitor's point of view, they are not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriantam (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it is an encyclopedia. Regardless, though, this noticeboard is not part of our content decision-making process; it's about problems with user behaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Martin on EN:WP isn't particularly helpful; the call to arms is offsite. Nor am I asking for him to be blocked for it unless he continues the behavior here. As long as the blog posts exists, it will attract HK nationalist editors. It's all the proxy/puppet reverting going on. Some page semi-pp might be useful, but mostly some good faith backup that I, as a long time contributor, know what I am doing defending NPOV in a highly charged atmosphere against raging proxy/puppet editors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the blogs

I'm using Google Chrome, which has a built in translation service. Obviously, the service is not very good at translating Chinese, but it's enough to get the gist of it. Reading through both entries, I can say that the second one is far more concerning than the first.

A rough translation of the first paragraph gets, "I would not interfere with another's political beliefs, but if this person is planning on applying his northern beliefs across the English Wikipedia, then there is only one choice, to give him a head blow." That's probably some sort of colloquialism. Anyways, it goes on to say in the second paragraph, "It has been impossible to get any meaningful dialogue with this user and how he is dwarfing Hong Kong in his own way. So, I suggest to all of you, brothers, to cancel all of his political views on all the articles he edits. I believe he will not surrender and some of your accounts will be banned, so be prepared. But if he has intended to offend the people of Hong Kong, he will know the price for doing so."

....so, yeah. I think we have a problem here and it's not with Schmucky, but with Martinoei. Silverseren^C 04:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ickyuck. Hong Kong's such a sensible place, too; I really wouldn't have thought it have such nationalistic (err, special administrative regionalistic?) battleground mentality coming from it. Before suggesting action, could a Chinese-reading user possibly verify this translation? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's something like "to revert all edits in which he applied his political view", but otherwise the translation is fairly accurate. T. Canens (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, blatantly unacceptable canvassing, I'd say. What should be done? Is this just something where he needs to warned to stop, or is something stronger required? (I'm actually asking; I really don't have all that much experience with canvassing issues.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've left Martinoei a warning here. Comment is welcome on the wording or substance of it. It seems to me that really, Martin remains in violation of policy (at least its spirit) as long as these blog posts remain and could be blocked if he does not delete them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a warning of some sort is warranted, however as for the rest, I would tread lightly, because we really can't force Martinoei to take down his blog posts nor can we block him here for ranting on his own blog. If I had written the warning, I would not have included the "and even implying threats such as "giv[ing] him a head blow"" part though, because the machine translation of his blog was poor at best. A common English phrase would be something along the lines of "smack some sense into x" or similar. While not polite, such an idiom is not a threat. Chinese reunification is a highly politicized issue and this must be treated with care. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this has nothing to do with Chinese reunification, which deals with the Mainland-Taiwan issue. Hong Kong and Macau have been part of the PRC since 1997 and 1999 respectively, and aren't related to that article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I should have linked to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. My original point is still true though, which this is a hot button subject which a lot of people have very strong feelings about. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK then, I think we can more or less call this good. The issues in this thread were (1) canvassing by Martin. Warned, and there seems to be little support for any further action. (2) "Vandalism" by SchumckytheCat. It's been clearly established that there was no vandalism by the Wikipedia definition. (3) Tothwolf asserts that this is part of a greater behavioural problem by SchmuckytheCat. I neither confirm nor deny this, but as it comes to long-term behaviour problems, surely the proper place is WP:RFC? I mean, Tothwolf himself has mentioned the possibility of arbitration coming soon here; the usual prerequisite for that is not ANI discussion but an RFC. So, is there anything else to discuss here? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue of SchmuckyTheCat provoking others remains. As for my mention of ArbCom, that was in the context of the "mainland China" vs "The People's Republic of China" dispute and revert warring which appears to have been going on for years (Cf. WP:DIGWUREN, WP:ARBAA2, Wikipedia:General sanctions) and not SchmuckyTheCat's behaviour towards other editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, why can't we take this to an RFC, then? Or at least a new thread here at ANI that actually focuses on that and not on this particular dispute about Hong Kong and Mainland China. One issue per thread is just better practice; it makes things easier to follow, and it's more likely to get the attention needed if it's not piggybacked on some other topic which is mostly resolved. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem with someone splitting this AN/I thread if you want to do that, as long as a link back to the rest of this is provided and visible. The RFC/U process is largely voluntary and not productive for conduct issues. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is not an "innocent victim"

SchmuckyTheCat is not exactly an innocent party and I am not at all surprised that he has intentionally attempted to provoke a dispute with other editors such as User:Martinoei. While I've not followed his recent China and Hong Kong mess very closely, his contribution history appears to show a pattern of him edit warring in this topic area that has been going on for quite awhile.

In addition to his "dispute" with Martinoei, SchmuckyTheCat has also begun engaging in trolling/griefing behaviour in an apparent attempt to bring a past off-wiki dispute on-wiki. It started up after I removed the link to the .ch site from the Encyclopedia Dramatica article per the lengthy discussions on the talk page (Summary: the .ch site is a copyvio as the pages on the .ch site do not contain the full edit history). After I removed this link, SchmuckyTheCat began combing through my contribution history and made this edit to a previously very heated discussion I had been involved in and has continued his attempts to provoke fighting there. SchmuckyTheCat is a well known ED "participant" and I've previously banned him from other off-wiki sites and blocked him from contacting me.

After SchmuckyTheCat began this latest attempt here on Wikipedia, I sent him a short email and told him to leave me alone, he in turn apparently posted an email on his talk page (I never saw it) which an administrator removed. Immediately after he posted an email on his talk page, he then set his talk page archive rate to 1 year in an attempt to keep his attack against me visible on his talk page for a long period of time. In addition to continuing to follow my edits to the comparison article discussion, he then followed me to a WP:VPP discussion in which I had been participating.

With the comparison article, SchmuckyTheCat specifically targeted material I added, restored, or discussed on the talk page. His blanking of material from the comparison article has been repeatedly reverted by a number of editors (while being actively discussed on the talk page), [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] yet he has continued to engage in this type of behaviour. In this edit SchmuckyTheCat states he doesn't care if he is reverted, which goes to further show his behaviour is a willful violation of both WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. His initial removal of material could have been considered per WP:BRD, however this is in addition to this type of thing which is also disruptive given this information which he already knew was right there on the talk page.

While the discussion on the comparison article talk page has involved the occasional use of a Nerf bat employed as a makeshift LART, despite SchmuckyTheCat's attempts otherwise, the torches and pitchforks still haven't come into play, and this seems to have been a major disappointment for him.

SchmuckyTheCat is not some "innocent victim" with everyone on Wikipedia "out to get him". Wikipedia is not the place for his ED trolling/"lulz", but apparently the community is going to have to make this clear to him. I would rather prefer to avoid a repeat of the type of events which took place with User:Theserialcomma's trolling/harassment [50] [51] [52] [53] however I'm already beginning to see some behavioural parallels.

For the tl;dr folks, here is a wikitable with a timeline of events so far:

Timeline of events

Date (UTC) User Quote/diff 03:28 Tothwolf "Reverted edits by 107.10.117.30 (talk) to last version by 198.82.113.231" 00:30 SchmuckyTheCat Discussion 03:46 SchmuckyTheCat "confirmed by who?" 14:19 SchmuckyTheCat "rm this client not supported by at least one significant third party source, per RFC on talk page." 22:08 SchmuckyTheCat "rm of Orion, which was purely hidden text anyway." 22:19 SchmuckyTheCat Reversion of unilateral action 08:36 Tothwolf WP:VPP Userfied versions of deleted articles: Reply 04:50 SchmuckyTheCat "Removed LeetIRC as entirely unsourced, as mentioned by IRWolfie on the talk page." 05:39 SchmuckyTheCat WP:VPP Userfied versions of deleted articles - Userfied articles should be moved to the Incubator 06:37 SchmuckyTheCat WP:VPP Userfied articles should be moved to the Incubator 07:44 SchmuckyTheCat WP:VPP Userfied articles should be moved to the Incubator 05:18 SchmuckyTheCat "rm ii as without sources, as per talk page notice." 14:00 SchmuckyTheCat "this is unsourced, despite contrary proclamations by a single user, contested unsourced material can be removed by anyone." 21:27 SchmuckyTheCat Article blanking and "sources" 21:28 SchmuckyTheCat Article blanking and "sources" 00:54 SchmuckyTheCat Article blanking and "sources"

--Tothwolf (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree that Schmucky's edits should be examined to determine whether there is any basis in the accusation of inserting political views into articles, I think that we should first deal with the easier task of Martinoei's obvious off-wiki canvassing and threatening. Once that's out of the way, we can get back to Schmucky. Silverseren^C 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

With regards to Martinoei, is there really anything we can do? We don't really have any jurisdiction over Martinoei's personal blog, and we really can't tell him not to rant about something on his blog. As I understand it, the China / Hong Kong thing is highly volatile in terms of politics, and from the looks of it, SchmuckyTheCat appears to be taking advantage of that to try to create drama here on Wikipedia. That said, perhaps Martinoei should take these discussions as reason enough to be more careful what he writes publicly, especially when some things may not translate well (such as his comment about swatting SchmuckyTheCat upside the head)?

A far better question might be, how was SchmuckyTheCat even aware of Martinoei's blog posts in order to link to them here if he wasn't attempting to start a fight with Martinoei in the first place? It sure seems like SchmuckyTheCat wanted to have a massive edit/revert war with Martinoei or whomever else from the Wikipedia community he hoped might get caught up in the resulting drama.

A common principle I've seen in many ArbCom cases has included this or similar wording: "Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards." With this and the other stuff in mind, I think we need to focus just as much or possibly more attention on SchmuckyTheCat's behaviours since that seems to be what led to Martinoei ranting on his personal blog in the first place. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

...or perhaps to put this another way, Martinoei and his blog readers got trolled by SchmuckyTheCat right here on Wikipedia with SchmuckyTheCat likely now sitting back and laughing at everyone involved. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Is there really anything we can do?" I'm pretty certain that off-wiki canvassing and borderline threats are grounds for a block. Whatever you want to say about how Schmucky goaded Martinoei, Schmucky wasn't the one that wrote those blogs posts in order to canvass his readers or worded things in the threatening way that he did. He's still responsible for what he does and says in relation to Wikipedia. Again, I am not saying that Schmucky should not be getting in trouble as well, but his case is going to take a more in-depth look to see the extent of his partisanship, while we should just deal with Martinoei's open and shut case so we can focus our full attention on Schmucky. Silverseren^C 23:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"how was SchmuckyTheCat even aware of Martinoei's blog posts...?" - well I can't really explain for SchmuckyTheCat, but I'm sure a smart user would do a quick google trawl when xhe notices something out of the ordinary, such as a sudden jump in SPAs. That was how I found out that I had become famous on 2channel a few years ago, after I had noticed a whole heap of strange IP edits in contentious China-Japan related articles. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm hatting this section below because it has largely turned into a pissing match between Heimstern and myself and isn't helpful to the larger issue. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

For the record, from what I've seen, the majority of SchmuckytheCat's reverts on Hong Kong material has been of the banned user Instantnood, so it would not be sanctionable edit warring. I find this section generally unhelpful: a user with a previous dispute against SchmuckytheCat shows up admitting to not knowing anything about the current dispute and simply imports the previous dispute. I would move to close this section as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Heimstern, wow, well...if you really want to get snarky then I guess I'll tell you how I feel about your remarks too...after all, this is AN/I, right? For the record, I find it rather unhelpful that you didn't check that the material I noted above (which includes timestamps) is both on-going and current. I also don't much like that you've attempted to classify me as "a user with a previous dispute against SchmuckytheCat shows up admitting to not knowing anything about the current dispute and simply imports the previous dispute" when the material above shows that it is both on-going and current (and yes, I have read over the other material too). Heimstern, moreover, it really doesn't matter to me that you may or may not agree with some of the things SchmuckyTheCat reverted because I have absolutely no desire to get involved in a debate over which of SchmuckyTheCat reverts in the "China" vs "Hong Kong" mess are correct or not. I'm simply not interested at all in taking sides in the whole "China" vs "Hong Kong" mess itself. The only thing I really care about here is the ongoing disruption which seems to gather 'round SchmuckyTheCat, and it hasn't been solely related to Martinoei. I'll also state that when I see ongoing edit warring in a larger topic area which has an identical pattern to edit warring from 4 years ago, [54] [55] the larger problem probably isn't that far from heading to ArbCom. (Cf. WP:DIGWUREN, WP:ARBAA2, or any of the ethnic conflicts also noted at Wikipedia:General sanctions) The bottom line is, SchmuckyTheCat has engaged in both trolling behaviour and edit warring, including edit warring with others outside of the "Hong Kong material" as noted above. Martinoei may have done some misguided things and perhaps he shouldn't have allowed himself to be trolled in the first place (and then in turn ranted about it on his blog), but SchmuckyTheCat certainly isn't innocent, either. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC) There was no snark in my comment, Tothwolf. But thanks for assuming bad faith. (There, now there's snark.) Regardless of whether your dispute with Schmucky is ongoing, it is unrelated to the topic at hand, which is the behavioural problem at Hong Kong-related articles, and importing some unrelated dispute is vindictive and disruptive. If you see a greater, overarching problem with Schmucky's behaviour, WP:RFC is that way. This is not the place for you to air unrelated grievances, though. P.S.: "it really doesn't matter to me that you may or may not agree with some of the things SchmuckyTheCat reverted". Entschuldigung? I've never stated agreement with any of his reverts; only that many of them were reverts of banned users. P.P.S.: This thread is still unhelpful and irrelevant to the topic, and I call on any uninvolved editor to close it pronto. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, Schmucky's overall behaviour is related, and his edits where he has edit warred with a number of other editors (he didn't edit war with me) in the material I noted above are intermixed between his edits to the "Hong Kong" material. Importing a dispute would involve bringing a completely unrelated off-wiki matter on-wiki, which is not the case since this is all on-wiki stuff. Ultimately, Schmucky did not like the fact the ".ch" link was removed from Encyclopedia Dramatica and he chose to engage in harassment behaviour because of it. Regarding your P.P.S., if "closed" this will simply be reopened, be it here or elsewhere, so long as the original issue of Schmucky's disruptive behaviour remains. Schmucky has a long history of trolling others, and it needs to be resolved. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it's now hidden up there, I'm going to reiterate my request for the closure of this sub-thread as tangential to the actual topic of the thread. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and more

Bill Huffman appears, from his own admission to be operating multiple accounts. He appears to be using the Bill Huffman account to collect what he feels to be negative information about yours truly. In doing so, he appears to watch conversations that take place on my talk page, then goes to the other editors and tries to recruit them into collecting negative information [56] [57] [58] [59]. I was responsible for highlighting to ArbCom that Huffman, who operates an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart was trying to get negative information on Smart placed in the Wikipedia article by making suggestions on the article talk page as well as operating multiple accounts see here. After being asked to leave the Smart article alone, Huffman announced that he was abandoning the Huffman account. As his contributions show, he has not done so. This diff appears to indicate that this user may be maintaining this account simply to focus on me. Since admin Atama was also involved in this last year, I'll also ask him if he has any comment. Admins, please resolve the situation. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Notified. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My interaction with Bill was on his old account. I had blocked that account because it was being used in a way not in accordance with WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Also, Bill had declared that account to be "retired" and had pledged he would no longer use it, so really my block was just insurance. Bill had claimed that he used two accounts to maintain privacy, however he had edited the same article with both accounts. I decline to identify his previous alternate account because of previous promises made, but my experience is that Bill considers WP:SOCK to be voluntary guidelines to be ignored when inconvenient. -- Atama頭 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill left a note on my talk page as an IP (I assume it was him), claiming that his account was blocked. It isn't. I did leave some advice about using an alternate account legitimately, and strongly suggested that he address the concerns on this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 20:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Atama for posting the update for me. Another IP Address that I frequently use, 153.64.136.150 was blocked from editting. I thought my account was blocked but it was the IP address. Would it be possible for someone to find out why that IP address was blocked? It seems rather impolite to do that to an editor and then say that they need to respond to something. The information on my talk page about Cla68, for example, documents him telling a false story to ArbCom in order to try to get my editting privledges revoked on a specific article. Perhaps Cla68 would like to explain himself about that? At least explain why he would do such a thing if he did not have something personal against me? This account is marked retired because it identifies my real identity and I don't want my article edits associated with my real name. It is not an attack account against Cla68. It is the first account that I ever created on Wikipedia. I am using it right now simply because if Cla68 found out my current account that I use for editting I am afraid that he would continue his campaign against me on the account that I use for all my editting. Please keep in mind that he lied to ArbCom in order to try to restrict my editting here on Wikipedia. I don't see how that can be considered a good faith action on Cla68's part. The other information there about Cla68 documents what seems to be some similar treatment by Cla68 regarding some other editors. Bill Huffman (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on Bill's reaction to this discussion, I have filed an SPI here. I discovered while filing the SPI that there was a previous sockpuppet investigation into this editor filed in April of last year. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To reaffirm something obvious, an editor who has an off-wiki page attacking another individual should generally not be editing the Wikipedia BLP of that individual. In particular, Bill Huffman should not be editing Derek Smart or urging others to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To confirm, I have never edited that article. I will never edit that article. At one time, I occasionally edited the talk page. In early 2007 ArbCom reviewed my talk page edits to that article and didn't have a problem with those edits.[60] I was more recently, May 2010, asked not edit that talk page any longer by ArbCom. I believe this request was made based on the reasonable more recent abundance of caution approach to BLP's, not based on my edits specifically. I have not edited the talk page nor anything related to that article since then.[61] Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've spent some time speaking with both editors in this conflict, Cla68 and Bill Huffman, at various times over the past year or so. I believe that both editors are well-meaning but have difficulty assuming good faith about one another. Cla68 has concerns about Bill's conflict of interest concerns and use of multiple accounts, to the extent that not following either WP:SOCK or WP:COI perfectly warrants a claim of disruption. Bill tends to jump quickly to the conclusion that he is being persecuted in many situations, which I believe may be one reason why he insists on using multiple accounts. Most recently he was certain that a block of his work proxy was done specifically to block him, secretly, and as retaliation. If you can imagine, mixing those two personalities is like mixing vinegar and baking soda. -- Atama頭 16:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• The SPI has been closed after finding that Huffman is operating only one alternate account. Since the Huffman account is only being used as a "bad hand" account to hound me, I request that it be blocked indefinitely. I have some questions about Orlady's past involvement in dealings with these socks, but I'll take that up with her. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In what respect is it a "bad hand" account? Diffs? The user is concerned that you are hounding him. Mabyue it'd just be best if you both avoided each other.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree. If any action is necessary, maybe an interaction ban. But I don't even think that's necessary, is it possible for you two to just leave each other alone? -- Atama頭 22:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
      • If he is using another account for building the 'pedia, then why shouldn't this one be closed down? It doesn't meet the exceptions allowed for alternate accounts. Anyway, if I see a single other edit like this one, this one, this one or this one, I'll be asking again for the account to be blocked. If you think I have a case, then let him know to knock it off. If not, then we might be back here again soon. In the meantime, I have an RfC on a separate matter that I need to get finished and posted. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Atama hit the nail right on the head about what the problem is between Cla68 and I. It is a lack of good faith. For example, last year Cla68 lied to ArbCom in order to try to get ArbCom to block my editing privledges. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could take such an action and still deserve my good faith. When it comes to Cla68, he cannot AGF for anything to do with me. For example the SPI that just finished and the one last year. He plainly cannot accept either of the rulings. He just posted on user_talk:Orlady a statement indicating that he still can't accept the SPI ruling from last year. His lack of AGF against me has seemed to even tainted his ability to AGF on the part of Orlady. Cla68 is usually a most excellent editor. However, when it comes to certain individuals like me or as another example some of the people involved in the climate change articles, he just cannot AGF. His behavior changes significantly when he doesn't AGF. It appears to me to the point that he goes so far as to believe that the end-justifies-the-means. Bill Huffman (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello soapboxing

