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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

USS Liberty Incident

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda or anti-semitic motives. Lately there has been a campaign by a number of editors to insert fringe theories using the Moorer report as the sole source. Edits rely on synthesising an edit from the original source, online copy of the Moorer report, thus failing WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided, instead those editors have resorted to overly emotional diatribes about Israel murdering American sailors and accusing other editors alternately of suppressing the truth and censorship. In addition, the editors have attempted to use RFC in an intimidatory manner and discussion on the talk page is now getting decidedly fractious. I'm thinking the time has come for admin intervention to cool things off. Justin talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The very last entry I made which you deleted concerning the Moorer Report was this one:

===Independent American Investigations===

Findings of the Moorer Commission of 2003

The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted an investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Marine General Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia). Among the findings of the commission was that " there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.) and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.)...". The Moorer Report continues: "in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States".

1. There are descriptions and titles supplied of the primary authors. It is difficult to imagine how any real American Citizen loyal to the Unites States could consider an Ambassador, a Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Marine General, and a Rear Admiral are behind a Fringe Theory.
2. The Entry contains the quote "there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from...". This quote is lifted directly from the report. What follows, are the names of presumably reputable persons who are in agreement with that statement.
3. Each of these persons are identified, and each of thier statements have the stated third party reference as part of the entry. The assertion that "Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided" is 100% incorrect. Each of the 5 persons listed has a secondary source identifying that each of these five have said what is implied in the quoted Sentence.
4. Since statements by each of the 5 above are reproduced in the articles listed, there is no violation of WP:OR. There is no original research involved. The articles are published, and readily available, via link, directly from the entry.
5. WP:SYN is also not violated here. Each of the sources speaks of ONLY that person speaking - effectively making the point that is stated in the Moorer Report quote which I reproduced.

It is interesting that you played the 'anti-semitic' card. I suppose I am supposed to cringe at this thought and somehow defend my actions. I think not. I am merely trying to get portions of an Independent Report from the 4 reputable persons listed on the USS Liberty incident Page. There is nothing anti-semitic about the truth.

The comment you made when you last removed the entry above is: 20:50, 14 November 2008 Justin A Kuntz (Talk | contribs) (76,838 bytes) (rv no talk page consensus for this edit. Relevant policies WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit) (undo)

I would now like to address each of these objections, and others which have been voiced, individually:

"Editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit". As I have already explained, I provided 5 secondary sources. You merely chose to ignore all of them and write your comment. In fact, not only did you ignore the sources, you incorrectly applied WP:SYN to the sources. They are confirming that the sources actually have said what the Moorer Reports describes them as saying. I 'synthesized' nothing. They spoke - on record - and I reproduced sources confirming that they did indeed say what the Moorer Report claims they said. I can not imagine how this can violate any Wikipedia policy whatsoever.

An attempt at WP:CONSENSUS is impossible with your methods, primarily since you violate the tenets of WP:CONSENSUS yourself. Specifically, the policy calls for changes to entries if one feels that entries are incorrect. You have chosen to delete the entry every single time you see it. There is simply no way to reach consensus if you delete the entry, and every other variation of the entry you see. WP:CONSENSUS is impossible to reach if the only act you perform is to delete the entry. You have never even attempted to edit the entry to rid it of your objections. That is both a violation of WP:CONSENSUS and the first reason for why I make the charge that you are trying to censor any mention of the report on the USS Liberty incident page.

WP:UNDUE claims: WP:UNDUE says, in part: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". There is little mention of the Moorer Report on the USS Liberty incident page. Without it, WP:UNDUE is valid for the list of reports, since it gives undue weight to those reports mentioned, and none to the Moorer Report, entries to which you invariably delete. Amazingly enough, the only report which is not quoted explicitly in the USS Liberty incident page is the Moorer Report. Since it is niether an American nor Israeli government report, it was explicitly listed as an Independent American Investigation. It is you who are in violation of WP:UNDUE, buy allowing mention and quotes of the other reports, but consistently deleting any contents mentioned from the Moorer Report.

WP:NPOV claims: Another interesting one. The Moorer report makes several numbered statements, the collection of which is it's conclusion available here. That is it's purpose. To have investigated the USS Liberty incident and come to a conclusion. That you do not like the conclusion of the report is not my problem. One of the numbered conclusions of the report is that "there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew". This point is not made anywhere on the USS Liberty incident but is available in the Moorer Report. Inclusion of the Moorer Report actually completes the NPOV of the USS Liberty Page. After all, there can be no way that the USS Liberty incident can be considered Neutral if it explicitly does NOT provide at least some conclusion of the Moorer Report. So we have again you making an accusation, when it is in fact you who are guilty of the accusation.

There is a link to the Findings of the Moorer Report at the bottom of the USS Liberty incident page. Your charges of WP:FRINGE on the entry I made has never actually caused you to remove the link at the bottom of the page to the Moorer report. Are we to understand that the Moorer Report is an acceptable link when a link to it in "Sources claiming attack was deliberate -> Other Sources" is available, but is a Fringe Theory if any mention is made on the USS Liberty incident of the contents of the report? Your inconsistent treatment of this entry speaks volumes about your intentions. You only delete any quotes or entries made on the Moorer Report, but you do not appear to object to a link to the report. Is my belief that you are trying to censor the report really that far fetched, in this respect?

You have argued that there is no secondary sources for the Moorer Report Findings for some time. I am astounded that the following reports, also listed on the "USS Liberty incident" page do not have a single secondary reference listed. The reports listed which do not have a secondary source are:

1. U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry
2. Joint Chief of Staff's Report
3. CIA Intelligence Memorandums
4. Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee Investigation
5. House Armed Services Committee Investigation
6. The NSA History Report

Why does the Moorer Report require a secondary source, when not a single one of the other reports listed have a reference?

Lastly, a checkuser (whatever that is) is welcome, as would be any other WP investigation you choose. I do not worry about my actions.WorldFacts (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic? Showing Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and lied about it is Anti-semetic ? I don't like Gefilte fish - does that make me an anti-semite? Give me a break. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking of people the article has attracted in the long term. Stop with the persecution complex already. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Gee Narson if I somehow took his comments out of context then I do sincerely apologize however it is far from obvious who he was referring to. Loosely, freely and carelessly throwing the words "anti-semetic" around any conversation, especially into a serious conversation that undeniably shows the actions of the Israeli military and government, and the actions of the American government, in a less than reputable and upright station, is a far too common and ordinary tactic. Just say it or someone's "anti-Semetic" and hope they'll run away. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute how 'serious' a conversation is when one side screams 'CENSORSHIP' and 'Look at our dead Americans!' followed by more 'CENSORSHIP!' and then legal threats. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh gee Narson maybe you should *Stop with the persecution complex already*, The truth hurts doesn't it ?--Henrywinklestein (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nice come back. Really. Tell you what, go away, think real hard, then try and come up with a comment about the content. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There you go again pal ... a couple of days ago I apologize for perhaps taking something out of context (and its still not obvious but maybe ... just maybe ... I'll try to give him the benefit of a doubt) and you've got to drag us all back into the mud. Don't for one minute tell me there isn't an overriding bias on the parts of many of the editors involved here - and that some of their interests - including yours - are completely self-serving. Plain and simple - censorship - maybe on "technicalities" but censorship nonetheless ... these actions are deplorable and do a severe injustice to the American sailors and marines who were murdered in cold blood by the Israeli's on June 8, 1967. Go ahead and hide behind your veil of "content" but the truth is out there - and everyone knows what it is.

So now you want a comment on content --- WORLDFACTS said it best : "Editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit". As I have already explained, I provided 5 secondary sources. You merely chose to ignore all of them and write your comment. In fact, not only did you ignore the sources, you incorrectly applied WP:SYN to the sources. They are confirming that the sources actually have said what the Moorer Reports describes them as saying. I 'synthesized' nothing. They spoke - on record - and I reproduced sources confirming that they did indeed say what the Moorer Report claims they said. I can not imagine how this can violate any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. ""

--Henrywinklestein (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume that is when WORLDFACTS is talking about his edit where he uses source from 1990 for a report from 2003? I do see that we are onto the silly hyperbole about self serving, censorship and 'Oh noes the dead people!' again....along with a bit of 'The Truth (tm)'. Someone should make SPA rants into a drinking game. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

@Henrywinklestein - if you place a dot in your "UserPage", then your name will no longer show up in red on pages such as this one. Thankyou for the Barnstar, I deeply regret that it was considered a good excuse to jeer at both of us. The idea of WP is to be collegiate - it's disturbing there are still admins around who feel no need to uphold some of the most fundamental principles (not to say policy) of the project. It damages the workings of the whole project, and may explain why I was shortly snippy with another un-named admin as you can see below. PR^talk 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You don't find it dilutes the already watered down notion of 'barnstars' when SPA are awarded barnstars for their work in 'various topics' by other SPA? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called cruft, and it's harmless. PR^talk 08:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and I would not touch this one if I were <g>. In my experience, dealing with people who have the time to make hundred line posts is an exercise in futility. I'd cut the whole article down to bare bones at this point. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is in an utterly crap state but what do you expect with SPA shoe horning in pet theories at every opportunity. It desperately needs some quality editing but they're put off by the nonsense it attracts. Justin talk 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out, they did offer a 'secondary source'...which was an editorial by the reports author. I don't necessarily agree with Justin on some issues(specifically I remain unconvinced that this is, necessarily, a fringe theory or report), but certainly it is a conspiracy theory and must be treated with care, to the point where we must be using third party commentary. The article is in need of serious pruning and restructuring at this point, regardless, and there is a seperate move by PalestineRemembered to get citations in I believe. The latest attempt at the edit that has been warred over does encourage synthesis (It uses a primary source of poor visual quality and certainly a lack of clarity in its content and draws definitive conclusions from that) and also uses sources for the report predating the report by 13 years (It lists the view points of the creators of the report, sources them, then passes this off as the conclusion of the report. Synthesis again). Finding information on the report has not proved easy and even those wanting the edit in disagree over what it says. I do think there is a place for the report, I do not think the tactics being used to get it in are in anyway compliant with policy or conducive to the good of wikipedia. I also take particular umbridge at the accusations of 'censorship' and the accusation that I have ome 'Personal stake in this'. As far as I am aware, I wasn't even born at the time, so was certainly not piloting an Israeli Mirage jet. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't look right about some of these SPAs: [[::User:Henrywinklestein|Henrywinklestein]] ([[::User talk:Henrywinklestein|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Henrywinklestein|contribs]]), [[::User:15thSt|15thSt]] ([[::User talk:15thSt|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/15thSt|contribs]]) and [[::User:Yellabina|Yellabina]] ([[::User talk:Yellabina|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Yellabina|contribs]]) have all been registered in the past few days, and have all made edits exclusively about the USS Liberty. wp:Checkuser time perhaps? Rami R 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions but not sure there is enough evidence to support a Check User. I've done sock puppet reports before but only where it was very obvious as the sock puppet master was none too subtle. If there enough evidence there? Justin talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yellabina. I believe this is enough evidence of abuse to justify a checkuser. I've notified all four editors that they are being discussed at ANI. Their sudden appearance, the narrowness of their interests, and their sophistication in Wikipedia policy matters cry out for any explanation other than socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse has confirmed they are unrelated (Though with a comment that Meatpuppetting and SPA violations should be looked at). --Narson ~ Talk • 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look at this the talk page is littered with yet another extensive diatribe, that editors are suppressing the truth. I'm just about done with reasonably explaining that synthesising an argument from original material and promoting pet fringe theories just isn't on. My patience and WP:AGF is just about exhausted. Justin talk 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I know some of the history of the USS Liberty. I have not seen the article. I am a reasonable person. I am willing to review it and improve it if an administrator asks me to. Otherwise, I will mind my own business. I am an editor with over a year's experience. Chergles (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson --- having you even remotely involved in this editors discussion is like having the fox to watch the henhouse. Will you simply delete this as "mindless chatter" - disagreement with you or a show of support for another editor is "mindless"? --Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to my removal of your comments on my talk page? If you want to show support for an editor, do it at their page. I don't desire the spam. The first part of your comment is strange, as far as I am aware, I've merely commented on an ANI thread in which I am involved. Just as you have. I don't propose, not would I want, to watch you, as you put it. I wasn't aware you were such a threat to wikipedia that you needed watching. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As an aside, both Narson and I have made extensive searches to find secondary sources that deal with this material. We can find absolutely none. Justin talk 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I've remained uninvolved, I did find a few: here and here. Obviously, some of those sources are more reliable than others and in the google news search, some are false positives. I do not know the degree to which they may or may not address weight concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MRG. Not sure about the sources, but I'm going through, I think we should be able to source there was a report, but it never seems to explicitly state the conclusion. Though I'll keep looking through. My search through academic sites has netted me bupkiss. Edited to add: The book hit is certainly the most likely source. Though it does admit to taking a selective quote of the report. Certainly from that I think an edit could start to be constructed that said Moorer held an independent investigation, which he reported as having found Israel culpable for the attack. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for two weeks due to problems with the meatpuppets and SPAs. Request other uninvolved admins handle what to do with the accounts in the RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're now awarding each other barnstars. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Jayjg, the award is fairly comical. 'Various topic areas' being just one and of course I think more people should be honoured for 'boundrylessness'. It is practically Colbert-like. Not sure anyone is going to take it seriously. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people there's nothing wrong with being an SPA? An attempt to force me to change my name was defeated 12-1. Policy specifically defends what I'm doing.

What causes problems is other editors who are doing it but don't advise others of what they're up to - the I-P conflict topic would be hugely improved if all of them were blocked.

There is a much smaller problem if newly arrived editors appear initially to act as SPAs - but we have the example of Muhammed al-Durrah where two such SPAs arrived and were given near carte-blanche. My only regret in this case is that one of the new editors at USS Liberty was apparently given the brush-off by an admin when enquiring about policy. PR apologises - although he felt this way on seeing it, there was no indication or real reason to believe it was intentional PR^talk 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the "brush off" reference is in respect to this, a follow-up to my personal note to the user here. (My pointing him to WP:DR, WP:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit war and noting by reference Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard was evidently insufficient in PR's eyes.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, if you are talking about that, I see MRG's response as perfectly justified. All of us should know that there is no way we can "assure" that a particular set of facts is in an article, no matter how obviously relevant they may seem to us. Telling a new editor that seems really, really helpful. MRG: the g-news links are mostly to sources that would be considered biased -- Electronic intifada, for example -- except for the couple of obits from wire services. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which seems to suggest that the commission existed but the report wasn't publicised. Whatever's in the Fox article seems mainstream enough for a few lines in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the source I was planning on using :) I have proposed a short edit on the talk page concerning the report, along the lines of the suggested edit above. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we avoid legalistic terms like libelous, hrm? I am all infavour of avoiding personal attacks, though I note that WorldFacts has yet to remove his and even seems to view personal attacks as a valid fall back to be resorted to. As for nothing necessarily wrong in being a SPA, no, but there is plenty wrong in being a meatpuppet, and it was uninvolved admin who have raised those concerns, as it was an uninvolved admin who initiated the Check User. There was no 'brush off'. Policies were clearly mentioned to them, over and over again, with the main problem being that the SPAs appear to have made the common mistake of Truth' over Verifiability'. (edit conflict....damn you MRG! ^.^ ) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone having been found to meat-puppet. PR^talk 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Justin was referring to the past editors of the page not necessarily current editors of the page. There have been problems in the past with people with extreme views either way. The second half of that seems like a pretty poorly veiled legal threat, PR, though I will assume you genuinely thought we would be amused by it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to past editors of the page, its quite plain I was not excusing anyone of antisemitism. I'm deeply unimpressed with the threat of a libel case. Justin talk 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, as I expected. I do hope someone talks to PR and explains how inappropiate such silliness is. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anybody with anything. PR^talk 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The age old 'I'm not going to beat you up but you might have an accident' routine, PR? Please, pull the other, it has bells on. Can an admin deal with this as they deem appropiate? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not threatening...But" Please pull the other one, legal threats are out of order. Justin talk 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As someone has pointed out on my Talk Page, there is an implicit legal threat above against me. I would be grateful for an admin to comment please. Justin talk 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked that account, as it's a NLT violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A good block OrangeMike, but just BTW, you wrote "infinite" on the block log. I wouldn't disagree with that, given how very long that log is, but did you mean do that? IronDuke 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the software for the blocking mechanism which says "infinite" instead of "indefinite"! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the legal threats have been deleted, surely policy indicates using strikethrough as now the narrative is destroyed. 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Meat Puppets