Bello added a nomination for collaboration on WikiProject Conservatism where he equated conservatives and racists here. I reverted and on his talk page warned him against using Wikipedia as a soapbox here. He ignored the warning, reverted and put the offending remark back on the project page here. I assumed good faith when I warned him for WP:SOAP, but IMO this is vandalism. I request admin intervention to remove Bello's bigoted comment from the project page. Lionel (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be misreading the statement, though it is worded poorly so it's a bit difficult to tell exactly what BelloWello is saying. He might be equating conservatives to racists, or he might be saying that George Wallace represents a group of conservatives who are (or were) racists (which isn't unreasonable, considering that his most famous quote was a staunch defense of racial segregation). I suspect it was a clumsy attempt to assert the latter, but I think it's best to wait for an explanation. -- Atama頭 16:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence appears to clearly equate conservatives with racists, and is (if not intended to make that claim) in any case extraordinarily ill-worded. I suggest the editor be apprised of the concern about choice of words in future. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I read it as saying racists were a "crucial component of the conservative coalition in the U.S", and that George Wallace represents that particular component. I.e. the equal sign was actually supposed to be a hyphen (or maybe a colon). That said, BelloWello's proposal still doesn't seem to show a good approach to editing. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I encountered BelloWello when I happened on his AFD for a Church that looked notable to me College Church. His nomination, which read in full: "Local church with no indication of importance. Makes for amusing reading but not sourced and seems unlikely to be able to source." appeared inaccurate since not only did the article cite a magazine listing this as one of the "50 most influential churches...." , but I had no trouble sourcing the church on a quick google. the article was at the time of the nomination sourced almost exclusively to the church's wab page, but even that made it apparent that this was more than an ordinary church. Other editors appear to be agreeing with me. The "edit summary" of his nomination read: "(delete this shit!)". In the course of our debate he wrote:"you can claim anything you want and it won't make any fucking difference for me." Then followed me over to an AFD on Carey Baptist Church to urge deletion on the grounds that: "nothing about this church makes it any more notable than the 5000 member baptist church down the road from my house that I am forced to see every sunday." Other editors may or may not agree with me that Carey Baptist is WP:N; what I am questioning here is the shrill, foul-mouthed tone this editor takes in discussing AFD's on churches. And also the belligerent attitude that led him to follow me to a new page I had written on a minor, early-twentieth artist who painted watercolors of sites in the holy land Anna May-Rychter and start an AFD writing: "55% of this article is sourced to, I kid you not, an auction site and a website selling her painting" The artist is minor, I am not arguing otherwise, and other editors may agree or disagree that she merits a page. But one of the auction houses I was citing is Christie's and reputable auction houses are regarded in the art world as reliable sources of information on minor artists. From his dismissal of Christie's I surmise that BelloWello doesn't know much about art, and was putting up an AFD merely because I disagreed with him on College Church. I do not think that editors with this kind of attack and foul-mouthed approach to editing are useful to Wikipedia. They destroy collegiality and, frankly, why should a sane person want to spend time fighting with such a person?I.Casaubon (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I can't argue that BelloWello was being somewhat uncivil with the "delete this shit!" edit summary, but more than once I.Causabon you've been exceptionally aggressive in that deletion discussion, assuming very bad faith in response to some fairly standard deletion comments. Asking that editors who nominate articles for deletion that you think should be kept should be "red-flagged" is extremely combative. I very, very strongly urge you to tone it down a few notches and not personally attack people for simply saying something isn't notable. Aside from your borderline attacks, you should be aware of WP:BURDEN, which indicates that those wishing to add or keep material (or articles) have the burden of proof; you prove that coverage exists, others don't have to prove that coverage doesn't exist to argue for deletion. -- Atama頭 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My objection is not that he asserted that the church was not notable. It was that he asserted ad facts things that were untrue. Such as that there was no claim of notability (despite the cited claim to "top 50" status, and the calim that it "seem unlikely" that it could be sourced. i believe that we have to make good-faith attempts to do such things as read the article (he would have noticed the top 50 claim) and google (I instantly turned up many hits on the church's name and town) before putting up an AFD. Not to do so is a waste of everyone's time. And before calling him on this in the AFD, I sent a polite not to his talk page suggesting that he withdraw the nomination in light of the fact that he had, apparently, acted in haste or fatigue and put up an AFD that he would not wish to continue.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Off topic discussion

WP:BEFORE agrees with you, however, it doesn't give you a justification to attack people. Especially your attack on Hrafn, who had made an objective, reasoned argument for deleting the article, you responded by saying that there was an "aggressive, unpleasant undertone tone in the efforts to delete this article". Whether you were polite before, you were inappropriately attacking people in violation of our no personal attacks policy afterward. What you eventually did was provide more sources, which is the correct way to respond to the notability challenges made in the deletion discussion, or you could have civilly defending the sources that already exist in the article. But the majority of your comments in that deletion discussion are inappropriate. Many of your arguments are simply not true, such as saying that it is "wrong and inappropriately contentious" to argue for deletion due to inadequate sourcing. On the contrary, that is probably the most common argument for deleting an article. An editor should search for sources, but not doing so isn't disruptive behavior. On the other hand, you argued that the church inherited notability because it is attended by faculty of a notable school, and that you had found many Google hits, both of which are listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I'm not trying to come down on you, I know that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. You should have seen some of the boneheaded AfD arguments that I made when I was new! (Much worse that what you've said.) But since you brought up behavior at that deletion discussion, I thought I should let you know so that you don't cross the line at some point in the future and find yourself in trouble. -- Atama頭 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I thought the test for WP:N was whether a topic is inherently notable. Whether or not the article as it stands is well-sourced. Do I have this wrong? It was the fact that the Church is so obviously notable (plus the snarky language) that made the attempt to delete College Church seem so absurd to me that it set me off. I frankly could not and still can hardly imagine anyone missing the scale and impact of this church. And are you certain that the men who have preached form a pulpit confer no notability on the building? The map of the world is dotted with churches that people go out of their way to visit because of who preached there. Plymouth Church of the Pilgrims, Capernaum, St. Pierre Cathedral. Is it really true that the stature of preachers past and and present confer no notability on the building in the eyes of Wikipedia?I.Casaubon (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to answer my quesitons. I thought the test for WP:N was whether a topic is inherently notable. Whether or not the article as it stands is well-sourced. Do I have this wrong? It was the fact that the Church is so obviously notable (plus the snarky language) that made the attempt to delete College Church seem so absurd to me that it set me off. I was ticked. I frankly could not and still can hardly imagine anyone (who was taking the time and trouble to start an AFD) missing the scale and impact of this church. And are you certain that the men who have preached form a pulpit confer no notability on the building? The map of the world is dotted with churches that people go out of their way to visit because of who preached there. Plymouth Church of the Pilgrims, Capernaum, St. Pierre Cathedral. Is it really true that the stature of preachers past and and present confer no notability on the building in the eyes of Wikipedia?I.Casaubon (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC) The test is whether something is inherently notable, but the way that is established is by showing that the subject is given significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, I'm sure that a church doesn't inherit notability due to the person who preached from there. However, if you find reliable sources giving coverage to the church because someone notable preached there, then that could satisfy the general notability guideline anyway. This goes all the way back to the basic purpose of Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia really, to be an aggregate of data, not a source of it. We don't make a big deal about how great a church is, we cite other people who make a big deal about it. Sources are critical for any article; by using sources, we can verify an article's accuracy while showing why it is notable. I've been involved in proposed deletion patrolling for years, long before I became an administrator. When I came across an article proposed for deletion that I thought was notable, I would either improve it directly with sources, or show sources that I found on the talk page. Just to clarify, the sources don't have to actually be in the article. But you do have to present them. You can't just claim that they are out there. I've been frustrated in the past because of how obviously notable an article is, for example Daniel Breaker was an article proposed for deletion because there was "no apparent notability" even though the article stated that he was nominated for a Tony Award. I did a quick Google News search and found articles about him (not mentioning him, but completely about him) in the New York Times, Rolling Stone, LA Times, Washington Post, and NPR among others. But even in such an obvious case, it's not right to attack the person who asked for deletion, no matter how ludicrous it might have seemed. -- Atama頭 22:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Atama is correct. Also, as to the statement "the men who have preached form a pulpit confer no notability on the building" that is exactly the point. Notability is not inherited, meaning that one subject is not notable just because a related subject (parent, sibling, location, etc.) is notable. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you both. Searching both College Church and Carey Baptist Church in sundry news archives, for example, tuns up articles going back to the 19th century that briefly discuss the church in the context of sending a particular missionary out. Or, in the case of College Church, in the course of discussing one or other of the well-known men who have preached there. These articles, for example, discuss CArey Baptist because it sent Ian Stillman to India, or College Church as the place where Jonathan Blanchard or R. Kent Hughes preached. So I guess that I can go back and cite them.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is fucking hilarious. I am soo sorry for nominating George Wallace and noting that he represents a group of conservatives. Note that I did not call conservatives racists, I said racists are generally conservative, and I also provided a Washington Post reference for that assertion. As for deletions, I.Casaubon, yes, I did find that minor artist off of you, and no, that does not make a difference, I would have nominated it when I found it either way. bW 01:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, well if the Washington Post says so, then it must be okay. -- Atama頭 03:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this edit explains everything in this incident. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Note how that edits tags with {{cn}} statements which are obviously cited e.g.

“ Wheaton City Councilman Dan L. Fapp Jr. told the Chicago Tribune that , "It takes two police officers to get traffic in and out of there on Sunday." College wanted to enlarge its sanctuary space, and the town required that it provide parking to accommodate worshipers, many of whom came from outside of Wheaton. (cited Neil Mehler [62] "Churches` Growth Felt In Wheaton" in Chicago Tribune) ”

It's also amusing that the church's web page is an unreliable source on statements about its values/beliefs. Welcome to H8ipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not that they aren't reliable for their own values/beliefs, its that an article should not be based primarily on primary sources, and that article is. I have no problem with some primary sources in an article. bW 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Bello is also tagging websites of Southern Adventist University at that article, and filibustering on the talk page that the univ. is not reliable when it speaks about itself.Lionel (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bello tag-bombed Southern Adventist University and was warned here. Is this a pattern? Lionel (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes, and it became clear that the tags were appropriate in the discussion that followed, and I wasn't even the main person arguing so.

• Bello's incivility is a problem. For another example see WQA Wikipedia:WQA#BelloWello personal attacks again Lionel (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • At least I didn't call admins "Nazi", and make constant other accusations like a certain other editor that was a subject of my mild incivility. bW 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bello is back at College Church, wasting everybody's time by putting up pointless tags. Like after a sentence saying that the current pastor is the current pastor and citing it to the church's web page, or following a citation of a news story about the church to the Daily Herald (Arlington Heights). He goes on like this through the whole article, replacing his old pointless tags removed by User:Nyttend and by me.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • An article shouldn't be based primarily on primary sources. That article has too many. bW 17:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Editing like this [63] doesn't seem helpful: almost all of the article was blanked with no explanation on the talk page. Is BelloWello following other editors around? Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He has certainly been following me around. From College Church over to this [64] and then to aAnna Rychter-May where he started an AFD [65]I.Casaubon (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He's still following me around.I.Casaubon (talk)

The contents has been moved from there to Wikipedia talk:SDA/Brownsberger since it was unsourced. We are working on a new version of that page with sourcing, etc. in project space which will be moved out when ready to replace that. I didn't leave an explanation since that article hadn't been edited in quite a while and the edit summary clearly stated that a new version was being worked on in project space. Either way, if someone would like to discuss a specific edit with me, please feel free to contact me on my talk page or on the article's talk page (let me know if its not on my talk page). I will be happy to explain. Aside from that, I am fucking tired of these noticeboard threads. I've created two articles to be featured in DYK and that are nominated for GA status since people made the Southern article into a little battleground, that's more than any of the others that are questioning my every edit can say. Thanks! bW 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think this edit was done purposely as part of the good work he is doing in collaboration with DonaldRichardSands. You are right though in that Bello is following other editors around. He has repeatedly been harassing, filibustering and making false accusations about those of us editing Southern Adventist University. Fountainviewkid 20:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the article is being reworked in DonaldRichardSands's userspace at WP:SDA/Brownsberger, but I still don't see why it was blanked. I don't understand either why there is so much whipping up of controversy on Southern Adventist University. The article could certainly by better written (just from the point of view of grammar). If, as suggested by some editors on the talk page, there is an impasse on the article, one of the first steps in WP:DR is to request informal or formal mediation. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring on the article has led to full protection for a few days. There seem now to be problems on the talk page, with incivility (BelloWello telling other editors to "shut the f*** up"). The current section in the article on "ideology" [66] contains one wholly negative point of view: it seems unbalanced. Mathsci (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You completely left out the context of that, Mathsci, the full sentence puts it in perspective: "Please either assume good faith or shut the fuck up." A user has committed to finding material to balance that section. The way to deal with sections out of balance isn't be removing content, its by adding other information to balance it. bW 06:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes there was definitely incivility and other forms of edit warring. As for ideology Bello is definitely trying to push his view on that. We've tried to balance it by adding other material by Bello keeps trying to veto it because it would no longer make the "rant" sound so positive. Fountainviewkid 6:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid is one to talk about incivility with his NAZI comparisons, constant accusations of AGENDA, etc. As for the content, I would note that the current version is consensus agreed to that FVK is demanding be overturned by sources that are simply insufficient for the label he wishes to add (as the only uninvolved editor to get involved so far clearly stated). Either way, the content dispute does not belong here, so lets not bring it here. bW 06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Bello you do seem to be on some type of mission w/e it is. You also are engaging in bold faced lies. There is no consensus on the current version therefore why are you saying there is? The sources I have provided are reliable, valid, and provide proper context. Right now there really is no "uninvolved" editor. If you don't want the content dispute here then don't bring it. Fountainviewkid 6:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What BelloWello wrote was uncivil and uncollegial; see WP:CIVIL. Adding one severe example of criticism in a section later labelled "ideology" doesn't seem like normal editing. There seems to be too much disruption around these articles, on-wiki and off-wiki (cf the comments about facebook in the SPI report mentioned below). Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the content, why not go to the talk page and comment (I mean that sincerely, however it comes across). And I am so sorry for violating Wikipedia policy by disruptinv my facebook! :) (I mean that as a joke, please don't take it too seriously). We can rename the section criticism. I don't really gaf. I'm quite frustrated with that article (I had intended to take it to good article, instead, we have gridlock), so I have been focusing on others, two of which are currently good article nominees (Heather Knight and Larry Geraty). On another note, if anyone wants to help me with List of Presidents of Pacific Union College or Richard Osborn which I am currently developing, feel free to stop in! I can focus away from that controversial (for no apparent reason) article, can FVK? bW 06:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are editing tendentiously on that article and its talk page. Intercollege rivalry between Seventh Day Adventist liberal arts colleges surely does not need to be played out on the pages of wikipedia. Please respect the fact that uninvolved editors are commenting here. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

As an uninvolved editor here (who really doesn't dig religion in general, if you're curious) I think BelloWello's edits have been and continue to be disruptive, so I propose to topic ban him from all articles on churches, widely construed.

• Support own proposal. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Because of BelloWello's continued practice of counterproductive, bellicose editing.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I don't dig religion? That's really cute, because I remember sitting in church and participating this past weekend... Furthermore, you are aware that I am currently working on a very well sourced article on a church? I simply ask that they be well sourced, is that really too much to ask? bW 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Strike, I misread the proposal as saying that I don't dig religion. bW 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - this is the most reactionist topic ban proposal ever. The thread that started this is unrelated to churches, but two editors who support above both clearly don't like that I tag unreliable sources (perhaps with a few mistakes here there, it happens when you go through an article with a lot of tagging needed) and nominate articles for deletion which do not meet the notability criteria (take a look at my current nominations, the majority of them have the majority for deletion). Furthermore, a lot of my editing is related to churches. Two articles that I started (Heather Knight (educator) and Larry Geraty) are both church related were recently moved out of project space. I am currently working on more similar, well-sourced, articles in project space (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that are church related. Furthermore, I would note that I.Casaubon has not been without spot here. If you review the deletion nominations, you will clear assumptions of bad faith and incivility. bW 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems nobody but yourself thinks that "a lot of tagging [is] needed" in those articles, ergo WP:DE. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not opposing because I don't believe there is a problem here, but I don't know that a topic ban on churches will be a help. What indication do we have that BelloWello's contribution to church-related articles is an issue? Is it a hatred of churches? What anti-church or pro-church bias is preventing him from editing constructively only at those topics? If anything, it seems that there might be a bias regarding the US conservative movement, and that's a big maybe, I'm not sure about that. But if you think a person is disruptive at church-related articles, and most of their edits are at church-related articles, isn't an editor just being disruptive in general? I just don't see that a ban on church topics will be effective in any way. -- Atama頭 17:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't care or want to know what his bias is. I only evaluated his edits in relation to WP:V in general and WP:ABOUTSELF. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • He does seem to care a fair bit about articles in this area, to the point where posts on facebook about them. See SPI link below. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• I am confused. BelloWello has now withdrawn an AFD he started on a recent article of mine [67] But the article Anna May-Rychter still has an AFD. Was his closing of the AFD perhaps done clumsily? Usually, the AFD template disappears and a note about it appears on the talk page.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• A bit, maybe. I took care of it. -- Atama頭 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello: "It was not a call to action, just a vent of frustration like I usually do on facebook." Tijfo098 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Zombie433 (again!)

Yep, he's back and evading both his community ban and rangeblock, having moved from IPs 79.213 to 79.215 - but it's definitely him, quacking away. For background please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive680#Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive687#Zombie433 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Zombie433 evading ban...admin intervention greatly appreciated. GiantSnowman 12:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No admin bothered that we have an editor evading both his community ban and rangeblock then? Huh. GiantSnowman 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators both willing and capable of making range blocks are few and far between. See WP:RANGE for the reason why. Getting swift action for such a request just isn't going to happen unless you're very lucky. -- Atama頭 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, I'm not requesting a new rangeblock, just something like a CU investigation into any new IP this guy is using. GiantSnowman 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You might have better luck at WP:SPI. Not that this isn't a good place to ask for such a thing, but since this hasn't received attention here, you might try there. It's not exactly forum shopping if you just haven't been able to get a response, but it would be good to link back to this page if you do so just to acknowledge that you've made multiple requests. -- Atama頭 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice, I'll see if anything happens here, and if not, I'll give SPI a shot. I only tried here in the first place because Zombie433 is well known around these parts... GiantSnowman 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Hello. Actionems (talk · contribs) made this diff on the Action_Ambulance article. I am concerned that "Action will be taken" means legal action. Can someone please take a look? They also opened Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_Ambulance which I feel is a bad faith nomination based on the rationale that "the changes I make through "edit" keep getting undone. STOP UNDOING MY CHANGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" --v/r - TP 16:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It certainly appears someone close to them issuing a legal threat. I recommend an indef here. — Moe ε 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the legal threat and the bad faith AfD, the editor has gone on a page-blanking spree on the article-at-issue. Agree on the indef bit. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with an indef block yet - I think things are escalating faster than they need to. This is someone who is distraught and confused about Wikipedia but I do not think is hostile. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I attempted working with this user on IRC. They came to IRC seeking help having the article deleted. I explained that it didn't appear to meet the criteria for article deletion but that they could attempt an AfD if they wished. The changes that keep getting undone appear to be their attempts at blanking the article. I don't think this is a bad faith nomination but is someone who's unfamiliar with Wikipedia and is a little panicked (she spoke of her boss "yelling at her" to get this article deleted), and I think the "action will be taken" bit is directed at vandals of the article, not at Wikipedia itself. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You've a cooler head than mine. So long as the user understands that her actions aren't, you know, cool, then I think, as an uninvolved party, that all is well. The AfD was speedily closed, by the way. Probably not technically a "bad faith" nomination (depending on your interpretation of that phrase), but certainly not an AfD that deserved to go the full 7 days IMO. Either way, thanks for chatting with her, hopefully this just resolves itself without further action. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a legal threat to me, so I've blocked them - but please consider it temporary, and anyone is welcome to revert that decision if other approaches look more fruitful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (ec,ec,ec) (I made that decision several minutes ago, but struggled to post in the face of multiple edit conflicts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action_Ambulance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(edit conflict)User is now indef blocked - someone should probably procedurally close the AFD an if anyone is local to there or interested in the topic the article could use a good going over for improvement and wikification. Must be horrid having your boss shouting at you to get rid of that wikipedia article about us. - No worries as to the AFD its closed already. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with the indef block. I think this is going to make a difficult situation worse before it gets better. Would someone please consider reverting to at most a temporary (24 hour) block, or lifting the block entirely? —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, we might have a bigger issue in terms of WP:COI on the article itself, looking through the history at User:ActionAmbulance. Someone might want to head over there and look through the history for this. If this is true, bosses yelling at people to delete the article, employees editing it, etc. we might want to semi-protect the article. — Moe ε 17:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Oneofthescotts also appears to be an account designed to edit the article as well. — Moe ε 17:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is a world of trouble, there's no doubt about that, but I don't think that indef blocking is going to improve anything. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure having single-purpose accounts unblocked to edit articles under the direction of their boss is any better :/ — Moe ε 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Non-ambiguous legal threat now on the user's talk page as a result of the block. --- Barek (talk) - 17:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Eek. So much for cooler heads. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's clearly not a hard-pressed employee - I think the block has to stay -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pierce - You had mentioned that the user said their boss was yelling at them to delete the article. Now the user is saying they own the company. Does there edit on their talk page contradict your discussion with them?--v/r - TP 17:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the user I spoke with on IRC ("Rachael") has been pushed aside and the company owner has taken the keyboard themselves. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also, have a read of the article - rather than being defamatory, it seems to be positively glowing about the company - in fact, it's tagged as being too promotional. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This was the original version she had a problem with, which was riddled with random statements such as "All Action's bases have two armed guards with backgrounds in special forces and can withstand numerous close range air-to-surface missile strikes." all throughout the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit by Oneofthescotts gives a good summary of the problematic material. I'm not surprised that they got upset about the contents (especially if they were under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a Yellow Pages directory or suchlike). —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, those old versions were bad, and dissatisfaction with them is certainly understood. And maybe it's just those old versions that the threat which started this today was all about. If so, and if we keep a close eye on the article, I'd hope we can defuse this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that those edits were the specific cause of all the excitement today, compounded by a poor communication path between us and the company owners who were apparently so frantic about how to respond. That's why I was concerned about escalation. So, yes, hopefully we can still defuse it if they're willing to participate in the process. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Supposing the account hasn't been abandoned because of this, I'm going to leave a message there inviting the company owners or employees to email me so I can explain how Wikipedia works to him/her/it/them. With some luck, this can get sorted to everyone's satisfaction. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Red flag

I find it amusing that nobody blocked Oneofthescotts (who also socked as 65.96.132.234) for the totally hilarious yet egregious vandalism [68]. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I never ever want to acknowledge or even implicitly encourage vandalism in the slightest way (WP:RBI!!!) but damn I can't help but laugh at that. -- Atama頭 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User Sitush is merging articles in undesired way

Resolved

User:Sitush have removed content and merged 20 of the articles (List of schools in 'xxx Indian state xxx') ) started by me in an undesired way. Kindly review his actions. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging is not disruptive behaviour. Have you discussed this with Sitush? Fences&Windows 19:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't merging but rather redirecting. Mahesh, who is the subject of a report above, today unilaterally split an article into numerous new, smaller articles & then inserted lists of redlinks in various places, created a page that had some sort of dependency on what he was doing (but was CSD'd before I saw it) and thus "broke" his scheme. His talk page today demonstrates numerous editors commenting on various recent actions and, I think, my redirects were the last straw for him. Within minutes of reporting me here he announced that he was taking a wikibreak,

It is all a little unfortunate, I am afraid. However, I stand by my actions, did try to advise him of a suitable course and have been trying to fix numerous issues which he has introduced in his recent spate of article creation. At least two editors who commented regarding how to deal with the articles which he is referring to above were admins (I am most definitely not!). - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, your efforts in cleaning up Mahesh Kumar Yadav's contributions is appreciated. I'm marking this section as resolved as the OP has chosen to take a break from editing and there is no admin action required here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues, editors uncivil, personal attacks, possible legal threats at Talk:Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana

A user with multiple sockpuppets "Contebragheonte" and may other identity, started an edit war on the voice and made uncivil and personal attack in the talk page and - most serious - stated a real name associating it to an user, that is a serious privacy violation under european and international law. Please some administrator can cancel the name. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.113.4.54 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of apparently real names listed in the arguments on that talk, but I can't easily work out which one you mean, or identify the legal threat. You may wish to email oversight-en-wp(at)wikipedia.org with a WP:DIFF of the edit that you think needs removing for privacy reasons. Regarding the sockpuppetry, you may wish to file a case at WP:SPI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

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

---

Over the last week, this user has been engaging in a number of highly hostile and insulting posts towards me (ex: "pompous"). I've largely ignored reading what he's posted as soon as it became apparent he was launching yet another personal assault towards me. Tonight, it's quite coming to a head. To quote him, (referring to me) "That's what I'll say forever more, until you grow the fuck up." (see second part of the diff). I don't believe posting to WP:WQA is appropriate at this juncture, as MickMacNee has been blocked for civility issues on quite a number of occasions (see block log).

I'm not suggesting any particular course of action, but feel it's time for an administrator to step in. MickMacNee has been notified of this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a perfectly appropriate comment expressing the level of frustration his tendentious behaviour over NFCC induces. Go over to the Rfc and look at the exchange - he posted a huge section on how it doesn't matter what consensus concludes in it. I posted a large on point response. He then (wrongly) claimed that my criticism of his policy views represented an attack, no, to use his ridiculous term, an "assault", on him, and as such, he's not obliged to respond to any of it. He then continued to make the same points in the Rfc to other users, and then made a few more silly posts of the sort about how he's ignoring me etc etc. Who here wouldn't tell him to grow the fuck up after the 5th or 6th time you see this sort of pompous crap coming your way?

And the first diff is from a day or two ago when I laid out some of the finer points of the civility policy to him and how they compare to his frequent interactions with people on NFCC disputes, whereupon he claimed he abided by it and all other policies completely. A day or two later he was at Delta's talk page, where an IP had asked three times for a straight answer about some NFCC revert and got the usual back, and on the third time, Delta served him up 50 talk page archive links, and after that drew the predictable response, Hammersoft followed up with a suggestion that if the IP couldn't be bothered to read them, he shouldn't be commenting [69].

This is all simply a long pattern of incivil & tendentious behaviour all round from Hammersoft, much of it highly hypocritical and certainly all of it pretty self-unaware, so yes, it definitely needs to be looked into, if any responding admin is stuck for something to do after Hammersoft failed to offer a hint of what action he's seeking with this report. MickMacNee (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the issue the two of you were disagreeing on (indeed I haven't even looked at it), I do think it's a bit rum that MickMacNee apparently came here straight from edit warring on a controversial template, then proceeded to criticize another user who was up for a block for incivility; indeed he started the section, but at the same time he was being pretty uncivil himself in another conversation. We should generally treat others as we wish to be treated, wouldn't you say? --John (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't apologize for a second for edit warring on that template. A user dived in to a stable situation and began reverting based on 'no consensus', aided by a meat puppet. I was merely restoring the stable version, and indeed it was me who did the correct next step by seeking its protection to force the initiator to the talk page before it became a gangfuck. You can look at the talk page, where you will see unsurprisingly that there's no support for the reverters desired state, as was the case the many times it was discussed before, and to which I referred to in every revert summary, and during those past disputes, I was the only user doing things like posting to NPOVN to solve the dispute, rather than edit war, as others were doing.
• My 'criticism' of that user is perfectly valid, I don't see what's wrong with it. If you can explain her actions, I'm all ears.
• And yes, I started that thread, guilty as charged. What is the charge exactly? I reported someone making gross attacks and requested a very appropriate indef, and they duly got indeffed. And are still blocked. Have I misunderstood ANI's purpose? Was I supposed to do as Hammersoft did and just go on a fishing trip to get some unspecified action against someone I've got bored of being incivil to myself? Because oddly, your last diff is the one he's cited above, and I've already explained that above.
• On that last point, yes, I treat everybody how I expect to be treated. If I post a lengthy post in a seperate section in an Rfc making some bold claims, I will expect rebuttals, and I will do those users the courtesy of replying to the substantive posts made, rather than being and continuing to be a wholly tendentious editor. I would certainly not piss them about for five or six posts playing silly buggers, claiming I have the right not to respond to anything if I deem it an "assualt", and claiming not to have seen diffs or other answers. MickMacNee (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem is Mick *does* treat editors the way he wants (or expects) to be treated. This is NFCC, an area Mick and I have been at odds over before, and am on opposing sides with this RfC again so I hope I'm seen as impartial here. Some editors just have thick skin for these things. You can give him a big fuck you on one thing, then turn around and work together on another. It's issue by issue, and as long as you dont take it personally, it doesnt get personal. But if you do, Mick gets defensive and all of a sudden he really is going personal. Civil is as civil does, more or less. Mick isn't an angel in this, but just ignore him. Drop the stick. If its getting heated wander away for a while, come back later. Both of you. Constant bitching back and forth followed by ANI threads is not a way to reduce drama and tension. -- ۩ Mask 05:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like sound advice. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To dispel the untruth that Mick was restoring the stable version have a look at the below table and as usual Mick has done nothing wrong it is everyone else who are wrong, notice all his replies they all follow the same pattern Editor A does this Editor B says that but me I am just an upholder of all that is good and I'm fighting the righteous fight of protecting wikipedia,

Date	User	Version A	Version B
20:40, 13 March 2011	Rannpháirtí anaithnid	●
20:54, 13 March 2011	MickMacNee		●
22:06, 24 March 2011	Snappy	●
23:30, 25 March 2011	MickMacNee		●
00:25, 26 March 2011	Rannpháirtí anaithnid	●
15:53, 26 March 2011	MickMacNee		●
12:06, 10 May 2011	Hans Adler	●
12:18, 10 May 2011	MickMacNee		●
12:46, 10 May 2011	Hans Adler	●
14:10, 10 May 2011	MickMacNee		●
14:27, 10 May 2011	Mo ainm	●
14:36, 10 May 2011	MickMacNee		●

Mo ainm~Talk 08:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like sound advice ignored. DeCausa (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

From the offset, I am one of the editors currently involved in the disagreement over at the British Isles template.

However, long long before then, my experience of Mick is that he is an extremely hostile editor of a similar ilk to Sarah777. I have been on the receiving end of hostility and abuse from both editors — from Sarah for supposedly advancing a "pro-British" and "anti-Irish agenda" on Wikipedia ... and from Mick for supposedly advancing a "pro-Irish" and "anti-British" agenda!

Civility matters. We cannot create a quality encyclopedia collaboratively without civility. While everyone breaches it once in a while (and we all need to accept that aspect of human nature), habitually incivil editors drain moral, energy and collaboration from the project.

Civility issues with Mick are a very serious problem in my view. Transferring the responsibility to deal with these issues onto others, such as with AKMask advice, can only get us so far. Yes, it is a good idea to walk away from abusive and uncivil editors. However, if one editor is consistently abusive towards others, it is that editor's conduct that needs to be examined — not others. Civility is a prerequisite for contributing to this encyclopedia.

I would propose a RFC/U on Mick and see what the community's view of him is. --RA (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, I've never seen anything so incivil as to compare another editor to Sarah777. Unless you've got some diffs where I've been making some rather offensive allegories over the Irish tricolor, or have preceeded my involvement in each and every BI dispute venue with the stated intitial belief that all Irish are terrorists and Ireland is a nation with a history of terrorism, then for that insult on a high profile venue like the ANI board, I expect an immediate retraction. And frankly, it's not hard to be classified by the likes of Sarah as being "pro-British", she would classify anyone who didn't hold those sort of disgusting views as such (or if of irish descent, the exceedingly more offensive "West Brit"). And I certainly cannot recall ever labeling you as such (diffs for context?), but on the off chance I have, it was probably in response to the sort of behaviour that brings me onto the second point:

Instead of calling for a civility Rfc/U on me as a weapon to win the dispute at the Template:British Isles, I'd rather you filed a content Rfc to show some support for the following ideas: The British Isles template should change its state on different articles - this is how we do NPOV; That the British Isles is the sole terminology dispute where Wikipedia should be inventing new ways to present the NPOV, even though it's not done this way anywhere else; That Jimbo and quite a few other people with no horse in this dispute, and even a few Irish people, who have all debunked your position, know nothing about NPOV.

Because so far, you've shown no intention of doing anything in this dispute instead of rehashing and reheating it. I've yet to see you rebutt any of the major points on policy, precedent and technical issues. You've solicited input from the UK & Ireland boards, the NPOVN board, and all prior commenters (hopefully all, I haven't audited your selections). And unsurprisingly, you are getting the same feedback as the last time. If you remember, I raised this at NPOVN not once, but twice. The POV one liners & meat puppetry of the likes of Mo ainm carry no weight in this dispute, and neither does your repetitous rehashing the BI dispute or waffling about censorship.

Tbh, I'm contemplating raising an Rfc myself which would transplant your arguments to the general case, and show what implications that has for the likes of Template:Middle East, which I can guarantee would go down like a lead balloon as a proposed way of doing NPOV. This seems to me the only way you might finally drop the stick. Or maybe not. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We've been down the RfC route before with with MickMacNee. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee, with one desired outcome listed as "MickMacNee will start commenting in a more civil way, and will stop attacking other users." It's worth reading. There are many other threads from this noticeboard regarding his behavior;

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#User:MickMacNee_and_persistent_incivility (September 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#User:MickMacNee (March 2009)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive580#Disruptive_behaviour_and_personal_attacks_by_MickMacNee (November 2009)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#User:MickMacNee (January 2010)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October_2010#MickMacNee (October 2010)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#User:MickMacNee (November 2010)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive652#Talk_page_comments_by_MickMacNee (November 2010)

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your name comes up pretty often on this noticeboard too. [70]. Are we to believe all of these are instance of editors praising your self-asserted view that you "abide by all policies and guidelines"? I'm pretty sure there's a guideline about not using the Incidents board to just stir up general drama. Or it may just be classed as common sense/decency, and thus goes under your tendentious radar. If you've got a specific request of an admin for the 'incident' you think you've raised by starting this section, then just state it. Unlike you at the Rfc, I shall be here as long as it takes, responding to whatever you come up with, as common decency requires. You won't hear a peep out of me about how you are "assaulting" me with this muck raking, or that you should go find another "platform" to express your clear and obvious "hatred" of me (I'm quoting words Hammersoft uses repeatedly in these situations). I shall not be invoking "Hammersoft's Law" which asserts my right to act like a child and stick my fingers in my ears and say 'naa naa naa I can't hear you' whenever anyone starts criticising my actions in policy or behaviour. If you're not happy with no admin agreeing with your views of the world, and if you or anyone else still want to raise an Rfc/U on me, then just do it. If you're just here to muck rake, then please retract your claim that you "abide by all policies and guidelines", because it's clearly nonsense. If I were to follow one particular example of your past tendentious behaviour on this board, I should have already sub-sectioned your collection of ANI threads already under some inflammatory heading like 'Hammersofts continued muckraking'. As I said above, your capacity for hypocrisy and complete self-unawareness is legendary, and it's probably raised often in the instances where your name comes up on this noticeboard. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Borderline outing and battleground behavior by user Skäpperöd

I fully realize that this risks a minor Streisand effect but I'm at the end of my patience and I would rather have it dealt with once and for all before I blow a gasket, so let's get it over with.