Rlevse mentioned meat puppets on the check user and several other editors have uttered similar suspicions. How do you go about checking for that? Justin talk 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppets arn't something one can check for. They are merely SPA whose only purpose is to espouse the view of annother (Hence they are like a sock puppet in their actions but acctually are filled by something, annother editor [meat]). Meatpuppets are usually far more difficult as I imagine each admin will have a different intepretation. Certainly at least one of those who was suspected of puppetry of some kind has proven himself as his own person (Yellabina). It requires an admin to examine the page, examine cotribution histories and decide what, if any, sanctions are required. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there an admin prepared to do that? Justin talk 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the two of you can write a book on "conspiracy theories". --Henrywinklestein (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne

Resolved

 – banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets make this official. It is clear that this unnamed person, who has no specific account to apply a ban to (nice application of WP:GAME if you ask me!), has clearly worn out the community patience. The most recent dicussions of his behavior are here on ANI and here at RFCU. While we have no single identifier for this person, it is clearly one person with a single-minded goal of harassing Arcayne. He always tries to turn it around by claiming that Arcayne harasses HIM by calling him on it. After spending the better part of the past hour reviewing the case, I am proposing two bans on this user:

• Proposal 1: A total site ban on this user, all IPs which pass the WP:DUCK test as clearly coming from this user are blocked on sight.
• Proposal 2: A ban on contacting or discussing Arcayne in any way, broadly construed. The user is allowed to edit wikipedia content and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, but if any IP address he/she uses comments on, asks a question about, makes contact with, or in any way references Arcayne or his credentials is blocked on sight.

What do you all think? I am personally supporting Proposal 2, and we could consider all supports of proposal 1 as implicitly also supporting proposal 2.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some background for anyone unfamiliar with this case: It goes back many months. Apparently, a long time ago, Arcayne made a note of some credentials he may or may not have had. The issue over whether or not Arcayne has these credentials is not what this discussion is really about. This person has spent months hounding Arcayne by continuosly bringing up this minor fact over and over and over again.

• See these contribs lists: [1] and [2] and [3] and
• See these diffs: [4] and this edit summary and [5]

This lists above are BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE, but a sampling to give both the nature of this harassment, and to the long-period of it. This RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52 shows a list of IPs, some of which can be shown to doing this behavior back as early as April, 2008. This has to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this initiative of making it official. This was more or less what I had in mind. I'd go for Proposal 1, being aware of course that in practice there won't be much of a difference, because the duck test is going to be just that hounding of Arcayne anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  You didn't feel the need to disclose that you blocked the anon for 48 hours at the beginning of this discussion?[6] I finally got curious as to why the anon wasn't defending himself and went and checked the talk page to find out what was going on.--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd go for P1, as per FPaS. If this individual has anything useful to contribute, then they will be able to do so easily by getting an account; if they insist on continuing harassment as 75.X they should be blocked. Note/disclaimer: I blocked 75.X for I think 12h a little while back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The user in question has posted some questions on an IP talk page. See: User talk:75.49.223.52. I am not going to answer these questions directly myself, but anyone is free to answer them as they see fit, either here or on that talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 2. If harassing Arcayne is their only purpose then it becomes P1 by default, but it gives WP the AGF defence that good edits from that range are encouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 1. If this user had any intention of actually working on the encyclopedia, s/he'd have gotten an account. I'd have supported Proposal 2, but this has been going on since January. This needs to end, and end now. Blueboy96 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Per technical concerns expressed by Black Kite, I endorse Proposal 2. Granted, this user would have gotten an account if s/he'd ever intended to edit constructively after this long--but given the circumstances, Proposal 2 will likely have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with LessHeard vanU. But I am assuming this is a dynamic IP? Is the range too broad for a range block? JodyB _talk 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I imagine that a range block (yes, it would appear to be a dynamic range) would keep out those users who haven't done anything wrong, and that's the reason why it was avoided previously. The tech is a little beyond me, frankly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it's too wide a range - being effectively AT&T dynamic access for the whole of the East Coast of the USA. Black Kite 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 - As the target of this user (and I admit that pride of my educational background kinda caused a bit of the initial issue), this has gone on too long. There are users with whom I have disagreed with, but they are all active in actually expanding the project. This user isn't, and most of the IP accounts (s)he's created were single-purpose, attack accounts. This is beyond basic pest-control; we need to tent the 75. house and gas the thing. But then, I am biased on this issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I know probably absolutely nothing or range blocks, but as far as I'v seen, whenever one puts and X or a * in place of a number, it is used to denote that that range should be blocked.

To the point, I'm afraid I would be blocked by what I assume is a range block that you are talking about, as my IP is in the range of 75. So um... there's my concern.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about blocking all of 75.X.X.X. That would be 1/256 of all IP space. looie496 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going through the provided diffs again, and some of these don't look like a problem at all. For example [7] What exactly is the problem with the edit summary here? What he stated was factually correct, and Arcayne's previous edit summary of "sp error" was in fact a misleading edit summary. This [8] is a table header in which many users are listed (and frankly given the contents of that column a little disclaimer isn't out of place). This particular edit could be seen as bad, but then I'd like the anon to provide diffs to support his assertions there [9] if the diffs can't or won't be provided then it is an attack. So 2 out of the 3 linked diffs don't really seem like a problem at all. However I do take issue with Arcayne's behaviour on the talk around this diff, [10]. He claims that this person is a proven IP troll, yet I'm still having a difficult time seeing it. Not only that he's purposely poking the IP by calling him a troll and fighting over where to place his comment when the IP had placed it first. We still seem to be missing the beginning of this dispute, and frankly I'm not comfortable with recommending anyone be banned from anything until we get some full disclosure here. Which for the umpteenth time its been asked, people seem to be going out of their way not to give. This dispute needs to be laid out from the beginning and I'd honestly like to see diffs from both sides, because there has been questionable behaviour on the part of arcayne, and while it doesn't excuse anything being particular uncivil, this might be far more complicated then simply laying the heavy hand on one side of the fence.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. I also believe that there is not precident to ban a user from entering into discussion. Arcayne has a history of accussing other users. He seems to always be in some sort of dispute that ends up on this message board. Also, Arcayne's weakness is that he always has to have the last word. He responds to every little comment and attacks anyone who disagres with him. If he just ignored the anon, then the problem might have gone away by now. Recently, both Arcayne and William M. Connolley attempted to have this user blocked. WMC blocked the anon, but was told by the community, that the block was wrong, so this must be the next attempt for a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Arcayne prove his entitlement to claim multiple Oxon degrees to the Arbcom. Once verifed, the unregistered user can take it or leave it. Left unverified, there will always be the doubt that Arcayne really has these qualifications which he has used to support his arguments in the past. Let's remove all doubt, and have him prove it.Poltair (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Arcayne's real-world qualifications are not at issue here, nor is his overall behaviour (which, I agree, can sometimes be annoying). What is at issue here is the fact of wikistalking. The anon had a clear habit of following Arcayne around, unprovoked, reverting him on a multitude of unrelated pages with no other purpose than to annoy him, jumping into disputes that didn't concern him except for his urge to hit out at Arcayne, bringing up the degrees issue again and again without any factual need, again with no other purpose than to taunt Arcayne, and incidentally also distorting every word of what Arcayne was actually saying about the issue. In fact, Arcayne has very clearly stated what degree he has, it is absolutely plausible and matches everything he said earlier, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt his veracity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How civil of you to dismiss my suggestion as nonsense. I think Arcayne's qualifications are an issue here. If he is going to play the I've got degrees in this subject so I know better than you card to brow beat his opponents in argument he should provide reliable sources to show that he is so qualified. I am certainly not convinced, and I think there is plenty of scope to doubt his veracity. Poltair (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread, and in fact are both arguing the same point. Degrees don't matter on WP. Asserting special knowledge/prowess because of degrees is bogus. What matters are properly cited edits. Users therefore cannot browbeat, and they're morons if they try to. -t BMW c- 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that degrees are not relevant here at WP, and that reliable sources are. My point is that attempting to block the unregistered user is not dealing with the issue, and is somewhat futile as discussed above. The unregistered user has an issue with Arcayne who, somewhat foolishly, has in argument claimed degrees that he has not substantiated. I still suggest that Arcayne prove it to the Arbcom, for privacy, (or withdraw the claims) so that the issue might be resolved, and there be no need to chase around blocking anonymous IP addresses. Poltair (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has nothing to prove, nothing to explain and nothing to account for here. He did nothing wrong. There's no problem he'd have to justifiy himself over. He mentioned his academic qualifications once, in passing (and then, later, explained them again a couple of times when pressed by the anon). He did nothing wrong in doing so. I'm sure I've mentioned my own qualifications too at some point or other. Anybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they wish from such a statement, or not to draw any. The anon never had any legitimate cause in making this an issue in the first place. Warning: by continuing to talk about this non-topic, you are actually continuing the harassment and could be treated accordingly if you overdo it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to threaten me. I am a reasonable person who responds well to well-reasoned argument. I don't agree with you, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. You clearly feel the same. We will have to live with that. I will not press the matter any further as I have clearly made my point. I will ask however, that you take the time to deal with me in a more civil tone in future; I do not expect to be threatened. Poltair (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. What he claims has no relevence. Only how users act in wikipedia matters. Although Arcayne can be a pill at times, I know, through interactions with him, that he is passionate about what he believes. There is no reason to believe that Arcayne is not telling the truth about what degrees he holds. Asking him to prove it is irrelevent. Arcayne, I just wanted you to know that I don't always disagree with you. I have seem many of your edits and you seem to to be smack on most of the time. I just think you need to relax, and don't sweat the small stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, as much as I can sympathize with this case of wikistalking, that still does not justify blocking 65,000 IP addresses in my mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Nobody has suggested a range block. It's a ban on the person in question we are talking about, to be enforced by short term blocks of any new reincarnations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where all this starts. But [11], [12], [13] seem clear enough. For whatever reason, this anon has some bizarre hang-up about arcayne's degrees, which (properly enough) no-one else cares about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• every time people provide diffs to try and paint how bad the IP is, I just see more evidence that makes me question arcayne. Your last diff wasn't reported by the IP (he contributed, but someone else started the discussion complaining about Arcayne.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, to refocus the discussion, the fact that Arcayne once, a year ago, claimed some Oxon degree is not in dispute by anyone. The problem is that in the intervening year, this user has done nothing EXCEPT browbeat Arcayne over that fact. Almost on a continuous basis, there is some edit summary, some comment in a talk page discussion, something where this guy gets his digs in. Its rude, its insulting, and its way overboard. At this point, we appear to have 7 in favor of some form of injunction, and 3 opposed to one. I personally feel that Proposal 2, which still allows the user to edit, but prevents him from continuing his harassment of Arcayne a good idea. No one has presented any counterevidence to indicate that Arcayne has done anything in the past year to provoke this guy, so I don't see where he has any culpability in this problem Any further ideas or comments as to how to handle this?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  I just pointed out above, where he insulted him and then edit warred over the placement of the IPs comment on a talk page when the IP placed his first. That seems plenty provocative to me. This is why I'm insisting on full disclosure on all the events leading up to here, not just a few cherry picked diffs which half the time make arcayne look bad.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, #2 is already in place [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  The thing for me is that everyone knows a range block is out of the question because it will effect innocent editors. Obviously this guy admits hes been here 7 years, he's well aware of this fact and is in a way using it to his advantage. Again, any kind of block, whether it be contacting Arcayne or a range block, will effect innocent editors from posting their opinions to the guy. Right now Arcayne is not the one in question, his qualifications certainly are not. I could call myself someone famous, I don't have to prove it, just like people don't have to register. However there is a bit of pathetic EW-ing, both disagreeing with each others edits. I don't know what the solution is unless we start a discussion about Arcayne's edits too. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the first one to admit - freely - that I am sometimes less tactful than I could be. I also agree that I should never have noted my educational background in a discussion (the only real instance of that ended several months ago, without recurrence), and I was properly chastised for doing so by others.