I started my account in 2005 under a username which was closely based on my real name (i.e. it identified me). After some controversy, and after I was subject to off-wiki harassment, in November of 2010 I changed my username to my present one. I was not under any kind of sanction when I changed my username. I asked the editors that I often interact with if they could avoid using my prior username (for example here [71]). as I did not wish to have my real name linked to my account. All but one, including folks I have had disagreements with in the past (some were even courteous enough to ask on their own [72] [73]), had no problem with it.

The one exception was/is user User:Skäpperöd - I made the same request of him here [74] which he removed (along with other users' comments) in which he made a reference to comments being removed as "nationalist" [75]. He then used my old username here [76] despite being clearly aware of my request. I then repeated my request here [77]. He responded with belligerence and false accusations [78] (this was my response [79]).

Most recently, Skapperod once again used my old username [80]. I once again requested that he cease doing so and redact though honestly, at this point my patience is wearing very thin [81]. He once again responded with a belligerent comment, combined with personal attacks and more false accusations [82] (see here for the entire discussion [83].

Skapperod seems to be under the impression that unless I request a "clean start" (I don't think I need a clean start and Skapperod seems to be using this as a way to insinuate that I am doing something wrong - I'm not) he is under no obligation to desist using my old username (despite several requests). However, WP:OUTING is pretty clear:

It (WP outing policy - VM) also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found.

There's nothing in there that the only way to get users to stop using your old username - related to your real name - is by asking for a "clean start". It specifically states that the policy applies to an editor who has requested a change in username (that'd be me).

I was subject to some real nasty attacks off-Wiki due to the original outing of my real life name (as well as personal and private information of my family members) and I should probably note at this point that at the time it was Skapperod who contributed to the outing (I accidentally posted personal info on Wiki, which was oversighted but not before Skapperod took it and posted it all over Wikipedia).

Since Skapperod is 1) aware of the policy on outing and 2) has been asked by myself repeatedly to stop this outing but refuses to do so I have no choice but to conclude that this is a form of harassment, motivated by his battleground mentality (we disagree often on content). He knows this pisses me off, he knows I was subject off wiki harassment, yet he continues this behavior. At some point editing Wikipedia just becomes not worth risking being attacked in real life and these kinds of situations will drive editors away. And I'm starting to feel like that is in fact the actual purpose here.

Note, that I could understand (and have been understanding) if this was a unique slip up or accident, or if this was being done in the context of some administrative discussion where my former username was relevant (and in fact where this situation came up, I didn't object). But this is being done gratuitously and for less-than-legitimate motives. If nothing else, the fact that he continues to do this after being repeatedly asked not to is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I want to request an indefinite block for Skäpperöd, until he promises to stop trying to out my former username (which is linked to my real name).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned by ArbCom under this user name, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Radeksz. If you want to conceal your old user name I'd assume you'd have to come to some sort of arrangement with ArbCom. Skapperod probably, and quite reasonably, just assumes you want the name concealed for the same reason he thinks you changed it, to escape the effects of your previous sanctions. I don't think it is possible nor reasonable otherwise for you to try to force him into assisting you in this purpose, esp. as you regularly battle with him. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to "conceal" my old identity user name (Skapperod knows who I am, you know who I am, etc), I don't wish to "escape the effects of my previous sanctions" (I am not under any), I simply don't want my real life name being outed on wikipedia. Again. This is just asking a user to follow WP:OUTING. It's a reasonable request and your defense of Skapperod's actions is reprehensible. Should I note that you don't edit under your real name?

And yes, Deacon is most certainly an "involved" editor that I have had numerous disagreements in the past so this isn't an impartial opinion. Also, I am sure Deacon would not appreciate me constantly dragging up old diffs of ... let's call them "highly controversial", statements he made under his old username, before he changed it and sneaked through an RfA. Still, at least his privacy would be protected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I believe Deacon's comment above appears rather irresponsible of an admin. He should know that people have real lives and professional careers outside of Wikipedia, and editors should abide by people's requests with regard to their current username as WP:OUTING requires, particularly for reasons of off-wiki harassment. --Martin (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, please honor Volunteer Marek's request that you refer to him only by his current username. It appears to be an entirely reasonable request given the history and circumstances, and you are expected to comply. If you believe there is a circumstance that makes it absolutely essential that you reference the old username first (e.g., an Arbitration Enforcement request, though I hope none will be necessary), please consult me. Volunteer Marek, as I am sure is your intention anyway, please use your best efforts to minimize any interaction with Skäpperöd. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Response by Skäpperöd

I refute the claim that I ever outed anybody. That Volunteer Marek (VM)'s former username is User:Radeksz, now a redirect to VM, is openly accessible information, and not outing as shown below. In some cases where past behavior of VM is relevant, one even has no choice but using the old name. This is, for example, frequently done at the AE board, where Volunteer Marek's behavior in a different matter is currently under investigation.

The incident that escalated into this very thread was such a situation: I had a dispute with VM on a talk page [84] [85] and asked for outside input at the 3O board [86] [87]. Then, someone provided a 3O, agreeing with VM [88], then removed my entry at the 3O board with the e/s "third opinion provided, the discussion is now between more than two editors-as per guidance on the start of the page I am removing the request".

Looks like normal dispute resolution, doesn't it. In particular, one would not relate that to the EEML, since neither participant is listed as a participant (Wikipedia:EEML#List_membership). A completely different picture emerges, however, once it is clear that Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount are the same editors as Radeksz and Molobo, who are on that list, and per e.g. the arbcom's findings there have a long history of off-wiki co-ordinated tag teaming. I pointed that out on my talk, after Molobo opened a section there informing me of his "3O". Molobo and VM then both accused me of outing and lots of other stuff, and instead of neutral, outside input I got that section on my talk page filled with ever more comments of beforementioned users. It can all be read here.

Below, I addressed the allegations specifically:

An arbcom restriction was in force by the time of the username change (an still is)

VM said above: "I was not under any kind of sanction when I changed my username" and "I don't wish to "escape the effects of my previous sanctions" (I am not under any)".

That is false: while remedy 10 of the EEML arbitration case was not in force anymore by the time of the username change, VM was then and still is restricted per remedy 11 of the same case. Remedies 12 and 13 of that case, though not restrictions, likewise continue to apply.

I however assume in good faith that Arbcom has consented to the username change per Wikipedia:Changing usernames guidelines#When changing usernames is probably inappropriate: "If a user is currently restricted by arbitration committee rulings, renaming might cause confusion. Generally, approval should be sought from ArbCom before renames are performed in these cases."

VM's old username is not identifying him

VM said above: "I started my account in 2005 under a username which was closely based on my real name (i.e. it identified me)" and "stop trying to out my former username (which is linked to my real name)".

The username "Radeksz" is not identifying VM's RL identity any more than "Volunteer Marek", even after above-cited comment (which may or may not be true).

My alert to Arbcom in 2009 was neither outing nor spreading personal information "all over wikipedia"

VM said above: "it was Skapperod who contributed to the outing (I accidentally posted personal info on Wiki, which was oversighted but not before Skapperod took it and posted it all over Wikipedia)"

In late 2009, EEML-member Radeksz was proxying for blocked EEML-member Molobo with this edit while the EEML case was being investigated. This case was basically about a small group of editors coordinating off-wiki to tag team, sway consensus, edit-war, get rid of perceived opponents etc [89]; it was opened in September 2009.

The proxy edit occurred on 3 December 2009 and contained material proving continued off-wiki coordination. I accordingly alerted Arbcom to that edit, who promptly analyzed and oversighted it. This can in no way be interpreted as "posted it all over Wikipedia" - I went straight to Arbcom, who were just in the process of analyzing other instances of the same behavior by the same user(s), who in addition were fully capable of promptly handling the issue and were thus the most appropriate place to take this. And I am sure that they would at once have counseled me if this alert had had anything to do with outing.

The cited line from the outing policy does not apply

VM said above that "It (WP outing policy - VM) also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found."

As detailed above, the "old identifying mark" is oversighted [90].

Changing a username does not make the old name disappear

From Wikipedia:Changing username: "Existing signatures and mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename, and must be edited manually if desired."

From the username policy: "Signatures on discussion pages will continue to use the old name; while these can be changed manually, it is not recommended unless a contributor wishes to remove as much information as possible about their former name for privacy reasons. In such situations the old name will still be available in old versions of discussion pages. Username changes are listed in the user rename log."

VM has not undertaken efforts to change remaining mentions of his old username. Accordingly, the old username must be used if there is a need to connect him to such instances of his editing history, e.g. the EEML case (which does not have a "Volunteer Marek" in findings, remedies etc).

The policy and procedural guidelines cited above are also clear in that a username change is not disconnecting the new name from the old one, and that the logs etc will preserve this connection "forever" even if old names are edited out manually. WP:CLEANSTART would be the alternative if such a break is desired.

I did not remove VM's request

VM said above: "I made the same request of him here [91] which he removed (along with other users' comments) in which he made a reference to comments being removed as "nationalist" [92]"

Both diffs given by VM are actually the same diff, and they are not related to his request. The are from August 2010, i.e. months before the username change. The "nationalist" reference in the e/s was obviously to PolskiNarodowiec1985, a self-declared nationalist SPA (PolskiNarodowiec even translates "PolishNationalist") who after some disruption was blocked as a nationalist SPA and whose post to my talk page I removed after tagging it "resolved: Nationalist blocked indef." VM's request was not removed as he claims, it is still there now, and I stand by my comment there. I maintain however that, even though I did not remove this particular request, I am free to remove anything I like from my talk page.

Bottom line

There is nothing wrong with saying that Radeksz and Volunteer Marek are the same account, even less so when pointing out issues related to past or current disruption. There is no outing going on here. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's an actual need to link to my old username, like in an administrative proceeding or something, then as I've already said, I've got no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the gratuitous point-y battleground linking of the name by Skapperod in completely irrelevant situations. That's harassment.

(and btw, yes, apparently there is still one sanction left from the ArbCom case, a mutual interaction ban between various folks, one of them me, but i doesn't involve Skapperod at all. This particular injunction has actually worked very well, so well in fact that I've even managed to forget about it. It is also completely irrelevant here.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I mention that Skapperod is the only editor who refuses to comply with my request not to use the old username? Nobody else, even people I've had disagreements with, has taken this attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

@Skapperod, my feeling is that if NYB insists you shouldn't use the name, it is almost certainly best for you if you don't. I'm not supporting VM's claims here (I have some idea of how he operates too): but it is possible that VM does have a real concern, and that he has shared information substantiating such a concern with ArbCom; and that NYB is responding to such concerns. I have asked NYB to clarify this point. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've accepted Volunteer Marek's statement of concerns on good faith at this time; I hope that it will not be necessary to delve more deeply into the matter. The parties should be able to disengage and to refrain from escalating this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@NYB: If the EEML username changes were logged or applied to the EEML and DIGWUREN cases/logs, there would be no need to refer to the old usernames in cases where e.g. they provide 3Os for each other (as in the situation that led to this thread) or revert to each others preferred version (as in the other incident VM linked above) or at AE (where VM's old username is pointed out right now and where this has frequently been done in the past). It would also make it easier for sysops to identify comments made in mutual support of EEML members, e.g. in the recent Jacurek AE (and one other renamed EEML account commented in this very thread already). While the AE admins frequently dealing with EE issues probably keep up with the "who is who on the EEML", that can not be expected in general. And those who want to link the EEML case in such situations, like me when I wanted to verify that the 3O I got was not from a neutral party, but from a long-time tag team partner, can not be expected to have "outing" yelled at them when they do so, and find themselves in ANI threads like this one calling for indef blocks. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was going to drop this after NYBrad's reasonable suggestion, but the above comment by Skapperod is just astounding in its brazen lying. "(EEML members) provided 3Os for each other". Bullshit. This is plain false. What happened was that MyMoloboaccount pointed out that 3O are for disputes involving two people. In this particular case the dispute involved more parties, hence the appropriate DR procedure was an RfC. Skapperod is trying to pretend that this was "providing a third opinion", it wasn't, though MyMoloboaccount could have been clearer about this. But at this point, MMA already explained to Skapperod what was going on and invited him to start an RfC. Yet, here we are, with Skapperod making stuff up and misrepresenting others.

Other than that, the above is the perfect illustration of Skapperod's continuing battleground mentality. EEML was long time ago and most people from both sides of that fracas have moved on. Hell, some of them are on friendly terms with each other. But Skapperod continuous to act as if he's still fighting some long gone battles, and in the process resorts to making false statements (such as above) and harassment (such as outing). It has to stop. It's deleterious in its potential individual consequences (i.e. for me personally in RL) and to the topic area as a whole.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Short response to refute the "brazen lying" allegation: I asked for a 3O [93] [94], then came Molobo [95] and removed my entry at the 3O board saying third opinion provided" in the e/s. I have provided more diffs in my response above. Molobo gave a 3O and called it a 3O, q.e.d. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And even shorter response to show that. this. has. been. explained. to. you. At least seven times. Yet here you are pretending it is something it's not. And here is the actual, edit summary, rather than the edited partial one that you put up above: the discussion is now between more than two editors-as per guidance on the start of the page I am removing the request. Contrary to what some people think, putting a (frankly obnoxious) little "q.e.d" at an end of a statement, does NOT magically turn false statements into true ones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your diffs only show that you and Molobo wanted to declare the 3O, which Molobo even explicitely called a 3O when he gave it, to not be a 3O anymore afterwards. I provided diffs of what actually happened, you provided diffs of how you tried to redefine this in hindsight. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they show that you are misrepresenting what happened with MyMoloboaccount. Which actually had nothing to do with me. BTW, allow me to commend you on th excellent job you've done at derailing this discussion. Executed like a pro. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that Skapperod's suggestion that If the EEML username changes were logged or applied to the EEML and DIGWUREN cases/logs was, if I remember correctly (it HAS been a long time), actually a proposal he made during the EEML case itself, which was shut down/ignored by the ArbCom committee itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Diff? I don't recall that I ever made such a proposal before. Let's just wait for NYB's and others' comments on this proposal. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What proposal? The only proposal here is the one by Newyorkbrad, made in this discussion and on your talk page [96] asking you to stop your behavior. The only question now is whether you're willing to abide by that, or is a block necessary to make you realize that outing people is not a nice thing to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...while I don't want to be dragged into another Skapperod dispute here, this is a bit dishonest. I have been active on Szczecin article and commented Skapperod edits 30 April 2011 (UTC), 22:57, 30 April 2011. I also made several edits on the main page like the one here on23:28, 30 April 2011 which Skapperod reverted on 1 May 2011 with rather battleground and insulting comment 1 May 2011 don't sell communist propaganda for real

I and VM than posted two comments about problematic content in the article on 9 May 2011 and 05:35, 9 May 2011

Instead of debating these issues Skapperod started a new section concerning basically the same issues on 9 May 2011

I entered the discussion(as it can be easily observed, I was already editing the article and was involved in numerous debates) on 10:12, 9 May 2011

I noticed then that 3o request has been already provided by Skapperod10:09, 9 May 2011 . The 3o request was noticed by only after I already made my comment. Since I entered the discussion on the article where I was already very active in debating Skapperod's edits I removed the request since it was clear to me that the Skapperod is debating several editorsmy edit on 10:28, 9 May 2011 In the hindsight,yes I should have been more clear about what was happening. My statment should have been that this a discussion between several editors.I clarified this on 22:27, 9 May 2011 "Clarified removal. The discussion and dispute on Szczecin discussion page are between several editors and thus fell out of scope of 3o as the discussion is not limited to two editors only" upon Skapperod's complaints.

I basically believed that since Skapperod is being discussed by two editors than 3o doesn't apply and he should use RfC. All in all this seems a bit tedious, I would rather edit articles than get dragged down into another of Skapperod's discussions that only distract editors from creating content.

I suggest to both Skapperod and VM to drop this uneeded conversation and concentrate on editing articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When you gave the 3O, it is very hard to imagine that you were not aware of what you were doing as you explicitely defined your action as giving a 3O, and you could not possibly have been unaware of you being a long-time tag team partner of VM and thus not in any way eligible for providing a 3O, which is for outside, neutral input. In the e/s of the same diff, you also said that the dispute were "now" between more than two editors, so you were fully aware that it was only your own "3O" as you called it that torpedoed the DR process. All your explanaitions now do not change that fact.

All this has completely buried my above proposal to log/apply EEML username changes to WP:EEML and WP:DIGWUREN, I hope there will be some comments to that rather than further distraction. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When you gave the 3OExcept I didn't Skapperod. Nowhere did I post on the Szczecin discussion page that I am giving a response to 3o request(and yes I wrote 3o provided in summary, because I meant that there are 3 editors involved-a statement which I clarified afterwardsremoval. The discussion and dispute on Szczecin discussion page are between several editors and thus fell out of scope of 3o as the discussion is not limited to two editors only). This was a long debate which I was part of, and hence 3o didn't apply because they were simply more than two editors involved in discussion. You are making a big affair out of technicality-I already explained that you can use RfC on that article. Now can we all go back to writing articles, or will you continue to drag this on? Anyway, I won't be dragged into this. If you want, restart your 3o process, even though you are discussing with two editors. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This debate over the formalities of 3O is another red herring. Whatever those instructions say, it was an act of disruptive WP:DICK behaviour to use your insertion on the talk page as a formalistic pretext to stop what had been a legitimate 3O request. As if you saw it as a legitimate goal to try to exclude third opinions as much as you could. And this especially since your contribution to the talk page had in fact been nothing more than a mechanical "me, too", and as such hadn't in fact turned the discussion into anything more complex than what it had been, a conflict between two editors' positions. And especially since you have a long history of colluding with V.M. in disputes of this sort, so your agreeing with him was of very little news value. And, most crucially, especially since you have a well-known common history of colluding to subvert dispute resolution processes together. You really should have known better than to stage this completely unnecessary drama over a piece of wikilawyering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FP@S, you are, willfully or not, helping Skapperod to derail the discussion from it's original subject - the fact that he is outing me, a much more serious breach of policy than any kind of imagined "wikilawyering" - to some kind minor side show where you enable his flimsy excuses for his battleground actions. But to be clear, what MyMoloboaccount did here was perfectly legitimate - 3Os are for disputes between two editors, otherwise the DR process to use is RfC. Skapperod seized on the fact that MyMoloboaccount's wording wasn't crystal clear to stir up lots of unnecessary drama. MMA explained to him what happened. Skapperod continued with his (pretend) IDIDN'THEARTHAT. If there was wikilawyering here, it wasn't by MMA. Skapperod then used it on this request here as a means of changing the subject and turning the light away from his own disruptive behavior. You are now helping him.