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. I have not stalked that person's edits, nor have I done so for eight months. The anon has.

The anon claims that some of the IPs are not his/hers; that might possibly be true. Using fairly ham-fisted IP-matching techniques, it would appear that about 3/4's of the IPs are centered around the Chicago metropolitan area (which includes part of Indiana, for purposes of this discussion); the rest are uniformly from New York. There might be a pattern there to be found - the user might take monthly trips to NY for work or whatever - but I think that it serves everyone's interest to not tar an innocent user editing from 75. with the same brush. Avi mentioned in the related RfCU that 75. counts for about 1% of the internet (about 67.1 million IPs), and the wiki benefits from the input of them. We cannot block them out because one particular user is being a jerk. And don't think I am not creeped out (and a little frightened) by the fact that the anon would appear to be in my own backyard.

Proposal One doesn't block the IP range; it just bans the user from editing here from whatever account or IP they choose to edit from. While this means that anyone being crafty with the same IP domain is going to get probed for duckhood, I think we already tend to do this passively and unofficially with most folk who act similar to banned or blocked users.

By banning the user, we remove ourselves from Proposal Two's added duty (and me the additional nuisance) of reporting behavior which would likely reoccur (case in point: the anon has been blocked three different times for this behavior, and each of nine different AN/I's have all commented about how the user had acted inappropriately - to date, that behavior has only abated by blocking the anon)

It has also been argued by the anon that they have edited anonymously for seven years. While that is a statement we cannot really prove - again, no single IP means edit histories are difficult to track, what is more telling is the stated reason the anon prefers to edit via dynamic IP and the actual effects. The anon has stated in April that they prefer to edit as a "public user", and more recently that they wish to avoid the "social networking aspects" of Wiki, and simply concentrate on articles. Quite lofty; if only it were true. Out of all the IPs connected to the account (and again the RfCU only addresses those IPs that intersected with my edits), less that a tenth actually add content to an article (and uncited content, in point of fact). The remainder of all of these contributions consist of reverting me, attacking me in article discussion or filing various administrative actions, all against me. All of that seems to pointedly fly in the face of someone trying to avoid the non-encyclopedia-building aspects of Wikipedia.

Indeed, if the anon has been editing here anonymously for seven years, I cannot be the only person with whom the (s)he has taken exception to in the past. However, because the anon has chosen to twist one of our most cherished Foundational ideals - that anyone, anonymous or otherwise, can edit here - and used it to avoid repercussions for their behavior, they should not be afforded the same protection that we afford to any other anon who comes here to actually add to the Project. The assumption of Good Faith is not a set of blinders by which we overlook extensive, recurring and nasty behavior. This user has abrogated their right to edit in our community; using Wikipedia instead to wage a protracted guerilla action against one or more users is not part of our core policies.

Since they have shown they cannot follow our rules, and instead use them to continue action against their fellow users, I think that Proposal One removes the problem user without really interrupting the contributions of similar IP accounts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing with blocking the IPs he's caused trouble on is that he's clearly on a dynamic IP, which means someone else is also and theres a chance they could end up on a blocked IP (I know its a super-slim chance but still) Its a very extreme idea to ban IPs permanently. Heres an idea, I don't know if its possible, but is there a way you can block the IPs but still allow registration from them? That way if he does register whilst banned and then abuse Arcayne from an account, then we can sort it from there? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can make IP ranges so that they may only edit from accounts and not anon. -t BMW c- 16:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

what about registering though? thats what im worried about. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, it's highly unlikely this will have to be enforced with long-term blocks at all, be it of ranges or individual IPs. Short blocks whenever he turns up again, depending of course on the intensity of his activities. In the unlikely event that more wide-reaching blocks should be necessary, ability for logged-in editors to edit through the block and ability to create new accounts through them are parameters that can be individually fine-tuned, just like we do with vandal blocks all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are still counting votes on this, I'd add my support to option 1. In practice, the two options are similar, since if a new IP shows up from this range who doesn't attack Arcayne it's unlikely that anyone will react to him in any way or connect him to this issue. The value of making this a ban is that any admin who notices the usual pattern will be able to block the IP without further ado. Most likely these blocks will be short, a month or less, and they will be anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. You do realize that if the ISP releases his dhcp release and gives him a new IP it isn't "creating a new account" and your usage of that indicates either a complete lack of understanding or an attempt to make something sound worse than it is. Your last CU failed I believe on an account you tried to tie to him. So do you have any evidence that he's actually created an account to harass you?--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume that for a moment: in every account listed in the RfCU, the anon had the IP for a day (two at the most) before the ISP would reassign a new IP address. However, the anon has had this particular IP (the one most recently blocked) since November 7th - over ten days. Now, for you or I, that's nothing, but those who've interacted with the anon know this is extraordinary in the extreme. I am reckoning that, knowing it would only hurt him/her if a new IP were to pop up amidst an AN/I specifically addressing all these multiple IP identities, the anon has chosen (as opposed to it being an ISP choice - and the ISP apparently hasn't changed since March) to either not reboot the modem (which is what I have assumed the user has done to also reboot their anonymity). In prior instance when the anon was saddled with a template on their talk page that connected them to their prior ids by admin reinforcement, that IP would go silent, and a new one would pop up a week or so later.

The last RfCU did not connect the anon to a known user. Perhaps it is my own bad faith assumption that the user is previously blocked or banned user, and my apologies to Jojhutton for disturbing him while trying to connect some dots about the anon. The current RfCU makes no such mistake, simply addressing the various 75.etc. IPs that keep popping up to attack my edits, and the prior checkusers have been useful in that the anon had previously admitted to editing under the anons denoted in bold there.

As for attack accounts, is it your contention that the anon never created an SPA/rebooted his/her modem simply to have it appear that more than one IP were complaining about my edits? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The current RFCU is pointless as all a RFCU is is to look at the underlying IPs to see if they're the same or similar. Since all you have are IPs, you're not checking anything. I'm not contending anything other than to tell you to stop claiming that this individual has made accounts to attack you unless you have a check user which says accounts are tied to him which you don't. You just have a mess of IPs from the same address. Which are not accounts. Personally I've had occasion where my IP has remained the same for months, and other times where it changed 2 or 3 times in a week. Such is the nature of a dynamically assigned IP address. Sometimes you can force a new IP address by rebooting/leaving your modem off for the lease period (typically a day) and sometimes your ISP just decides to randomly reshuffle all the leases, or there is some other problem going on which causes everyone to grab a new ip address. Generally rebooting your modem doesn't grant a new ip address as the DHCP process will typically give you the same address you had if the lease is still valid, or if no one else has taken that address after the lease is up your modem will ask for the last address it had. So it actually can be a little difficult to get a new IP address that way. If you're not familiar with DHCP and how it works I suggest reading up on, its not always possible on a system you don't control to go and get yourself a new IP address on demand.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would submit that the RfCU is only pointless in that it points out the obvious - that the same user is responsible for most if not all of the IPs. Maybe take a closer look at the most current RfCU; I've listed the prior RfCU's regarding the user, and the anon him/herself acknowledged that the IP addresses were theirs. All I did was point out the string of IPs editing in the same RfCU, and the anon derailed the process by admitting that they were his/hers. Not failed mind you, derailed.

And while my IT-skills aren't anywhere near your apparent level, I am not sure they are really required when the same user keeps popping up in articles you are working to attack your edits. In the same ways. Using the same arguments. And the same unpleasant behavior. I mean, I didn't pull the IP addresses out of the air, Crossmr; they came up because the same person kept attacking me in places where they never had before. It started out in Fitna, but then spread to almost everywhere I edited. The result was antagonizing, creepy and annoying as all get out. I am sorry, but I am not getting where you are coming from here. I mean, if you are asking to be spoon-fed diffs of what everyone else can feast upon themselves, maybe I am not the guy to do it. I realize that the list of IPs in the RfCU is daunting, but I am not the one who chose to edit from that many places, now am I? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking you to prove your case which this is about since you've chosen to make so many complaints about this IP. However many of the diffs I've been provided in the various attempts to show how bad this IP is, don't really show anything bad about this IP which is what makes me question the veracity of the claim here. A previous diff was provided to show how bad the IP was with the note of "see this edit summary" upon viewing the edit summary I found nothing wrong with it. It was a factual and accurate description of an edit made that appeared to be a legitimate edit. That's just an example. So far about 2 out of 3 edits being show as indications of problem don't indicate any problem. I've seen a few questionable diffs, but I've seen them from both sides. My point with the accounts comment is that claiming this IP has made accounts to harass you is wrong and can cause a bias. Someone might read that without actually checking think "wow this guy is bad". If you want to cause someone to be banned, do it on facts and not hyperbole. He's had a lot of IPs, but I don't see anything actually tying him to an account, and if the worst thing he has done is get hung up on a claim you made (which honestly for all your explanation, can still be interpreted as claiming multiple degrees, no where did you ever state when making those claims that those were just classes that were part of a single degree) then a site ban really isn't in order. A mutual restraining order is more in order as I've seen you get just as worked up about him as he gets worked up about you.--Crossmr (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally some diffs

I recommend everyone who is interested in resolving this and genuinely getting to the bottom of it go and read the diffs provided at: [15]. Per my request the IP stepped back and provided some genuine diffs from the beginning of this dispute. As expected they are a little one sided, however it does let you view pages at the proper time context so you can also read what was said by both parties. There is a lot to read, I'm not going to kid you. However, the more I read the more questionable behaviour I see on the part of arcayne. Frankly its going to take a day or two to digest it, but so far I've seen more than one sock puppet claim being leveled by him but checking the various user pages, I don't see that anyone has been ever tagged a sock puppet. I'm still not taking any particular side at this point, but after seeing some of the diffs here, I think a more thorough investigation is required both to resolve this situation and to make sure its resolved properly. I said it earlier and I will say it again, I believe this is far more complicated than being heavy handed against an IP and calling it a day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The troll's diffs, unsurprisingly, omit all the relevant stuff, namely how he kept following Arcayne around all these months. The original dispute in early April is hardly of interest at this point, except as an explanation of where the various harassment memes (such as the "Oxford" issue) originated. I'm trying to condense a few diffs myself, seeing as some people still fail to see the obvious, but as it's across so many pages and IPs it takes a bit of time. – As far as I'm concerned, Arcayne himself is still not the issue here. He was involved in what was originally a legitimate though heated content dispute back at the time; since then, he's simply been the stalking victim. (And I'm not saying this as somebody who particularly likes Arcayne; I know it can be exasperating to deal with him at times.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't an issue with arcayne here. Which is why I've asked for more detail so we can try and read this dispute from the beginning without bias. I'd like to see diffs of every time they've interacted since April as well as each time one of them started a topic about it on AN/I. We have admittance that you think he can be exasperating and down below Jayron admits that Arcayne could be just as much to blame for the original dispute as the IP. I don't think its a stretch to imagine he might have helped this along (as evidenced by the poking of the IP in august by edit warring over his comment placement)--Crossmr (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the IPs' talk page and still see a pile of difs from April 2008. That dipute seems long over at this point. The IP-user in question has STILL not answered for his behavior in every month since then; one could claim that Arcayne was as to blame for the April 2008 dispute as anyone, HOWEVER, that does not justify the incessant harrassment of him SINCE then. That was 6 months ago, and there has been no defense for the rude edit summaries and the frivolous ANIs and the talk page rudeness that has been cited above, and which dates for every month SINCE then. Seriously, if there is no more recent evidence of provocation by Arcayne, then I fail to see how some diffs from April can be used to justify this behavior... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually addressed them in a subpage, asCrossmr had asked me in the anon's usertalk page to stay away from the anon's edits. I've posted the link, rather than take up any more space here (yes, I am a bit long-winded). I guess its a moot point now, but I thought maybe folk might want something with a bit less varnish on it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but nothing has been finalised yet. FuturePerfect, you should not therefore refer to him as "the troll" its wrong. you can say he has trolling behaviour but thats a bit too far. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Solution

With a consensus leaning towards an interaction ban and not an all out ban, guidelines for the IPs behaviour have been outlined at User_talk:75.49.223.52#Response and the IP has agreed to them, key points:

• The IP has to avoid, with all reason, editing any article that Arcayne edits. He's self-imposed on himself all types of articles Arcayne usually edits.
• He is to refrain from talking about arcayne on wiki except in the case where Arcayne edits an article the IP has edited or revets an edit the IP has done. At that point he's not to engage Arcayne and instead leave me a diff and I'll have a look at it.

This solution should allow us to move forward past this particular situation and avoid anymore drama.--Crossmr (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As recently as four days ago, at the top of his current talk page, the anon was repeating his bogus accusation against Arcayne of "false credentials". Mind you, he was not just criticising Arcayne for using his credentials without giving proof of them, he was presenting it as an outright fact that they were in fact false and that Arcayne was lying. I'm uncomfortable about the message we are sending out by allowing someone back that easily with this serious libellous allegation still hanging around. At the very least, I would expect (as a last word before shutting up forever about the topic) that the anon should fully and unconditionally apologise and retract. The whole topic of casting doubts on Arcayne's credentials was an arbitrary fabrication on the anon's part, thought up for no other reason than to harass him and based on no factual evidence or likelihood whatsoever, and I would want to see the anon acknowledge this.