This statement: you have a well-known common history of colluding to subvert dispute resolution processes together. - is completely false. There's never been a proposed remedy, an administrative action or anything of the sort. In fact, MMA wasn't sanctioned nor reprimanded in any of the EEML decisions. Accusations which are not supported by evidence are a blockable offense. Even for admins. Anyway, even if somehow your claims were true (which they're not) that would in no way excuse Skapperod's harassment and outing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A page move request

In Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog, someone please look at and if possible close, the move request "*'(Discuss) – Pro-life movement → Anti-abortion movement – *A more comprehensible name. And move the existing page Anti-abortion movement (which is a WP:Parallel version of page Pro-life) to Anti-abortion movement/version 2 to get it out from under the incoming page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)", which has run for 51 days. If I try to close it myself, I get complained at, because I started that move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it appears this should be closed as No Consensus Lionel (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with other users who have stayed that Anthony Appleyard should not be making the close here because of previous involvement, but I also agree with him that someone needs to close it, and the votes seem clearly enough in favor of the move (given that Pro-choice was moved a little while back to Abortion-rights movement; some users' votes were conditional on parallelism, including my own). However:
  • The move discussion was whacked-out enough without reopening the previous move discussion, and I have no idea how we can get from here to a clean slate that will allow us to have real discussion on these pages (both at once), should we desire to continue discussion.
  • Lionelt, I agree with BelloWello that your post at Talk:Pro-life was inappropriate, but I think the issue doesn't need to go any further; you can just rephrase the post to inform other users that there is a discussion at ANI about the move, without indicating which side you think they should take.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear that the thread should be closed with No Consensus. The entire discussion was inappropriate as it was opened an extremely short time (about a month) after a consensus to keep the the article where it was. The discussion has been ongoing for about four months. People have tired of the conversation and only the editors who feel most strongly about the necessity to move the article remain. Allowing the move not only is blind to the fact that the new names would not be parrellel (something the people who want the move knew and planned when they changed the title of "pro-choice"), but rewards move requests made in bad faith (immediately after consensus) and fillibustering.LedRush (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here is what concerns me Talk:Pro-choice#move_2011. If people really think that pro-life discussion should be closed as no-consensus, I strongly believe the discussion that Anthony Appleyard participated in, and then closed in his favor as "page moved" should be re-examined by an uninvolved admin. I believe that discussion was also "no consensus". Or I feel that for similar reasons, someone could close the pro-life debate as "page moved" based on the weight of the arguments, instead of vote counting. I think both discussions should have similar outcomes, but since I participated and am biased, I'm not going to go any further on swaying which way. Read my comments in those discussion for that. Point being, it seems really, really, REALLY inappropriate to allow one side of the debate to use a term of self identity, but force the other side to use a seemingly more 'neutral' term that the AP guidelines suggest. Either use both self identifying terms, or use both 'neutral' terms. Don't mix it up. And based on both discussions, I feel they could both be closed as "no consensus" or, if vote counting is ignored, an admin could weigh the arguments and decide to move both... but I don't see how moving one but not the other is productive, fair, neutral, or in accordance to the outcomes of those discussions (and this whole processes has really made me jaded about what community consensus means, as it seems like the personal preference of a very small handful of Wikipedians, mixed in with the personal preference of biased admins is creating a situation where we DON'T have parity in the naming between these articles. It is very unprofessional to have lack of parity such as this).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody forced "pro choice" to change the title of their article. They did it, in part, as a back door to get the name of this article changed. As soon as that article name change occurred, everyone flocked to this one to reopen the issue that was closed just a month prior. It is gaming the system at its worst.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is really simple. We should just use "pro-choice" and "pro-life". These are a) very common descriptors used in reliable sources, b) acceptable as self-identification, and c) parallel to avoid charges of favoritism. For a long time, we just used these terms - even though they're not perfect - as a reasonable compromise approach, and I'm not sure why things have changed. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Things changed because a rouge admin who voted in the move discussion decided to close the pro-choice discussion in his favor, when there wasn't a clear consensus (12 support, 8 oppose). I guess he felt the weight of the support arguments were better than the oppose by a significant amount, and then tried to move the pro-life article to follow suit. Some users want the change because they feel the terms of self identity are not neutral, but because of Wikipedia's wacky voting system of 'consensus', we have a situation where there were enough voters in one admins eyes to make that change in one article, but not the other. I personally don't believe there are a majority of people out there who honestly think the current situation is best (except maybe a few biased pro-life Wikipedians who think there is nothing wrong with "pro-life", but something really wrong with "pro-choice", but perhaps I am mistaken). I see it two ways, either there wasn't consensus on either discussion, or there is for both. I'm a big parity person, and perhaps I am belittling possible arguments that there shouldn't be parity between the naming. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with both self-identifying (as that is the clearly preferable outcome, IMHO), but since pro-choice has a neutral alternative name and pro-life doesn't, it is simply not a parallel to force both to change names.LedRush (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You've been pushing this idea that "anti-abortion" is non-neutral across multiple pages, and it simply isn't true. In any case, this shouldn't become the place for more argument in what is already an extremely convoluted move discussion; now that uninvolved admins have been alerted to the presence of a move discussion that should be closed, there's no need to reprise all the arguments here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed this out a couple of times over two months ago on the article talk page, and now once here in response to a suggestion to keep both article names in "parity". Your mischaricterization of my contributions isn't helpful, and if you don't want to have arguments here, you shouldn't start them. Your hypocritical conclusory statements about my position is just the icing on the unhelpful cake.LedRush (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think frankly the entire discussion of attempting to tell the closing administrator how to close the discussion is inappropriate as they haven't closed it yet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think the closing admin needs to provide a detailed rationale of how they came to their decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• If I remember right, I started this move request not spontaneously but because someone asked me to move the article, and I decided to list it as a discussed move instead of directly moving the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Flatterworld

I began editing (diff) Bashar al-Assad on 7 May 2011 when, in the course of a discussion at another article, certain biographical details relating to the president surfaced that were not part of his article prior to my edit. There has since been a discussion ongoing about how best to handle the added content. Flatterworld (talk · contribs) joined the discussion here, with no valuable input other than to shoot bad-faith accusations from the hip. There is nothing necessarily uncivil about his language, but the nature of his comments undoubtedly runs counter to WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. The user's Talk page abounds with warnings against similar conduct in the past: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], and the list goes on and on.

I directed the user to WP:AGF here and here, asking that he strike out the bad faith remarks. He chose to disregard my advice. It is necessary for an Admin to involve himself in guiding Flatterworld (talk · contribs) in how Wikipedia envisions healthy interactions between contributors. A 48-hour block would not be an excessive response under the circumstances, though I am open to less severe alternatives.—Biosketch (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A 48 hour block for saying you cherry picked sources? Would you be open to the less severe alternative of doing nothing? It seems to me you are running into some opposition on the Assad talk page. Trying to one-up the opposition by trying to get them blocked is not the best way forward. I'd suggest you solve this dispute by continuing the discussion on the talk page. I note you also failed to inform Flatterworld of this discussion.--Atlan (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I was informed on my Talk page (which I clear after reading). Quite honestly, I have more important things to do with my time at Wikipedia than argue about this. It's not bad faith to address a serious issue with an article, and I will not be bullied into some sort of fake 'compromise' by any attempts at intimidation. Flatterworld (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you were informed on your talk page of this report at WP:WQA. This, however, is a different report at a different venue.--Atlan (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize there were so many venues. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Atlan (talk · contribs), thanks for taking the time to look into the incident and for leaving the updated notice on Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s Talk page. In answer to your question about the 48-hour block, of course it isn't simply for the accusation against me over cherry-picking sources. It is the broader tone of Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s comment, the fact that it attributed ulterior motives to me, and Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s ostensible history of similar such comments to others. Perhaps I am overstating the importance of WP:AGF, but the page does describe it as "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia," and it rather unequivocally requires editors not to "attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice" – and in this case no evidence of malice was indicated by the user making the accusations. Also, the suggestion that I'm trying to one-up the "opposition" – a label I emphatically reject, by the way – by getting them blocked frankly doesn't make sense. You'll see that the additions I made to the article have been embraced by the article's editors since I introduced them. They've even been expanded. The dispute on the Discussion page is therefore not about content but about a much more minor question of layout. If Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s contribution had been a meaningful one, elaborating at least a little on why he construes my additions as cherry-picking etc., there wouldn't have been a problem. It's the reality that in this user's first interaction with me he chose to assume bad faith that's the problem. I've had much more heated discussions with colleagues here, but they stay constructive because a mutual effort is made to assume good faith as much as possible. If WP:AGF is not considered a serious policy, then I'll concede the 48-hour block is excessive. But if WP:AGF is seen as essential to Wikipedia, it is not.—Biosketch (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are a preventative measure. We don't issue them as punishment for failing to assume good faith. This board is for incidents. If you want to address Flatterworld's long term behavior (which I doubt, even though you bring it up), start an Rfc. Usually, it is best to either prove the other side wrong, or agree to disagree and shrug it off, rather than run to the admin boards in righteous indignation.--Atlan (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ken keisel adding unsourced material

Hi all -- User:Ken keisel has a long history of inserting unsourced or poorly sourced information into articles. He's been warned about this many times by many people. [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]

Things have been coming to a head over the last month or so, when Ken has been making a large number of such contributions to various aviation-related articles, for example: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]

I've been working with him to get citations in place for as many of these claims as possible, with mixed results. However, even while working through this process, he's continued adding unsourced information, most recently to Yankee Air Museum.[118] I reverted that addition and warned him that he might not be able to continue editing if he continues this behaviour. His immediate response was to go on a rampage of adding {{citation needed}} tags to a variety of articles [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] until an admin warned him to stop

Today, he re-added the uncited material to the Yankee Air Museum page and left a message on the article talk page explaining why he feels that articles about private organizations don't need citations.

His repeated and ongoing addition of uncited material is disruptive, and based on today's edits, I believe that he has no intention of stopping. I'd issue a short block myself at this point, but I consider myself involved. Could somebody else take a look please?

FWIW, I don't think he's ever deliberately inserted untrue material; just factual material that isn't cited and maybe can't be verified. I also agree that the aircraft articles he tagged could indeed be better cited, but the POINTy behaviour wasn't going to get other editors to work with him on that... --Rlandmann (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Is any of the stuff being added in serious doubt and/or controversial? It looks to me that Rlandmann and many people leaving those warning templates are misinterpreting WP:V, which says all info in Wikipedia must be verifiable, not necessarily actually cited. Verifiable means that a source exists. Uncited stuff can be challenged and removed as a matter of editorial judgment, but the "challenged" part (at least in the form of a good faith belief that the info is likely enough to be wrong that leaving it in the article is doing more harm than good) IMHO is a vital component of such a removal. The main exception is negative info in a BLP, which always must be cited. There is a wikipedia fork called Veropedia in which -everything- has to be cited, but WP doesn't use that approach. People who want citations for every single addition should look there instead of here. (Actually it looks like Veropedia is now dead, which may convey a lesson of its own).

I've seen a number of ANI threads recently where people have been confused about this, as a result of which we've been losing lots of good encyclopedic info that per AGF we're better off leaving alone. I'm not saying people should go off on OR sprees or spew mindless trivia (including cited trivia) into articles: I'm just talking about uncontroversial relevant info, like the electrical data about obsolete transistors that someone was removing recently. That stuff is fairly easy to verify if you can get your hands on old data books, and is useful and encyclopedic if you have to fix an old TV set or something like that. This aircraft stuff sounds comparable. Articles that are very closely sourced (contentious politics articles, for example) are frankly less credible than less closely sourced ones, because the close sourcing gives the impression of conflict between editors and consequently the likely presence of bad-faith editing. Ken Keisel looks to be pretty knowledgeable so if the stuff he's adding looks relevant and correct, I'd generally not worry about it. Just ask for cites for specific stuff that you have doubts about, and discuss his approach to editing with him at a general level (RFC/U if you must) rather than leaving warning templates and opening ANI threads. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anon, and yes, I believe that each of the recent edits I linked above has specific WP:V or WP:CITE problems, either because they appear to require local knowledge (and are therefore WP:OR) [126], [127], [128] [129] because they're intrinsically "likely to be challenged" (claims of "the largest", "the heaviest")[130] [131] or they report an opinion [132]. I don't believe that "travel to the place and see for yourself" satisfies WP:V :)

This isn't new behaviour; Ken's been adding material based on hearsay or personal experience for some time.[133] [134] [135], so yeah, we have a problem here. Discussion has produced inconsistent results, so I'm happy to take it to an RFC/U if that's the best course of action. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that this user is doing some very bizarre things. I'm not directly involved but my watchlist of aircraft articles recently lit up like a Christmas tree. Uncited original research has been added to some articles where mass 'citation needed' tagging has been added to others (in some cases added for extremely obvious and undisputed facts), that can only be deemed as disruptive editing and I perceived a level of spite coming through (intended or not). Many 'citation needed' tags were added to article leads which shows no appreciation or understanding of WP:CITELEAD. The reversion of this 'spree', as another editor coined it, obviously involved much unnecessary work for project editors. A recent exchange at Talk:Yankee Air Museum implied that Rlandmann was not qualified to edit the article and this rang alarm bells of ownership problems to me, apart from not appreciating at all that any Wikipedia article is open to editing by anyone unless ARBCOM or other restrictions apply.

I am not qualified to write about old aircraft engines but I managed to get the Rolls-Royce Merlin and Rolls-Royce R through FAC by using old fashioned books and the previous work/contemporary support of other editors. Another strange request from this user was that all aircraft article editors use the same source for specification sections, it did not gain consensus at WT:AIR and I should note that we don't use US dollars in England even if we could order this (unknown to me) publication. I can understand RLandmann's reluctance to block this user as required but I do feel in this case that more 'boldness' should be applied to protect the encyclopedia (which is the primary purpose of a block). FWIW Rlandmann's neutral judgment and patience level as an administrator over the three years plus that I have been here have been beyond reproach (see User talk:AMCKen for an example). If an RFC/U is filed then I will pitch up there but again it's a lot of unnecessary grief for someone to deal with. A personal thought is that the general level of arguing/bickering/whatever you want to call it has risen to new heights on WP and has dampened my enthusiasm to the point that I don't contribute articles anymore, this episode is just a continuation of the problems that are occurring daily, it's a great shame and I'm sure Jimbo rolls his eyes when he reads this stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think you guys are overreacting a bit, except in cases of info that's actually contentious. Maybe you should try mediation (medcab?) first, as it's less confrontational than my earlier suggestion of RFC/U, if you're having trouble disussing this with Ken directly. Looking at Ken's overall contrib history, I think he's not that experienced with how we try to do things with regard to sourcing, and he is basically making newbie-like errors despite having 2300+ edits (almost all his edits are in mainspace--he hasn't interacted with other editors all that much). But he really does seem pretty knowledgeable about aviation. So it may help if an outsider has a chat with him.

Remember always that the purpose of all those policies (V, NOR, etc.) is to make sure the encyclopedia is reliable and mainstream, rather than being ends in themselves. They have to be enforced pretty rigorously in areas of controversy, like politics and BLP's. In areas like science and math, they're actually enforced pretty loosely, yet those are the areas where Wikipedia's reputation is the highest, mainly because the editors in those areas tend to know what they're doing and not be pushing agendas. That's more valuable to the project than any amount of policy observance.

The problems in the diffs you've shown look fairly tame to me at most. They don't make me feel like the encyclopedia is threatened. If you think something from them has to be taken out of an article, I'd say remove it but put a note on the talk page saying what it was, so people can know about it and look for sourcing if they think it's interesting. I'm pretty busy with RL stuff this week and sleepy right now, but can probably try to discuss this with Ken next week if you think that might help (I've had reasonable results in this sort of situation before). I do agree that he should modify his style somewhat. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Added: Nimbus, per Rlandmann's post, it sounds like the thing with the cite-tagging was a reaction to earlier cite requests that Ken felt affronted by. It was obviously inappropriate but I think it's been resolved. I also see the current discussion on Ken's talk page is not very friendly, and also it doesn't look like he's been notified of this thread. Look, he means well, please try to de-escalate the situation some. I'll try to leave him a note tomorrow but won't be able to spend much time on it. I also see he has asked for mediation, which seems like a good idea to me. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The user was notified of this thread here. I also thought of 'having a chat' but reasoned that it would not work. The mediation attempt was a direct response to another editor reverting the 'citation needed' tags, an attempt to report that editor's 'vandalism' to the admins. It was the wrong venue (should have been here if there was a case to answer), was malformed and quickly deleted. This recent post on the user's talk page (...is getting to the point where I can file a police report with my local police for pursuing me on Wikipedia. If you wish to test me by all means proceed.) could easily be taken for a legal threat and the user should be notified of the gravity of this wording. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This diff is very clearly a legal threat and requires immediate action. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Singer-Songwriters

The article List of singer-songwriters has been damaged, and I can't tell how it happened. For whatever reason, User 120.127.93.243 blanked the TOC on 11 April 2011. That should not have affected what occurred, but at this point, the United States of America section for traditional singer-songwriters was deleted. (I didn't check whether other countries were affected as well). The loss of the section does not show up when you review the revision, though the size of the article drops by about 5,000 bytes. I know I can Undo the edit, but since this happened a month ago, a dozen or so subsequent edits would be lost. The alternative, for me at least, would be to cut and paste the lost data from a previous version. However, the unusual results of the edit in question should probably be reviewed at the admin level. As indicated above, I will inform the editor in question about this request. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what's so odd about this. They removed a bunch of stuff including that section, and it is visible when looking at the diff. – anna 14:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: it might be hard to see because it's so long, but if you look at it closely you'll see that they cherry-picked entries, removing figures like Courtney Love. That would doubtless account for the reduced size. – anna 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably the cause of the size reduction. If any of those entries need to be added back in, add them back in.

I don't see anything that an admin needs to do here. The IP did a large restructuring of the page, making it more easily readable (and shorter, length-wise) by using multiple columns, and added __NOTOC__ to remove the table of contents. These are editorial decisions. What do we need admins to take a look at? lifebaka++ 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A poor read of the revision on my part. Having totally missed the obvious, I thought something more nefarious was going on. My objection should have been to the inexplicable removal of entire sections, which I can deal with on my own. Thanks, and sorry for the distraction. Allreet (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation/falsification of scholarly source by user Skäpperöd

Skäpperöd (talk · contribs)
This user intentionally and consciously manipulated citation on Wikipedia from a scholarly source.