The second thing is, some of the things that have been said on the anon's talk page still sound as if there should be a reciprocal expectation on Arcayne to avoid the anon. I want to see it made clear that there is none. I'd sure wish he would see no further need of talking about the case much, but it should be made quite clear that Arcayne is under no obligation to restrict his choices of article editing in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't tell one person to avoid someone and then not ask the other person to reciprocate. Otherwise we're creating a situation where one person can poke the other with impunity and the moment the person being poked says anything they can run to AN/I and demand they be blocked. I never told Arcayne he had to leave the IP alone but asked and recommended to him politely that he do so. Unless arcayne is out to start trouble he should have no problem agreeing to that. The IP has pointed out that they generally edit different areas and it was just a coincidence they ended up together on this article. As to an apology and retraction regarding the comments made about arcayne, I'm afraid I don't really see it the way you do. As far as I'm concerned Arcayne still used the language "degrees"[16],[17] when in fact he has only a single degree from oxford and instead the degree is comprised of the various classes he took and he has even stretched it so far to defend his comment of various degrees by claiming larger sections had smaller sections in it. If I take a class of german as an elective I don't think anyone is going to sit here and let me claim I have a degree in german.[18] Its a bit of a hop skip and jump to go from "degrees in X" to "I had some classes that had some of that in it". Those are all his words, his usage of degrees more than once and then his admittance to having a mixed degree. I'm willing to extend him good faith that he didn't try to misrepresent himself, but was he being truthful? The anon provided evidence. Oxford doesn't have those degrees and Arcayne later confirmed that indeed it is a single degree, not multiple degrees. I think they can both learn a lesson here. I've also pointed out that as far as I'm concerned Arcayne is guilty of edit warring in August (that he instigated not the IP) over the moving of his comment on a talk page.[19], [20], [21], [22] It does take two to edit war, but the IP certianly didn't make the first move there, and I have no idea why it was so important to arcayne that he insert his comment on top. With that in mind I don't think its untoward to ask him to avoid the person he seems to loathe so much.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If we "can't tell one person to avoid someone and then not ask the other person to reciprocate", then I insist on the outright ban, full stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The majority is clearly in favour of an interaction ban not a site ban. Last I checked I wasn't under some kind of restriction from making a request of another user. Its up to arcayne whether or not he wants to fulfill that request. I didn't outline any penalty if he chose not to act on the request and instead chooses to edit articles the IP edits. I made the request in the interest of keeping peace, but it is in no part a requirement of the IPs interaction ban. If arcayne follows the ip around and calls his mother dirty names I'd still consider it a violation of the interaction ban if the IP said anything to him or about him (other than to link me the diffs on my talk page). You do understand the difference between asking another user something and telling them they either do it or there are repercussions right? I did actually mean ask in the traditional sense of the word and not like when the police show up at a club and "ask" someone to leave.--Crossmr (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Crossmr's solution to the problem is quite reasonable, and I endorse it as within the spirit of why I started this thread, which was to find a solution to the problem at hand. If 75.X.X.X stops his harassment of Arcayne through the mediation of Crossmr, then the problem has been solved, to my satisfaction. It would be nice also if Arcayne agreed to reciprocal self-restriction of his editing, but not required. I would, however, take it as a complete dick-move should Arcayne take the opportunity to "poke" or "prod" 75.X.X.X given his inability to respond; however I have faith that Arcayne has no desire to do that. I pray he does not make a fool of me for thinking that, because it could turn badly for either party in this dispute should hostilities resume. I think we have reached a good solution, and I thank Crossmr for taking the lead in mediating this. Once again, I endorse this solution, and consider for myself the matter closed, so long as neither party starts it up again. If either side in this dispute DOES start up again, they can expect blocks coming their way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to stay out of this process as much as possible, aware that it wasn't really about me (or even the anon), but rather about enforcing those policies which make Wikipedia a fun place to work. As such, while I am not sure how Jayron orCrossmr is arriving at the idea that there is not a consensus for a site ban, though he may be counting folk who were unsure of the limits of the ban, but it seemed to me that banning the anon was the right way to go, as the anon seems either unrepentant or unwilling to see their culpability. Their very last comments (dated only a few hours ago) on their talk page support this lack of agreement. As FuturePerfect pointed out, the anon still has his prefacing remarks calling me a liar in his user talk space. As far as I know, we don't allow attack pages here, and yet, there it is.

I am not realy convinced that an interaction ban is going to be effective. While I am certainly not going to run out and edit where the anon does, or slam him any time he makes a comment, it's clear that the anon does not have the same self-restraint. It is unfair of us to expect him to suddenly alter their personality after eight months of doing things in a particular way.

I know we all want to give folk the benefit of the doubt, but I think it is a wasted effort here.

A few clarifying points, mostly in response to Crossmr's comments:

• I do have multiple degrees. One from the Ox and one from an university here in the States. That the second one is only an A.S. in History doesn't mitigate its value as a degree, Additionally, the two links that Crossmr posted in supposed support of his statement are in fact to the same DIFF.
• What Crossmr apparently missed in the "edit-warring" in the Ibiza article was that the anon showed up there out of the blue and started attacking me. So yeah, the anon did in fact make the first move there. I tried to ignore the fellow by not replying to him/her. The anon kept moving my comments around, and I undid the moves before getting tired of the nonsense and moved on.
• I don't loathe the anon. I don't know (and don't much care) about their edits. I certainly haven't been following their edits around for eight months. The anon has, and has followed my edits to articles they had never made a single edit in before.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What you apparently missed is that you previously claimed both degrees from oxford [23]. both History and Political Science from Oxford because if you actually meant those from different places you shouldn't have gone out of your way to name drop one place without name dropping the other place and tying them together with "and". The double paste of the diffs was just a copying problem on my part, I've updated it to reflect the other instance where you stated "degrees" and in fact claimed political science and international degrees, which as you admitted is just one degree, So even if you want to argue that you somehow meant that the history degree was from another university(which is a stretch to read in that context), when did you pick up the separate political and international relations degrees? The consensus for an interaction ban is 6 users vs only 3 who want a site ban. There isn't any kind of majority in favour of a site ban. If he doens't respect the interaction ban then his next stop is a full ban. If he ever talks to you again touches one of your edits etc, you don't have to do anything, calmly post it on ANI, and CC me and you're done and so is he.--Crossmr (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I cant believe you are defending the anon's attack on his qualifications. no-one except the anon and you really give a crap. we have the right to claim whatever we want whether its true or B-S. Arcayne knows he was wrong to have a superior-than-thou attitude over his quals, and has openly admitted that. move on chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was pointing it out because FP was insisting on a full retraction/apology on the part of the anon calling it libelous. I felt that was 1) counter productive and 2) in fact false since there are reasonable discrepancies in what Arcayne has said. I certainly don't condone the IPs actions which is why I support an interaction ban and a 1 screw up and you're gone rule. If I actually thought arcayne was intentionally trying to mislead us, I would have already opened a new section about just that. No one needs to bring up anything about the april incident again. With the interaction ban in place it should be completely irrelevant at this point.--Crossmr (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, this has gone on long enough. FuturePerfect, Jayron and Crossmr (and many others who emailed me), I appreciate the concern, support and interest. It's time to let this go and move on. I am confident that Crossmr and FutPerf are not going to forget about the anon, and I am fairly certain that Jayron wants nothing more than to do precisely that (good guy that he is).

The anon knows where (s)he stands at this time. Interaction ban it is. I won't poke the user, or seek them out. I don't need an apology, and while it would be spiffy if the usertalk page comments by the anon calling me a liar were removed, it isn't required. It isn't our job to fix users - we just need them to color within the lines whilst here.

As mentioned before, if a problem arises with the anon again, I will post it here and cc Crossmr and FutPerf and that - as the man said - will be that.