I noticed a manipulation of citation by this user a while ago and asked on several pages about the proper procedure in this case(without giving details)(see my request as of 1 May 2011) I have now confirmed that this was not a mistake but a conscious effort to manipulate a scholarly citation in a vulnerable subject(as some may know this often is cause of discussions)-mainly the naming of Polish/German cities

The manipulation happened here: [136] a quote was manipulated from "An historical geography of Europe, 450 B.C.-A.D.1330" by Norman John Greville Pounds, Cambridge University Press 1973,page 241 The original quote was(and can be confirmed by google books search):

   "By 1121 Polish armies had penetrated its forests, captured its chief city of Szczecin"

Edit manipulated the quote into:

   "By 1121 Polish armies had penetrated its forests, captured its chief city of Stettin"

The user who manipulated the quote now confirmed he did it on purpose and claimed he is following "Gdansk vote"(Per the Gdansk vote, Stettin is used prior to 1945, Szczecin thereafter. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)). However the Gdansk vote is a simple recommendation to use by editors when making edits on their own, obviously it doesn't allow to falsify quoted texts from scholarly books to show they use German names when they do not.

This is a direct quote from the book, not Wikipedia content typed by an editor. The user so far has refused to anwser if he manipulated other quotes from scholarly sources in the same way to show they use germanised names rather then their actual content.

User Skäpperöd has also been placed on notice before regarding his activity in Eastern European topics before: [137]

Since I believe manipulating the content of sources is a serious breach of Wikipedia principles(and such cases were discussed here before[138], I am requesting a warning to Skapperod to cease manipulation of other quoted content, demand to answer if he manipulated other scholarly content on Wikipedia, and a month ban on editing names content in articles concerning Polish-German history.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course quotations should not be altered, but if the editor thought he was following a consensus agreement this could just be an honest slip-up. It's not as though the quotation hhad been changed to mean something different. It looks like a mechanical process of name changing that was just wrongly applied. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment was left at WP:AN (diff) in response to the same question from MyMoloboaccount. MyMoloboaccount moved the question to AN/I but not the response; I copied the response over. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have a bit problem with editing these pages here,I don't know the exact rules and Wiki servers seem to be dying today.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It goes without saying that literal quotations must not be changed. That includes attempts at bringing their wording in line with any Wikipedia naming guideline (no matter how valid or invalid the reference to the guideline is). However, it appears that Sk's edit was somewhat mechanically going through several instances of the name, so he may have just overlooked that it was a quote. I'm not seeing any diff to an attempt at discussing this specific issue with him. Did you draw the fact that it was a quote to his attention? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I did inform him Please explain why you changed a quote from "An historical geography of Europe, 450 B.C.-A.D.1330" and inserted non-existing text within it--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion occurred on Sk's talk page. I have left a comment there. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. Moloboacc indeed asked the correct question at first, but then Sk. and Volunteer M. immediately derailed the discussion, away from the issue of correct citation to an entirely irrelevant squabble over the application of the Gdansk vote, which was full of big-sounding assertions but devoid of actual arguments on both sides. Disappointing. I'm still not quite clear whether Sk. actually understood what the issue was, but if he did and didn't acknowledge the mistake that's rather bad, and almost inexplicable for an editor of his experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Have done this myself in the past, when adjusting text after WP:RM closes through notepad find and replace.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done it too. But the problem edit [139] does seem to demonstrate possible WP:COMPETENCE issues. He even changed the name in the code for Google books links and in wikilinks, which would (and did) break the links. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, when this appeared on my talk page I was pretty much distracted by the post just above and thought it is a Gdansk vote issue. I intended to apply consistency, per my e/s, but I now see that the edit actually changed a quote within a footnote. I had searched and replaced, and did not realize that I was messing with the mark-up rather than visible text. My bad.

I however maintain that there this is neither a "manipulation" or "falsification" of a source, as the bad edit only changed the spelling of a word, not the meaning of the quote. I also think that the timing is odd - the bad edit was of 30 April, and the notification as well as this thread were opened in the context of yesterdays dispute at my talk page and today's AN/I thread above. All of a sudden the old, long reverted edit is so important to raise it here? It was a bad edit, but it was online for not even two hours.

My bad edit was of 30 April 22:34 UTC, it was reverted the same day at 23:03 UTC [140]. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So, am I right in understanding that this error was made and corrected nearly two weeks ago? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Molobo's pontyness in brinking this up is pretty clear. It's part of the eternal re-run of WWII in Polish-German wikipolitics. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Deacon-you are not a neutral party here, I would welcome in view of your previous comments regarding Poles, Poland and Polish editors if you would stay out of this. Regarding Skapperod's claim that the notification as well as this thread were opened in the context of yesterdays dispute at my talk page and today's AN/I thread above this is incorrect-I asked about procedures and falsification of sources way earlier, here is the evidence

My question on ANI board on 30 April 2011

My question on 1st of May

I decided to post it here today with full details, as Skapperod confirmed that he did it on purpose and claimed he was acting per Wiki policies, and as he refused to answer my question if other quotes were manipulated on Wiki by him to show German names, even if they weren't using them[141]. My reason for this was that falsification of sources is a breach of Wikipedia principles and that other quotes could have been falsified since Skapperod seems to have claimed that is is ok to do so using Gdańsk vote. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

previous comments regarding Poles, Poland and Polish editors What do you mean? BTW, read NYB's comments on your friend's thread above (#Further_discussion): "parties should be able to disengage and to refrain from escalating this dispute". NYB was very favorable to Volunteer Marek, but this will definitely boomerang on you if you keep pressing it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• comment- this is clearly a frivolous and disruptive complaint. I can't see any reason for bringing this up weeks later, but to disturb Skäpperöd, who is a long-term content opponent of Molobo. The mistakes have been fixed long time ago, and they didn't even need much input by others - unlike many of Molobo's own article edits, that tend to be POVed to the extreme and are usually equally poorly worded. If you also check Molobo's habit of posting frivolous warnings at talk pages of other German users he happens to disagree with (and general combative behaviour in this respect), you'll see what I mean by linking this policy. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Skapperod comment

If indeed that was a mistake, then I am willing to let it go(initial reaction by Skapperod indicated that he did it on purpose and claimed Gdańsk vote as reason). I hope no such further manipulations of quotes to show they contain something that they do not will take place, and Skapperod will not mechanically replace all names with German versions in articles to avoid such mistakes in the future.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. This discussion is resolved, then, and can be hatted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by OpinionAreLikeAHoles and anon IP

OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed referenced content from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia twice, both times with dishonest edit summaries. The first deletion of referenced content was marked as a minor edit [142] and "unclear" (It is a one sentence quote from a Muslim feminist that is quite clear). The second [143] also contained a flatly dishonest edit summary stating that my revert removed content (I was restoring content).

Between OpinionsAreLikeAHoles' reverts, anon IP removed the same content, also with a dishonest edit summary "restored content" (content was removed). [144]. Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material: [145] .

All the IP's edits are related to the MIddle East. And almost all of OpinionAReLikeAHoles' are as well. The latter editor registered a month ago, and immediately began making sophisticated edits.

Neither editor has made any comment in Talk. I'm not sure how long the content has been there, but I went back 500 edits, to August 2010, and it is there [146]. So it seems to be in the "consensus, but controversial" category. The article has been plagued by editors with obvious agendas regarding Middle Eastern politics trying to remove that quote.

Maybe this should a sockpuppet report, or an edit warring report. There is a little of both, and a whiff of vandalism.... Mindbunny (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I also wonder if OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is an acceptable name. Mindbunny (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't dignify this with a response..... but what the hey. I am confident any admin will see right through this troublesome editor's report here. 1) Mindbunny has a personal grudge against me since a re-inserted a comment critical of his behavior at Lara Logan, back onto his own Talk page. 2) in my short time here, I've learned to use the Talk page a lot, as a look at my Contributions will show. 3) I only inadvertently removed content the first revert on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia (an article I came to to see in what other ways Mindbunny has attempted to belittle discrimination against Womyn). I since restored the source. 4) I am obviously not responsible for the actions of anonymous IPs, and he's claim that I am the same person is laughable (I encourage any admin to investigate). I know I've kind of asked for it by delving into these Wiki pages and commenting myself - but I do find this a bit rich. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny notes above that "Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material". It's interesting that this removal was identical to, and shortly after, an edit by a suspected sockpuppet.[147][148] RolandR (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, one of Nableezy's friends trying to get revenge on me for commenting on his case. As I say, I guess I've brought this on myself for getting involved in all these dramas - but I must say I'm rather surprised by the "wolf-pack" mentality of some on here. Admin: please investigate me, and then kindly punish those who are making the false accusations! :-D OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OpinionsAreLikeAHoles should consider requesting a username change, the current one isn't really acceptable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Who do you really think would find it offensive??? OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:U is pretty clear that you aren't allowed to have usernames with profanity or implied profanity; not that I personally mind it, but our username policy does say as much. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

<-Some further info. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is editing via an Amazon Web Services Account although he claimed not to be aware of that. He seems to make a number of edits while logged out, see IP 175.41.171.29 and the edits by IP's starting 175.41. at Itasca High School (Texas) + their contrib histories for example. I think I'm okay providing the IPs here per the privacy policy because there is concern about abuse of the project and whether this user may be a sockpuppet, possibly of prolific sockmaster User:Ledenierhomme. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly of User:AFolkSingersBeard (which could possibly be itself a sock of Ledenierhomme). RolandR (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes possibly...it's difficult to keep track of all the socks nowadays. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrections. I said the account was created a month ago. It was created two weeks ago--and immediately knew how to edit in sophisticated ways. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has never "restored" the material in question, although the user keeps claiming otherwise. Mindbunny (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. I think Opinions answered NorthernBlades comment about user name on his talk page using the wrong account here...as Vassos55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He quickly realized it and removed the comment with a "Whoops wrong person". I'm requesting checkuser and will notify Vassos55...does anyone else see what I'm seeing?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops..oh dear. And there was I thinking the box of seaweed we bought this evening with the brand name "Big Sheet" was going to be the funniest thing today... Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Possible connection based on CU evidence. They both share the same UA, but IPs and geolocation are all over the place. However, webhosts and other gateways are being used, which may explain that. –MuZemike 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, MuZemike. I believe they are the same based on the sock's flub.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Vassos55's edits at Cyprus internment camps were to reinsert material previously supported by User:Telaviv1. I have no evidence of a connection. Zero^talk 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone's playing games. Got another IP doing the same thing - copying text from another section and inappropriately replacing existing content. [149] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP claims[150] to be Runtshit. The editing pattern does not bear this out; but it is clear that this and many other IPs and SPAs carrying out similar disruptive edits are part of a big sock farm. RolandR (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pages with missing references list

• There is currently a backlog of about 180 pages here at Category:Pages with missing references list.
  
• Secondly, I have just noticed that there are about 49 articles listed that are of the name form ""xxx Province", apparently all about Turkish provinces. It may be that these only need to have a References section added, or even just {{Reflist}} or <references/>.
• It appears possible that these articles have never had a visible set of references because of this error. (I checked Samsun Province back to 23 December 2009, it already had a cite error then! several others I checked had long term Cite Errors). I hope/assume that there are tools or a bot that can fix this? (without resorting to manual editing just to add a Ref section to all 49 pages!) Regards - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesnt seem to be an incident, I dont think this is the right place for it. Perhaps try the help channels either by placing {{helpme}} on your talk page or the IRC channel [151]Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the 'incident' is the back-log, which I have seen others post here about for other areas of Wikipædia. I would rather not have to do it all manually, thus the enquiry about 'tool's or bots. (Or many hands make light work!) Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard would have been the correct venue? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of the backlog was caused by this edit to {{Infobox Province TR}}. All articles using this infobox now need a {{Reflist}}. -- [[User:|John of Reading]] (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, John of Reading. I thought something odd was happening, as I have been fixing articles in this category recently and hadn't seen the 49 'Province' articles in it before. Is the edit you linked to 'vital'? Can it be reverted perhaps? Seem to be fixed now, 49 provinces now gone from category page. :) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This was also something that didn't need administrator action, I'm just saying. -- Atama頭 20:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted! ;P. Nb. We hope (talk · contribs) fixed the problem by adding ref sections to all 49 pages! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Doing.... Shall clear as much of the backlog as I can today. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Current event election

User talk: GaneshBhakt seems to be a new editor. I was away from the page West Bengal state assembly election, 2011 for a few days to return and find a move war going on. Another editor had an issue with him [152] (which is viewable on 1 May). In addition to other reverts this format issue was undone by him, then this ip edit was undone (note the edit summary). Finally he reverts blindly all edits to add uncited content and remove cited content. and he continues to do [153][154][155][156]. He seems to think the onus on copyvio issues is to prove theyre copyvios instead of the other way around to prove theyre okay. which is more serious to wiki[edia.

I warned him on his page that while his initial edits were WP:BOLD, per WP:BRD he needs consensus to get the formatting he proposed on to the page. Something he has not done on the page (which can be viewed from talk), and he continues to call me a vandal.

Furthermore, can someone see his edit contribs [157]: "Deleted baseless allegation, I cannot provide coyright permission if reader is blind. Further, he should see other images I uploaded and then bite me" + he's also made the ludicrous WP:CONSENSUS suggestion that "How could I get a consensus when User:Jayantanth was against one?"Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I add, see the [158] he said me that the next time you re-add a bogus file deletion tag. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas never stopped vandalizing West Bengal state assembly election, 2011. The "dispute" was regarding the name of the article and also a bogus "PUF" allegation by Jayantanth, but for apparently no reason at all, he has been reverting constructive, like the improved info and infobox, the updated phases, grammar, cleanup, copyedit, etc., edits on the page. He is welcome to add verifiable information but not under any circumstance revert the constructive edits made. I see he wanted to add the Gorkhaland section, and he is more than welcome to add it, but he has to stop reverting good faith edits made by fellow Wikipedians. If you reverts the edits again and continues to edit war, he will leave me no choice but to report him here. Thank You. FYI for admins, User:Lihaas and User:Jayantanth are targeting me together. You want proof? Here you go! GaneshBhakt (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the underlying dispute, I suggest you go easy on the vandalization accusation. Content disputes are not the same as vandalization. --rgpk (comment) 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside the stuff i undid which was good i immediatel;y restored [159][160]

And the initiated talk page idiscussion hs not been responded too desptie him coming online since [161] (again not edit summary)Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

improper use of CSD F2

[[::User:Musamies|Musamies]] (talk · contribs) was attacking all the selected pictures on Portal:Bolivia (File:Chacaltaya Ski Resort.jpg, File:Coat of arms of Bolivia.svg, File:Cochabamba1.JPG, File:Cristo de la Concordia 02.jpg, File:Flag of Bolivia (state).svg, File:Lake Titicaca on the Andes from Bolivia.jpg, File:Licancabur Green Lake.jpg, File:Llama en la laguna Colorada Potosí Bolivia.jpg, File:Valle de la Luna - La Paz - Bolivia.jpg) as CSD F2 (Empty or Corrupt file). It does not comply with F2. The editor was here for over 3 years so he/she must know WP:CSD. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Those images do all seem to meet F2 - a description page for an image on commons. Prodego ^talk 19:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily blank, it does have Category:Selected pictures on the Bolivia Portal on them. — Moe ε 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ebe123, I will remind you to talk to the editor first before bringing this to AN/I. I don't know how you think it's possible to build an encyclopedia without communicating with others. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fetchcomms. Those F2 tags were completely valid as description pages on en.wiki for Commons files that should be deleted. Discussion should have taken place on the user's talk page before any accusations at AN/I. This is very inappropriate behavior. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible violation of Shakespeare authorship question NPOV forking

Hello all, I just ran across A new article was created in the last several weeks of questionable notability and NPOV related to the Shakespeare authorship issue: Titus Andronicus (authorship question). I think it is a POV fork, and the author might be involved in the whole series of issues related to the ARBCOM case. I am not a sysop or familiar with the case, so I though I would hand it off to someone that knows something about it, would someone double check my impression and perhaps hand this off to someone who knows more about enforcing the case? Sadads (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I know little or nothing on the topic, but it seems like a notable topic:[162], and especially [163]. The question of authorship appears open. Fences&Windows 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@F&W: you may want to read Shakespeare authorship question.

@Sadads: This is not a POV fork. This appears to be a non-attributed split of Titus Andronicus. It is also most certainly appears to be a POV Fork. NW (Talk) 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop forking, guys. Kids read this stuff... HalfShadow 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that the article needs to be recommended for merge or deletion or something per the decision for the ARBCOM case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question)? I will recommend it for merge, but would like some other opinions from people who are better aware of the case and/or the topic area, Sadads (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about the "Shakespeare authorship question". That is a conspiracy theory that claims Shakespeare was a front for some secret author. This is about Shakespeare's collaborations, a normal part of Shakespeare attribution studies. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Clumpytree

Clumpytree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor as can be seen from their user page has no intent to respect policy, adhering to a NPOV, and is causing disruption going around imposing their view on Wikipedia, that of no mention of any titles for German royals, in spite of English language source practice of attributing titles to them. Check any English source, Google News or some such, for the people Clumpytree is removing titles from, they are not known as Mr Prinz von Hannover. I add the title (how they referred to in English) and a footnote that in Germany titles are abolished and legally part of ones name etc (I think a neutral approach), but they try to censor any mention of a title. I'm not sure what more I can do I tried to discuss it with them. - dwc lr (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The allegation made by dwc lr is wrong. I do not intent to violate Wikipedia policy, the statement on my user page refered to by dwc lr simply expresses my philosophical conviction that for a single person it is not possible to not have a point of view. Through the collaboration of many wikipedia can become a information source as neutral as possible. However, for such cooperation people have to be willing to recognize facts. It is a well known fact that there are no royal titles in Germany. I do not object that dwc lr writes that some people might be called royals, princes, or similar names (whether in the English language community or even in Germany itself). However if he claims that there is such a person as a "Prince of Hanover" in Germany (i.e. someone that is not just called that way, but actually is a prince) that is simply factual wrong. Clumpytree (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Have a POV, but when you totally suppress a widely held different view that is when a problem arises and what you fail to grasp. The fact that titles are not legally recognised in Germany was added. However even in Germany he is often called ‘Prinz Ernst August von Hannover’ and that’s not in the sense that it’s his surname. This is not the German Wikipedia, In English there is someone called ‘Prince Ernst August of Hanover’ not ‘Ernst August Prinz von Hannover’ - dwc lr (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not dispute that some people call him "Prince" or "Prinz". That is not the point. We are not arguing about what he is called. There also is no difference between the German and English wikipedia on whether a statement should be factual correct. Clumpytree (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the German Empire (and all its kingdoms) ceased to exist in 1918. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No one claims otherwise. Is it Wikipedia’s problem that titles are commonly attributed to people? - dwc lr (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We would not have a problem, if you would not claim otherwise... Clumpytree (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor with phone number in username

So there's a pretty new editor (arriving in mid-April) whose username incorporates what appears to be a full (US) telephone number. To complicate the mix, although the phone number would correspond to a US location, the editor works almost exclusively on article relating to Philippine television. Is this an appropriate situation? (I don't want to call attention to the actual username, so I'm not posting it here). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is indeed a real, registered number, then it's probably best to advise the user that this is not really a good idea (due to possible phone spam and such) and they should consider a user name change. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are probably too many unknowns here to give advice that would be correct in all circumstances. For example, how do you know it's a US phone number and not some other 10 digit number? Is the editor actively claiming it's their phone number? Is their editing problematic? Have you talked to them about it? etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard

I have been advised by User:John Vandenberg that, despite his attempts to solve it, that the situation has gotten such where, in order to settle the issues caused, I'll have to post myself, despite having no desire to edit Wikipedia again.