Let's move on, and get back to editing an encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the marking to "not resolved". The anon violated the no-comments parole right the moment he said he accepted it, with a big new thread on his talk page [24]. I've re-blocked for a month, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I came in after all was said in done and didn't notice the timestamps when I first went through and commented. I'm not sure if arcayne has seen it or not but his call to move on was about 90 minutes after that thread. Unless arcayne wants to show leniency then I'd agree with leaving him blocked. First time through I didn't notice the date stamp and just saw the time and thought the thread was started before his acceptance but I went back and noticed it was about +22 hours.--Crossmr (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Think its pretty much "Game Over" for him now. I can't see him getting any support this time. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 09:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block, Crossmr and FuturePerfect. He's gone for a month; let's avoid giving him any more of our time; could someone blank the anon's attack page, please? Or is that tantamount to asking for an apology (which I reiterate I do not need). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like FisherQueen (talk · contribs) protected the page after Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) declined the third unblock request, so hopefully we will get a one month reprieve from this wikidrama. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just hate this suspicious attitude at Wikipedia because I just checked and it seems that I am one of millions that use a 75.xxxx IP. To be fair, Arcayne should also stay away from articles that the IP edits. Both parties should try to be kind. If one accidently edits an article that the other one edits, the second to edit person should be politely notified and no further edits done. The issue of false credentials is unsettled. As it is now, I think we discourage false credentials but this is not a blockable offense because Arcayne is not blocked and has not proven the credentials. This is ok with me. In other words, let's have common sense and let's have Arcayne and the IP avoid each other. OK? BBC5 (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to go duck hunting...--Crossmr (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

A new single-purpose account, DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs) is making many somewhat controversial edits (such as deleting the "Criticism" section) to Jewish Internet Defense Force. Things had been very quiet there since Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on October 4, 2008. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This account appears indistinguishable from Einsteindonut in terms of interests and behaviors. Whether it is them, or a sympathizer following the same agenda does not matter, per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. What shall we do? I think we should consider whether to block them as a sock. Perhaps a checkuser could take a quick look. I've invited the user to comment here. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this need a checkuser? The name alone is probably blockable, but combined with single-purpose account behaviour and obvious previous editing experience, this is a clearly disruptive second account. An experienced editor can make controversial edits under his own account or not at all. (Blanking sections of a controversial article takes us clearly into 'bad-hand' sock territory.) The only useful purpose that a checkuser might serve here is to clear the drawer of sleeper socks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is "drama?" My apologies. I don't know what you are talking about. I just learned about the JIDF from the Ha'aretz piece and didn't feel the WP article was very fair to the organization, so I created an account to help make it better. I accidentally took out the "Criticism" section upon making edits, and re-added it. However, I'm not sure what WP's policy is of using articles which are originally in German. I feel if criticism is to be made about an organization, that we should only rely upon an accurate, FAZ approved, translation. I'm not sure one is available? --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, I added other cited material from the new Ha'aretz article, which was quickly reverted by Nagle. It was new background information which I thought was important. --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have indefed the account for a username vio. It also looks like a sock to me but as this is clearly a disruptive name we can do without it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is a good idea for thoroughly investigating sock puppetry that may involved use of multiple accounts or block or ban evasion. It would be best to connect the account to a master account and empty any sock drawer. Is there a CU hanging around or do we need to bring this case over to WP:RFCU? Jehochman ^Talk 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we list it as there is no rush now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm am shutting down for the night. Please do list it, because there seems to be a reasonable basis. Jehochman ^Talk 06:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a disruptive username? Huh? It only is one because of who it might be, and/or the edits they have made. I hate to say so, but NPOV is a key policy, and how many times a day does wikidrama occur in this forum because people are POV-pushing. I hate to use the example, but "Master of Puppets", based on meaning alone would be considered more disruptive (no offence intended). If someone created the usernames "AlwaysAGF" and "DontBeAnEditWarrer", are we going to delete them too? -t BMW c- 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW, I partially agree with you but I also think that such a name is somewhat indicative of puppetry. Think about it, POV Pusher is uniquely Wikipedian lingo, it's unlikely that a new user would use it right off the bat... L'Aquatique[talk] 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that it's not a new user - but we're talking right now about a block due to the username alone. Prove it's a sock (or have a little more duck-like properties than an obvious knock-off of policy) and I'm good with it. Maybe someone wants to properly move to a new name (highly unlikely, but it can happen). -t BMW c- 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As the person reverted by POVPusher, I did consider coming here or going to a senior admin but decided not to. I also considered the POVPusher = ED equation, but POVPusher didn't react to my reference to JIDF as "your lot" whilst ED always vigorously denied any such connection. It's unfortunate that the JIDF are so wedded to the glamour of clandestine action that they can't create an account with their name that contributes to the talk page alone. Then they could draw our attention to new articles about them and complain about and explain anything they considered misrepresentation. Instead they have this series of edit warrior accounts that are transparently connected to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: within a few hours after the block of DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs), a new user account, Howdypardner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created and began editing only the JIDF article. Something to watch; no action requested at this time. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy's "Glad I could help" on the talk page acknowledges that this is the same person as POVPUSHER. Obviously not sockpuppetry, as it's overt, and not block evasion as they were given explicit permission to come back in a new guise. (The above is in relation to POVPUSHER, obviously the prior CU suggestion is different.) There are potential 3RR issues but it depends how new we regard this user as.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Howdy has no user page or talk page, and I hadn't noticed that note on the article's talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, DontbeaPOVPUSHER was blocked indef for username, but this doesn't rule out his return as Howdypardner. The latter has been cautioned against edit-warring on his Talk, and has not reverted since 18:18 UTC on 17 November. Between the two of them they are over 3RR but is unlikely that action will be taken if the reverting has actually stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has now made several more reverts. since Ed's post above. Also the "resolved" tag strikes me as no longer appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The edits of DontbeaPOVPUSHER, when combined with those of Howdypardner, may have gone over 3RR on Jewish Internet Defense Force. I've left a note for Spartaz to consider undoing his 'Resolved' banner. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cohen that this can no longer be considered "resolved". But it's not a big deal. I look at this as a WP:TROLL situation. It's not a content problem. The problem isn't what Wikipedia has to say about the JIDF; it's that there are people who want the JIDF to get more attention. Usual troll management applies; revert slowly, ignore minor annoyances, and block if overly disruptive. --John Nagle (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the resolved tag. Does this need further discussion? Does anyone else have views on the need for a CU? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser should be run, to determine if Howdypardner is evading the block on Einsteindonut. Since Einsteindonut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for a year, and he seemed to have the same interests as this editor, I believe it would be justified. Jehochman issued the block on October 10 based on a previous ANI discussion. Organized campaigns to edit WP articles toward a particular POV have been commented on in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. According to our own article on JIDF, one of their interests is influencing the content of Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

New JIDF-related editor(s)

We have a new editor today: DontFwithTheJIDF (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). They seem very familiar with the issues, experienced in editing, and interested only in the JIDF article. --John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by Spartaz (talk · contribs). Incidentally, I just received a Wikipedia e-mail from Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) expressing somewhat similar sentiments to those expressed by the above user. --John Nagle (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest with the next incarnation the page be protected; semi would serve no purpose as they are named accounts and he doesn't seem intelligent enough to stop on his own. HalfShadow 23:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we just make Einstiendonut block be indef? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should since checkuser has proven that he has been evading. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

Now it's getting really silly. Sounds like the JIDF is declaring war on Wikipedia because of a minor content question. [25] --Hans Adler (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howdypardner, it seems that Einsteindonut (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is back and blatantly evading. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack Page

This attack page [26] on the JIDF site has previously been discussed on one of the boards. The page has just been updated with the two principal complainants here (John Nagle and myself) added to the list. If anyone has saved a previous version, could they check whether anyone else has been added and needs informing about it. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. The JIDF, according to their web site, is currently annoyed with about twenty Wikipedia editors, Haaretz, the ADL, Obama and the 78% of American Jews who voted for him[27], Germany, Egypt, Harvard, and socialism. WP:TROLL, indeed. I suggest about 48 hours of semi-protection to stop editing by new socks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One interesting thing to note is that some of the edits they refer to are in fact seriously POV. But they are undermining their case by a) including actually NPOV edits that they just don't like and b) trying out and harass editors in the process. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, POV-pushers exist on both sides, not only of the Israel-Palestine dispute but of many others. Some of these POV pushers have learnt after a few blocks to conform to Wikipedia process, and are developing into good Wikipedians. Others get blocked long term or banned. The JIDF's methods is to try to get what they want through aggression, deception, and sabotage, using techniques that even groups that agree with their aims, such as the ADL, have rejected. Building consensus through negotiation, the way that disagreements are overcome on Wikipedia, is alien to the JIDF. It lacks the glamour and spectacle of taking over an anti-Zionist Facebook group and displaying an Israeli flag on it. So long as they operate like this on Wikipedia, they will get blocked and barred, just like some of the people on the opposing side who behave similarly get barred and blocked (e.g NobodyofConsequence and puttyshool). And if they stop acting like this and grow up, they will no longer be the same JIDF and could actually contribute something here instead.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has quieted down since semi-protection was imposed. We may have trouble in future, but for now, nobody is editing the article and peace has broken out. This item can probably be marked "Resolved" and allowed to scroll off AN/I. Thanks, everyone. --John Nagle (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--Peter cohen (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The on-wikipedia remains quiet, but a denunciation of my and John's evil deeds has appeared on the JIDF site. It's the first article here [28] unless they've added somethign else since. It contains some accusations aainst my editing. Experienced Wikipedians are welcome to investigate.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 blocked for edit warring after one edit