Sven Manguard has used me leaving Wikipedia as a chance to launch vicious attacks at me, to improperly edit my posts to claim wrongdoing, and even violated the confidence a private mediation between the two of us by User:John Vandenberg to attack me, in order to preempt the statement that the mediation had come up with.

Sven was under a mediation agreement (quoted below) which required that:

“

• If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English

Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution.

”

He has not done so. Instead, beginning just after I left Wikipedia, he launched this vicious personal attack. The basic claims are false, as will be seen below.

It is further compounded [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&action=historysubmit&diff=427697644&oldid=427695650]

John, Sven, Tony1, and I were bound by a mediation agreement. Amongst other terms, it required disputes to be settled by dispute resolution. Sven violated this with his backstab. John Vandenberg arranged for a mediation over this; this is the last draft of an agreed statement I have; we had agreed a couple changes, and he was going to run it by Sven before the final comment. I have permission to publish this, and John has confirmed it as his statement. Some awkward phrasing, such as the sentence beginning "It is possible", which gives the opposite impression than the one intended, was going to be smoothed over. This directly and completely contradicts Sven's claims that I have used multiple accounts abusively.

“ I apologise for commenting in a collapsed discussion, however after consulting with Adam since May 6 it is important to give Adam a response to the above. It goes without saying that Adam disputes most of the above from Sven, but he doesnt want to get into a he said/she said. he wants to walk away with only a few aspects corrected. With regards to the multiple accounts, ArbCom was informed of "Shoemaker's Holiday" as early as April 2008, and Adam asked the arbitration committee in February 2009 for the ability to start using a new 'Adam Cuerden' account, for the purposes of uploading PD-1923 media which are not permitted on Commons. When he did not receive a response from ArbCom one way or the other, Adam publicly requested this in May 2009[164], informed the committee of his public request, and it was approved by a 'crat. As far as I know, the only person to claim that Adam C has used multiple accounts abusively is an ArbCom&community banned user. it is possible that there is abuse, as "Shoemaker's Holiday" editing the same topics as the vanished account (most notably the Homopathy topics), however nobody has pointed out any problematic edits that cross these two accounts in a way that violates policy. Also, there is no reason to believe Adam would start using an undisclosed account without informing ArbCom (all evidence is to the contrary), and he assures me that he will not. ”

Sven decided, upon seeing that a statement was going to be posted contradicting his claims, to launch a preemptive second attack. [165], which used the content he knew was going to be in the statement in an attempt to poison the well.

At this point , I was told by John that the mediation to keep the agreement was finished, and that he could do no more. The agreement we were under stated that if the agreement was broken, and negotiation could not solve the issue within 48 hours (I voluntarily gave the attempt more time, as I was told Sven was busy, and did not want to cause disruption for the others), that the terms of the agreement should be published in full.

I did so, here. I ran this past John, and got his approval of it (by e-mail).

Sven, however, wasn't done. Not only did he edit my post to remove the agreement which he had caused to fall apart, and the draft agreement which he had maliciously preempted, but he replaced them with claims of malfeasance on my part, and even managed to get an oversighter to oversight it, which then had to be undone. - my original post being included in the oversight may have been an accident, but, frankly, I don't see how that could have happened without intent on Sven's part.

The oversighter undid Sven's redaction. Sven redacted it again, putting up a new attack against me as justification. ("I re-redacted them. Sure, I'm involved, but Adam was using private communications in an effort to attack me. Considering that Wikipedia looks poorly upon the posting of off-wiki communications in such a manner, and considering that contrary to Adam's posting, the mediation is still in force, these needed to be removed. I also moved the collapse box down.").

John Vandenberg has stated that I had his tacit permission to publish the letter, and that he had told me that he had given up, thus ending the agreement.

If the agreement was broken, and I'll remind people that it required that

“

• If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English

Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution.

”

- per the terms of the agreement, it may be published:

“ This agreement will only be published if a party breaks the agreement. Should any party

believe that another party has broken the agreement, they are to notify all parties privately, and try to resolve the situation. If it can’t be resolved within 48 hours, any party may publish the agreement in full. It may not be published in part.

”

Hence, I was in the right to publish it. Sven's claims were therefore false: He has violated the agreement, and thus ended it.

(Note that, per the last sentence of the previous quote, I am required to publish the entire agreement. I'll do that here.)

Full agreement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Background This incident started when Sven asked John on IRC whether or not Tony's project was still on track or whether it had had failed because John (acting as the president of the Wikipedia Australia chapter) didn't write a letter in time. John explained that the President can’t write letters until the chapter committee has approved them, and that this hadn’t happened. John appreciates that due to the way he responded, it was within reason to conclude that the project had failed. This was not actually the case: the committee hadn’t voted on it yet due to other factors, and even if the committee opposed the proposal, the members can also approve it at a general meeting. Sven indicated that Tony had asked Sven to hold back on his own university partnership plan and wait for Tony's to go through. John told Sven that any good project should go ahead, but that strategy about launching their projects is a matter for the Sven and Tony to work out between themselves. Sven then told John that he was going to go ahead with his project. John notified Tony, and provided him with an extract of the IRC log. Tony brought this incident into the public arena on Sven's talk page, accusing him of theft of intellectual property of the collaboration project and a lack of proper regard for the confidentiality which had been secured by Tony from Sven before he told Sven of the project. In his public comments, Tony did not mention any specifics of the collaboration project, as they were considered private and confidential. This put Sven in a difficult position as he felt he must respond publicly to the accusations that had been made in public. With the matter raised on Wikipedia, Sven proceeded to describe the Wikimedia Australia collaboration project publicly, in broad terms, as a way of establishing that Tony and Sven each had different types of projects in mind. In the process of doing this, Sven indicated he thought the Wikimedia Australia collaboration had probably failed, and was going to go ahead with his own project. He asserted, regarding his releasing of a broad outline of Tony’s proposal, that he believed that at most he agreed not to share details about the proposal as a courtesy, and did not agree to “confidentiality”. Tony does not agree with this assertion. Sven further stated that he only went back on the courtesy because he felt it was the only way he could properly defend himself against the accusation of theft. Sven described his own program as follows: "I want a few musicians I know to be able to access their university's recording studio and sound related resources without jumping through hoops. .. I'm probably going to sweeten the deal for the people that control the sound equipment by listing the university as the recording location in the description page of a few sound files." And stated that he “doesn't intend on 'stealing' [Tony’s] work”. In the discussion on Tony's talk page, both parties made attempts at de-escalating, but at the same time they each occasionally said things that caused each other to assume the other party was threatening to do something inappropriate. At no time did Tony make legal threats. Tony said that, should Sven go ahead with his project, he would inform any participants in Sven’s project that the idea was stolen. Sven took the matter to ANI on the basis that he believed that Tony was threatening him, and that Tony was going to “harass” his friends. Sven did not specifically interpret the threats as “legal threats”, however he did mention that he did not feel comfortable due to Tony's stated intention to contact this partners if Tony felt there was any IP stolen. The notion that the comments were legal threats was added by an observer, and rejected by the admin CBM and neutral observers Nil_Einne and Malleus Fatuorum. Tony also re-iterated that he was not making legal threats, and repeated that he would inform participants in Sven's project if they were participating in a project designed by Tony. As the situation evolved, Adam tried to seek clarification from Tony regarding the nature of his planned partnership, indicating that based on Sven’s description he couldn’t see anything difference between it and prior unsuccessful attempts by Durova at sourcing sound files from universities, and he feared that Tony was attempting to prevent Sven from replicating collaborations that many people had already attempted. Tony did not answer these questions, as he thought these were loaded questions and because he did not want to provide details in public until the project was officially unveiled. Sven’s comments made it clear that he had no intention of using the ideas that Tony had shared with him. Tony continued to use the term “IP”; he does not understand the term IP solely in a legalistic, commercial sense, and did not use it as such during this incident. However, it was not clear to some what he meant by “IP”. John tried to explain that the project was sufficiently advanced that the term "IP" was appropriate, as there were real documents. Admins Resolute, ErrantX and Timotheus_Canens thought that the wanting to protect the “IP” could still be blockable as this was against the spirit of 'no legal threats' and/or Wikipedia. Sven noted that Tony had not given him anything as advanced as a document. Adam presumed his earlier assessment of the confusing situation was correct. Adam asked Tony to voluntarily avoid FSC for a month. When Tony rejected this, Adam requested action, and Elen of the Roads blocked Tony1 on the grounds of legal threats. Tony re-iterated he wasn’t making legal threats, but rather was making it clear that he had been indicating that he would not stand for his concept being stolen, if that is what was happening, since Sven had previously agreed keep it confidential. On his talk page Tony agreed with ErrantX that using the term "IP" had contributed to the confusion. Agreement This agreement is between John Vandenberg, Sven Manguard, Tony1, and Adam Cuerden (the parties). It terminates on April 1, 2012. Sven agrees to not mention, in public or in private, any aspects of the offwiki collaboration project excepting what Tony publicly disclosed. Tony1 acknowledges that the ideas Sven has published are different from his own, do not constitute a theft, and that Sven has said that he is not going to use Tony1’s ideas. Tony1 agrees not to initiate private contact with any participant in Sven’s scheme. Sven and Tony1 agree to not initiate private communication with each other. If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution. The parties agree to not refer publicly to this dispute on WMF projects. If others (not bound by this agreement) bring this incident up before April 1, 2012, it should be removed or ignored by the parties. However, Tony may discuss the block, which he disputes with Elen, but agrees to not mention Sven or Adam, by name or reference. This agreement will only be published if a party breaks the agreement. Should any party believe that another party has broken the agreement, they are to notify all parties privately, and try to resolve the situation. If it can’t be resolved within 48 hours, any party may publish the agreement in full. It may not be published in part.

Sven makes some other claims about me which I haven't dealt with, and will not: Sven and I were close enough friends before this that he knows about some past disputes I had with previous users, and he mentions these to attack me. While I could try and prove I was right in these disputes, publicly doing so would not be fair on the users I was in dispute with. John Vandenberg has seen my evidence regarding those claims as part of the failed negotiations; I suppose you could ask him, but I think he, like everyone else but Sven, just wants all of this to end.

Sven's behaviour has been abominable. He has lied, fantasised,violated confidences, and launched egregious personal attacks. I must ask that he be heavily censured for his behaviour, as, otherwise, he has shown it will continue, when everyone but him simply wants this situation to end.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note I will only post replies to this should I be informed that it is necessary by e-mail. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sven Manguard

• My initial response to this was 'ignore it' but I really can't ignore something that's hit AN/I. Adam's version of this history is heavily warped towards a pro-Adam telling. Were I to present my own version, I have little doubt that it would be very pro-Sven. I will address a few points directly, however.
  • The oversight had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the poster; my IP address rather than my account. I had be editing with another computer earlier in the day, and it did not immediately occur to me that this would log me out of my personal computer. The edits that were oversighted were undone, and I made them again under my logged in account.
  • Adam has, by posting the mediation agreement, posted evidence against himself. His primary method of dealing with problems is to try to chase them away. The mediation mentions that Adam tried to topic ban Tony1 at Featured Sounds. I will state again the the reason Adam and my relationship soured is that Adam tried to convince me to monitor KleinZach in an attempt to get him topic banned from Featured Sounds. He is now trying to chase me off of Wikipedia, and realizing that this won't work, is trying to make me look bad. My handing of this situation was less than ideal, but that does not make Adam correct in his actions or his assessment of my actions.
  • I firmly believe that my assessment of Adam is correct. He has linked to my statements about him, and if anyone wants to read them, they should feel free to do so. Yes, coming from an involved party such statements are not something I'd expect everyone to instantly accept as fact, however, Adam's track record speaks for itself in these regards. That being said...
• I had hoped to move away from this issue, in all its overplayed drama and frivolity, but it seems that is now not a possibility. I therefore have a proposed solution that I think, in the long run, benifits everyone here. I propose that nothing happen. Would I like to see action taken against Adam? Sure. Would he like to see action taken against me? Sure. However at this point it comes down to a he-said-he-said situation between a retired party that wants to distance himself from Wikipedia (Adam) and an editor who would rather move on than keep fighting (Sven). I'm not afraid of the outcome, as much as I am afraid that this would clog up a month and a half of otherwise productive time, and I have no interest in pursuing this further on my end. No one benefits from continuing the drama here, something I should have recognized before I posted my first message. I suggest this whole thing be marked as resolved, stuck in a pretty blue box, archived when its time here is up, and forgotten about.

Sven Manguard Wha? 06:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

I think both of you should stop talking to each other, about each other, and anything else involving each other. Don't comment on each other or start new AN/I threads or VP threads even vaguely referencing each other. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sound advice. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Would appreciate your advice/action/eyes. User:Tbhotch and myself ran into some odd edits; I first noticed a long slew of edits on Ground of Being (Dzogchen) which removed references and stuff. I removed them here. Then Tbhotch reverted another set of edits by that same editor on Dzogchen (unverified commentary, for instance). The editor responded by calling us "clowns" and now by accusing us of vandalism--see this (for which I gave them a "personal attack" warning), this, and this. This has all the hallmarks of something that can easily get out of hand and I'd rather have this nipped in the bud and settled than escalated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Drmies and Tbhotch are definite vandals. They didn't even reference the discussion pages, or notice that I have been the editor of these pages for about one year. There is no unverified commentary. They obviously did not even read it, even now. Why not try reading it? Thigle (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not vandals. I don't see one cite in [166]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there's one cite for that mass of text added. Hardly enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with NeilN) In Ground of Being, this version has 35 references. You first edited it on 11 May 2011, that is, yesterday. When you were done, it had none, and what was a relatively poor article had become something like a personal essay. There is no discussion on the talk page (you're not even on it), and this move was unexplained and had no consensus. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• And in Dzogchen, this edit, adding more than 6,500 characters to the article, has "Yeshe Lama, Jigme Lingpa" as the only reference. What does that even mean? So don't go around calling us vandals, please. Given that you have 324 edits, I will be happy to assume that you never looked at what vandalism means here (see WP:VANDAL), but I hoped that you would have looked at WP:V and WP:CITE. As for the talk page, I see an editor asking you to stop removing sourced text. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Did you look back at the old discussions about B9Hummingbird's articles in the buddhism pages? Wow. This is from about one year ago. I forget where they exactly are now. The general consensus is that they had to be rewritten from scratch because they were so cryptic. Thigle (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Those comments are there. At least two editors disagree with you on individual points. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, because when you are reverting vandalism and disruptive editores you are conscious about old discussions in page you don't even know they exist, and not about [how important [is] to understand three things: the general original basis, the reality of the basis, and how ignorance manifests.] Have I to forget that this edit fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and other polices/guidelines? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know you but when s/he added a {{original research}} tag on the page (I'm not happy, though), in place of adding a simple and single source, s/he broke the 3RR 1, 2, 3; is needed a block? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a report to the 3RRNB before I saw this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny making attacks

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive678 § Mindbunny

I just removed an attack made by Mindbunny...being made just to prove a point. I have a history of not getting along with this editor so I won't editorialize here and would rather defer to simply reporting so that others could let me know if I am in the wrong or Mindbunny is in the wrong. I will notify of this thread. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I was reverted, so the attack is back in place.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Mel Gibson is a jerk. Also, George W. Bush is dumb as a rock. If we are going to block anyone who makes such a comment on a Talk page (on the grounds that it isn't reliably sourced...I mean, huh?), then I'm done here. Block me. Mindbunny (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, do I understand this correctly? An editor said that Mel Gibson is a pompous jerk in a RfC page and this is now an ANI issue? Is there more to this that I'm missing? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, Mel Gibson is totally a jerk. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have commented over at the RfC talkpage something to that effect, and shockingly enough I've called Robert Mugabe a murderous scumbag. Really, don't cry BLP; Mel Gibson made his own reputation, and a flippant comment on Wikipedia isn't going to change that, no matter how self-righteous and important we view ourselves as being. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm still not getting how saying something negative about Mel Gibson on a non-article page is an issue at all, let alone an issue requiring the intervention of an Administrator. Also, Derek Jeter is a terrible defensive shortstop and my wife tells me that while he used to be hot, he's kinda ugly now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Two words for your wife: Joey Votto. --NellieBly (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As much as you may complain about Derek Jeter's defense (I'm a Yankee fan myself), Eduardo Munez is proof that there's something to be said for being able to make the play that comes right to you; that, Jeter still does just fine. I don't think he's that bad; he's not Kaz Matsui or anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny has a great many issues when dealing with current events, the Middle East, and pages about womens' rights. Perhaps a topic ban is in order, as this is not the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time he (under this and his other name) has been warned about his behavior. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 10:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

After brief review, it does seem as though Mindbunny is guilty of POINT here. But frankly, I don't really think the comments highlighted are causing any real harm to WP. This seems like a debate between a WP:BLP purist, and someone who thinks BLP purism is silly. Don't think there's any need to get litigious here. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Could Mindbunny clarify whether he's Noloop (talk · contribs)? An SPI page suggested he was, as does the timing of account creation and the interests, and MB didn't deny it. The issue is that Noloop's behavior was similar, and he edited one of the same articles, so CLEANSTART doesn't apply, and there's an outstanding RfAr. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this as a gratuitous rant on an admin's RFC/U just to make a POINT. I believe that people may have their opinions and I don't know if I would characterize myself as a BLP purist but I do think that this is unacceptable behavior, very unprofessional and unbecoming of what we are trying to be as editors. People are always commenting on the toxic environment on Wikipedia and I think these are the type of actions which contribute to that notion. I think we ought to be raising the bar of acceptable standards.

Let me see if I get this straight. People can vent and call anyone anything they want just as long as they aren't editors on this encyclopedia. If they were editors here, however, the slightest disparagement would be a personal attack? Isn't that a double standard?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

Martin Hosking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Redbubbleroo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Unplge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:HipsterHosking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:CaulfieldSouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article is being attacked by the above newly registered users and, I believe, some IPs. Some understanding of what's going on can be gained at the BLPN discussion here. I'm not sure where to post this issue as it's a combintation of different issues, each one relevant to a different noticeboard, so I thought I'd just put it in one place where an admin can take action to block/protect/whatever. (I think there's a better user template that shows contribs, but I forget what it is.)--Bbb23 (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This also, as noted at BLPN already, had a legal threat posted by an anon ip on the talk page to Martin Hosking. Kevin (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected for now (set as a week). Courcelles 08:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 log entry reason

This account or IP address is currently blocked.

The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

• 23:35, May 9, 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) changed block settings for Sarah777 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (racism, battleground behaviour and total failure to adhere to the most basic principles of editing in a collaborative environment continuing even during a block.)

View full log

To any concerned administrator: I am filing this under "incidents" because it involves the placing of a block and the block reason summary given at that time, making it an "incident". I am extending the request of the user, who refers to the formatting of the specific log warning notice recreated above; I felt it should be presented here faithfully. In a single edit to her talk page early this morning, the user questions how the block affects another editor living with her, and also questions the use of the word "racism" in the block log and its appearance on the top of the page. Thryduulf (talk · contribs) responded to the residential issue, but did not mention Sarah's objection to the use of the word "racism".

After a long period of thought, all day in fact, I had decided to come to this page to protest that exact thing without actually knowing whether it had been changed. I began by typing this post after seeing the notice wording unchanged and have since beginning the post discovered that the user, Sarah, is objecting strongly to the word as well. Similarly, several posters at the entries above this one (if not yet archived) have objected to the irresponsible and casual use of the word racism.

Sarah is not a racist; she objects to the rule of the former British Empire over her country and its legacy. She protests strongly against symbols and arguments from others, conditions which she feels foster continued imposition of the effects of that rule. These are my recollections, you can read in her words her own objection she wrote a few hours ago. It is unacceptable for this notice which defines her personally as practicing "racism" or in other words labels her a "racist" to appear on her talk page edit window and contributions page. Sarah faces an indefinite block, for which she has the offer to argue against in time. She may well do that, however I am calling immediate attention to her objection, a feeling which is shared by several in this community.

There is certainly precedent to "unblock" and then "reblock" to revise a block reason; in her case that very thing was done for an earlier episode, on 21:27, January 25, 2008: "Ioeth (talk | contribs) unblocked Sarah777 (talk | contribs) ‎ (tweaking duration and reason)". Please consider this a formal request to each administrator who reads it: will one of you please revise this block reason, perhaps made in haste, but obviously objectionable and reckless in its application of a very powerful social stigma. I don't want to get into a "legal threats" situation, and this is certainly only a request and not a threat, but in some contexts the current warning might be considered libelous. And then, will each of you also take very seriously the use of words in your summaries going forward to avoid the fecklessness that such block reason summaries as this one give acceptance to. It is not appropriate for any individual with administrative powers in any situation to casually color another with this term in a public posting viewable by potentially millions of people. Please revise the warning and contemplate developing collective wisdom to avoid using such summaries in the future. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) that sounds like a "legal threat" to me; (b) she said that being "British" was "an institution with a history of genocide". Racist sounds about right. DeCausa (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

?????? How on earth? "The British race"? or what is the point here? The Irish are a different race from the British? what are they? Green? Purple? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "British race." pablo 08:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Red herring. In most anti-racist legislation (incitement to racial hatred laws etc - mainly in Europe), no distinction is made between "race" (a word which of course has no universally recognized meaning), ethnicity and national origin. To describe an entire nationality as an "institution" with the genocidal tag is racist. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. That statement is not racist. See Racism. --HighKing (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a red herring, although there was no intention to distract. pablo 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take your pick from the many diffs presented in the threads about her for examples of hate speech. Whether the target of the hate is a "race" or not seems to be splitting hairs unnecessarily. Regarding whether British is a race or not - on many forms where I am asked for my ethnic background the first two options are "White British" and "White Irish". This suggests that at least the British government regard "British" as being a separate ethnicity to "Irish". Were someone to preach violence against people of another ethnicity (I'm not saying Sarah has done this) they would rightly be labelled as a racist; as would those who practised discrimination against the Irish. I do not see justification for rescinding the word "racism" from the block log. Also do note that the phrase you quote about a history of genocide was not the reason for her block (she was already blocked when she made this statement), it is thus irrelevant to determine whether the reason given for the block was correct or not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

bullshit. I suggest then that "Socialist Nazi antichist witch" be added. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf, your response is self-conscious, as was the block summary reason. It works too hard to justify itself. Objections to revising the summary are weak and splitting hairs on a different level. My objection is to the casual application of the term in a highly public way. The word is too powerful and accusatory to use in this way and should be avoided with prejudice in any circumstance, and specifically here it should now be removed in light of the many objections to its use and the use of the term "hate speech" above. Each admin who reads this has a chance to revise the block log summary. As long as it continues to be displayed using the words shown above, the project suffers. You wrote "I'm not saying Sarah has done this" in parentheses, yet won't act to remove something that instantly groups her with advocates of violence and institutional discrimination. If you are "not saying" it, don't. You and other British editors are in effect playing the race card, should you really be doing that given the objections? If you are sincere about disliking racism, protect victims who truly suffer from it and do not play casually with the application of the term. If there is any question about its use, don't use it. See The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Sswonk (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I mulled over reblocking with the word removed, and I may do so. But I do think the word racism was not reckless, but a good faith characterisation of her actions. Firstly because some of the hateful comments used by Sarah do appear to be racist, or at least extremely hateful towards the British. There is no reason to allow such things on this project. Secondly; Sarah is objecting to the characterisation of her words/actions as racist - I'd strongly encourage her a moment of self-reflection on the sorts of things she has said of editors here over the last few days, and consider whether editors subject to her disdain might perhaps have felt the same as she does now... Having read through the entire original AN/I and associated information, Sarah has an extremely hateful attitude towards the British - instead of expressing her very valid point about that flag in an objective and polite way she seems to have used it as a soapbox to heap abuse on our British editors. The argument being made is that "British" is not a race; fair enough, but largely irrelevant and akin to Wiki-Lawering. However, in the interests of de-escalating I am willing to re-block, removing the word "racism" and replacing it with "hate speech". That is a more PC description of the reason for her block --Errant ^(chat!) 10:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just remove it. Whatever you change it to will be unacceptable to Sswonk for whatever reason, and will just invite more grandstanding. Sarah can have a full and unconditional apology for this 'racist' slur for all I care (you never know, it may spur all the people not-so-subtly suggesting HJMitchell is a member of the EDL/BNP to do likewise). Anything to bring the focus of the community back onto the fact she's not said a single thing on the other 23 words in the block rationale, and continues to use her talk page to air her general political grievances and grief other editors, rather than show she Gets It. MickMacNee (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Good man Mick! Keep the pressure on on Sarah to grovel and apologize! Nice one. While giving a back-handed reason to correct a thoroughly wrong block reason. I know you're a stickler for correct procedures and definitions as evidenced by your verbosity gracing these pages on so many occasions, so I'm surprised you've not spotted the *error* and stuck to your principals. So much better to get the digs in, eh? Shame. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with her feeling pressurised to acknowledge and apologise for her wrong doings, as outlined in the 23 other words of her block reason, and our procedures and principles. Whether the other word is strictly correct or justified, well, shock horror, it's hard to have real sympathy after all these years when she's hardly let accuracy or truth get in her way before. So she's not a racist. Fine. Remove it. I honestly don't care, because it's a side show. And the "grovel" stuff - that's all your spin tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP has become a political institution to satart legislating now?Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Racism#Legal, racial discrimination can apply to nationality as well as ethnic origin. —BETTIA— ^talk 13:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain is an Island, composed of the countries Wales, england and Scotland. United Kingdom is a union of these countries and Northern Ireland. "British" does not actually refer to nationality or ethnicity or race. But in any case she was clearly not talking about people from the Island of Great Britain (she talked about an institution) and hence it is no more racist than saying the the US government sucks. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent summary. For those that need examples: the definition of racism is to imply a certain set of traits or capacities *due* or as a result of their race/ethnicity/etc. For example, saying that Irish people are drunkards or alcoholics. That's racist. Saying Americans are dumb. That's racist. Calling French people surrender monkeys. That's racist. But what Sarah said is not racist. --HighKing (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that calling Sarah777 racist from the statement about Britain is incorrect. That is not a racist statement in any way shape or form. And I have a very wide and inclusionist definition of racist. She is clearly referring to Britain, the government/institution, and it's history of oppressing ethnicities. This is a correct statement, and does not refer to people in any way. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC

That is exactly where you are wrong. Firstly, a citizen of the United Kingdom is termed "British". It's the official legal nationality and it's on the passport. Have a look at British nationality law. Secondly, she was clearly not talking about the government. She said that being "British" was a genocidal institution. She was clearly talking about the British people, which means, just to repeat, 60million citizens of the UK. That is a racist slur.DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved: [167]. --Jayron32 13:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a bit of a mess out of this, as I didn't get an edit conflict when I revised the wording myself 2 minutes after Jayron. It might look like I'm saying the language of Jayron's rationale was inaccurate, but that isn't the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 ain't a racist, she's anglophobic. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD topic ban of MoonLichen

MoonLichen (talk · contribs) This user has some odd activity at AFD, basically adding nonsense or "joke" !votes to AFD's. Examples:

• "If Sunday brunch is gay, I don't want to be straight" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Sunday Brunch
• "I've seen C-beams glitter in the dark near there" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Haur (2nd nomination)
• "To honor the Republic of Macedonia" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boosterthon Fun Run

This is all very odd. User has been asked a couple of times to use better rationales. I left them a note last night, but they carried on (this morning with the Macedonia summary) without responding at all. In fact they don't seem to have responded to concerns at all.

Propose a topic ban to read:

• MoonLichen is topic banned indefinitely from all deletion related pages until such a time as they can adequately demonstrate understanding of the deletion process and guidelines.

Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 08:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Moonlichen is some kind of troll account for the most part, i noted it when first created.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A review of their contributions indicate a) a familiarity with high-level WP policy b) that this is probably not their first account. This is not an editor who does not know what they are doing. The AfD carry-on is not terribly disruptive, but it is of no value to the process and adds only noise; if they keep it up, issue a block warning and take it from there. Topic-banning is a little heavy-handed at this point I think. Skomorokh 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• A single-line comment that disagrees with your sensibilities does not make someone a troll. There are far more policies against being a mean to other editors than against being a little goofy now and then. Lighten up. --MoonLichen (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You've done this multiple times and it has proven disruptive to others with no benefit to the project. If you want to keep playing silly buggers, go ahead, but don't complain you weren't warned if you end up blocked. Skomorokh 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think the topic ban is in order. A quick run through their history show no useful contribution to that process, and a lot of mild disruption by annoying everyone else without being responsive to concerns. — Coren ^(talk) 14:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhat on the fence. Some mild goofiness is fine, and the user has made some useful copy edits, for instance. A series of edits a few months ago made me think that this was a vandalism-only account, but it's not. On the other hand, I am an elephant and have not forgotten this edit and the associated mess, where the user had to be admonished by an administrator to a. keep their goofiness within bounds of our policies and b. to at least try and act like an adult. That rudeness is a hallmark of trolling as well and does not indicate a desire for cooperative editing. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions. We're not topic banning humor accounts from AfD are we [168]? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's not really occasional humour though - but persistent and slightly annoying "keep" comments which are not useful. Topic Ban was intended as a lightweight way of pointing out that the joke is wearing thin :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  You realize, of course, that the AfD to which you link is an April Fool's, right? — Coren ^(talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Except that it's not and I'm confusing it with someone else. It was ridiculous, but not for that reason. — Coren ^(talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Twofold indef-blocked and community-banned user requesting checkusers, needs a Ip range block on 79.117.160.0/20

I would like to notify the administrators that User:Iaaasi, who is a twofold indef-blocked and community-banned user, often returns to Wikipedia to request checkusers as a sepctre. It is true that the user against whom the checkusres are requested, may have some sockpuppets on Wikipedia, but Iaaasi is still a banned user and as such he has no right to edit the English Wikipedia. Yesterday, appeared as User:MateaKis that account was blocked and so does as an Ip editor today:[169].--Nmate (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And now there is one another "new user" to continue this:[170] and in the past, it gave some alleviation to the problem when a Ip range block was inflicted on 79.117.160.0/20 [171] [172]--Nmate (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And the checkuser request of the sock of Iaaasi suceeded ,again, even though I made about 40 reverts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 to try to hinder it. And as for,"I know that I am a blocked user, but this is not about editing on my behalf, but about treating the blocked users (me and Stubes99) in the same manner. Neither of us has the right to edit WP and we must benefit of the same treatment. In the name of justice, I respectfully ask you to block those accounts" [173]

Shortly after, Iaaasi again continued to edit Wikipedia via IP as well. [174] --Nmate (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The current range is somewhere within 79.117.192.0/19 instead. 79.117.160.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log) is currently checkuserblocked. I haven't looked too closely, but you'd probably want a checkuser to make that block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock applied; let's see if sufficient. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

user in some sort of distress?

Don't know what's going on, but since Bakharev is away, this message apparently referring to whatever is going on at User talk:Bm gub2 might otherwise disappear into the ether. Whether anything needs doing I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks like the IP may be acting on behalf of this editor whom they feel has been slandered on User talk:Bm gub2 with accusations of inappropriate promotional editing. Legal proceedings have been hinted at. There may be a case for removing the borderline-outing material on that user talkpage and/or renaming the accused account so as not to show up in Google searches. Skomorokh 14:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematic Move Proposal discussion at Talk:Corvette

Please take a look at the current move discussion at Talk:Corvette. It has just been relisted for the second time (so it's now into the third week). There is a clear majority opposed to the move but the discussion gets dragged on and on and on by supporters of the proposal in what appears to be an attempt to simply wear down the the naysayers into "surrendering". I am having great difficulty with AGF in this circumstance. I believe the discussion should be shut down as no consensus. Please help! Roger (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent removal of talk page comments at Talk:Bavarian B VI

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report it, but an unregistered editor has removed sections on the talk page 3 times despite my note on his talk page that this is not normal Wikipedia practice, except for archiving. I have no intention of edit-warring over a relatively minor issue and if I'm wrong so be it, but it needs clearing up one way or t'other or he may continue both here and elsewhere. Can someone help? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As I recall the policy, refactoring others' Talk page comments is considered vandalism, so you can revert such refactoring without running afoul of WP:3RR. In the interest of full disclosure, I have just warned the IP regarding that refactoring. I have also taken the liberty of posting the required WP:ANI notice on their Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User Geo Swan continues violation of BLP

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 14:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

After his recent RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan he still violates BLP and bases articles on primary sources against community consensus and BLP.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports And he keeps reverting one edit another one with a false explanation that he want to discuss the copyright status of the image while reverting a bunch of other edits including some that violate BLP. Please help. IQinn (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, the image dispute is just a small part of Geo's obsession with cataloging and wikifying every Guantanamo detainee. It was bad enough when MfD had to scour his userspace for this languishing junk, but now IMO Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp needs a thorough review. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest Iqinn has slipped into forum shopping here. I already initiated a discussion over the use of this image, at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 11#File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png. So, my edit was not an attempt to avoid scrutiny, as Iqinn implies. I already know Iqinn objects to the use of the image in question. I'd like the opinion of uninvolved third parties. And, if I am not mistaken, the {{puf}} is an appropriate forum for that. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As said that here is not about the image and the whole thing was never about the copyright status of the image it was about the value of the image for the article and about Geo Swan secretly reverting other changes that violate BLP in the same edit. There was a discussion on the talk page about the value of the image where he fails to provide compelling arguments or sources for inclusion. He does not need to revert the image 3 times into the article to get another opinion on copyright was not in question and if he would like to discuss the copyright status than anyway keep the image of the article until that has been discussed not edit war the image into the article. But that is and was never the topic here - edit warring, BLP and continues disruptive editing is.

He did not only re-add the image 3 times while a discussion was ongoing on the talk page what would be bad enough. He reverted several other edits under the cover of this. E.G. re-adding these primary sources two times one two. against community consensus and RFC/U and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports

@Tarc - how can this section ever been cleaned up when Geo Swan keeps aggressively reverting any attempt to clean it up under false explanations and he disagrees to be mentored? I am here so administrator stop him edit warring and stop him repeatedly reverting all changes of the article including some that violate BLP. I also want him to agree to be mentored as the RFC/U Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan suggested. At least he need to be mentored in BLP articles where he once again violated BLP. Enforcement is needed. IQinn (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, just noting that this image brouhaha is the proverbial tip of a very large iceberg. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:93.97.194.200

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please review the talk page of this editor who refuses to sign talk-page comments and will not communicate about his or her behavior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I see the only real issue relating to this editor is their disdain for signing their talkpage posts, their comments and other edits being otherwise apparently aimed at improving the project. If their intent were not so in keeping with the aims of the encyclopedia I would have placed an indefinite block - to be lifted upon their undertaking to sign their comments (and address any other issues) - on the account. In this instance I think it would be best to warn them that such "impoliteness" will no longer be tolerated and that they will start receiving increasing but short term blocks if they do not change their habit. I would also give them notice that they can set their preferences to remind them to sign talk page edits. How do others see this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore - if their only problem is not signing posts, then leave them alone. So far as I know, failure to sign doesn't break a rule, and if we were all that keen on mandating it, then we'd just force the software to do it for us (as in some other wikis). In fact, we should probably apologize for pestering them in the first place. Rklawton (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Right, I'm taking the user talk page off my watch list, then. I certainly hope that their unwillingness to fulfill a small courtesy like signing one's posts and the refusal to discuss it when brought to their attention doesn't indicate a generally uncollegial and uncollaborative attitude. Guess we'll find out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, sometimes that's all one can do, BMK. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu comes to mind. If an editor persists in ignoring community norms, refusing to adhere to a widely-expected mode/form of communication, then sanctions are not outside the realm of possibility. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)