Resolved

 – Tony1 unblocked, dispute resolution recommended instead of edit warring. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk · contribs) is a very hardworking and valuable FAC specialist who has been here a long time and never been blocked before . He was warned by MBisanz on November 10 about edit warring on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Since the warning, he has edited the page in question once. Yes: one time. Here it is: [29]. Is that a nasty edit? Does it rise to a one-edit war? Have we totally re-defined the concept of "edit warring"? Anyway: 8 minutes after he'd made it, Tony was blocked for 12 hours by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

What the..? 12 hours is a short block. In fact, being an aussie, Tony may sleep through it. But that's not the point. A block is a humiliation. especially if done to a long-time highly active and trusted user who has never been blocked before. I will unblock unless somebody posts an objection pretty soon. I would particularly like to hear from Rjd0060 how one edit was a war. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

Unless you understand the background here, I advise not unblocking without discussion. The background is a lengthy war concerning MOSNUM that has led to admins being given block warnings, etc. looie496 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is what I'm after. That's why I posted it on ANI. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

• Support unblock While I see some editwarring in the history, that was over a week ago. I don't get how one edit deserves a block, especially of one of the more variable editors in the project. I also agree that this should be discussed further. Secret ^account 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you (and everybody else reading this) to take a close look at the history of edit warring on that article. Tony1 was one of the primary "warrers". There were two others, who were also blocked. Please review my comment to Tony, here which contains the entire timeline. The page was protected at one point, and immediately after unprotection Tony, and others continued to edit war. I felt that since protection was attempted, and failed, blocking was the best alternative. I've blocked all three users who continued to edit war despite the protection and despite being warned. All users responded to the warning last week and Tony1's response is noteworthy. Please review this section. Should help clarify things. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed it, thanks. "Tony...continued to edit war" Really? He made one (notably harmless) edit, and that was the entirety of his "continuation". Theoretically, you blocked him for it. But what I take from your post is that you either blocked him for edit warring a week ago, or else because he spoke to those who warned him in an uppity way. Those are not blocking matters. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

No, I blocked for continuing to revert edits without pursuing dispute resolution. Long-time editors should know better. Why did he continue to revert? Why did he not pursue DR? Why, just because he is a long time editor, does he get off the hook for reverting edits without following basic policies that even the new users are expected to follow, especially after being warned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your logic seems to be as poor as your judgement. Edits, in the plural; what edits? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, it seems a little heavy-handed for one edit, made more than a week after the last one. Blocks are a black mark on an editor, especially wrongful blocks, even if they do get overturned. Tony's been here what, 3 years, and has never been blocked before, so it is a little dismaying to see this. I would encourage Tony to stop edit warring though, whether the block was right or wrong. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, This diff is the edit in question, it was not even removing a tag, but instead changing which tag is used. I'm astounded that somebody could consider blocking somebody for that edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Unless they were officially told not to revert at all on this page, I don't see how one revert could count as edit warring. I also note that the person who reverted Tony's changes was not blocked or warned. I'm glad Bishonen brought this here because I was just about to. Tony should be unblocked. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I believe this sequence of edit warring from Aug 1 to Nov 18 establishes the ground for such a block: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] as well as indicating a serious ownership issue for Tony1 w.r.t WP:MOSNUM. MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

However, instead of continuing to edit war against there being a tag Tony1 was trying to reach a compromise seven days after he had stopped the edit-warring by proposing a different tag in a single edit. He was then blocked. That's just not a sensible response. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He did revert to a version that was part of the edit war post-protection. Having one's opponent blocked for edit warring is not authorization to revert his edit. MBisanz ^talk 18:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be true. The edit war was over adding and removing part of the text, or a "disputed" tag. That happened on the 10th. On the 18th, Tony did not remove the "Disputed" tag when it was replaced, but proposed replacing it with an "under discussion" tag. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the disputed tag had been placed by Locke Cole in objection to the under discussion tag placed by Kotinski. Since there was disagreement over the tag type, Tony1 should have known better than to revert. MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that edit warring like that is very bad, but the block was over the one latest diff. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. What is the use of blocking a productive editor like this, for 12 hours (which he may not even notice)? It's not supposed to be a punishment, or timeout. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the timestamps correctly, Rjd blocked Tony three minutes after his last edit, I don't think the "he knew he was asleep and still blocked" argument applies to that timeline. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said notice I meant it wouldn't affect him because he'd be able to go and do something else (be that sleep, eat, work whatever). I'm sure he's noticed he's been blocked. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A page protection should have worked better, again what's the point of blocking productive editors over one edit. If the edit waring was a day ago instead of a week, a block could have been in order, but it's not. Blocks aren't punitive. Secret ^account 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The page was protected for a week, none of the involved parties attempted to discuss their differences during the protection and resumed the edit war when the protection expired. Locking down an entire guidelines page for 3-4 edit warriors is not beneficial to the 10,000 other users who are editing pages constructively. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Blocking established editors like this is not the way to go. I suggest instead using page protection. Also note that User:Locke Cole was blocked by Rjd0060 for a week, which seems quite excessive. He should be unblocked as well. User:Kotniski was also blocked for 12 hours. --Aude (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't Locke Cole still in Arbcom Enforsement, also most of the edits I saw from him is edit warning of many articles. I'll support the block of him unless there is something I'm missing? Secret ^account 18:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like his 1RR parole expired last year, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole/Proposed_decision#Locke_Cole_placed_on_revert_parole. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Locke Cole, but now see that he has a lengthy block log. Still, a week seems a bit long when page protection could work instead. And, I don't know anything about User:Kotniski, except see that the user has never been blocked before. --Aude (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, what a blow to my ego. I'll try to get blocked a bit more often then in order to increase my profile. (That was a joke, just in case anyone...) But seriously, this whole issue is ample evidence that WP's dispute-resolution and rule-establishing mechanisms, though doubtless philosophically pleasing to many, are seriously broken in practice.--Kotniski (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Tony1 and Locke Cole per the growing consensus here. I'd still encourage both users to pursue dispute resolution and to stop reverting each other. Long time users or not, they shouldn't be exempt from these basic guidelines; guidelines that even the newest contributors are expected to follow. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock of Tony1. He's put a tremendous amount of work into the MoS trying to make it consistent and correct, and a block isn't a good way to repay him. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's already been unblocked. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And who exactly is User:Rjd0060 to have the power to block one of Wikipedia's most valuable edotors? How dare he? Who on earth votes these peole t be Admins? No wonder this site is going to the dogs. Make sure he never crosses my path. Giano (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer is surely obvious. Those who vote people like Rjd0060 to be admins are generally those who want to be admins themselves. Who else in their right mind would choose to hang around the corrupted slough of despond that is Rfa? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely not those are aren't cut out to be one. ^_^ Synergy 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All just reinforces Douglas Adams' sentiments: "the only people who should have power are those who don't want it".  HWV 258  23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Rjd0060 should probably be immediate desysoped. This is ridiculous, and no admin should have ever have blocked Tony1 in this situation. Thus, he is either not fit to use the powers, or his account is compromised. Either way, that means that he should be stripped of any access to tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your comment to be lacking in (a) use of exclamation marks; and (b) use of the words "abuse" and/or "harassment." A more appropriate comment would be in the form, "How dare he block an editor! Abuse!11! Desysop at once!"

To Giano: Is an edotor like a special type of editor or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse is what people have done in threatening those who challenged this action. This actual action is something that cannot be said because of the civility policy. But I wonder if that is true, especially with yourself declared "snark" acknowledging that no one really cares about civil anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered that Rjd0060 was perfectly capable of warning people before blocking (as seen here). Thus, blocking in this instance such a highly respected editor is extremely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I warned everyone Rjd0060 blocked today that I would block for further disruption and edit warring earlier this week. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And honestly, how many warnings does a established editor need to be given? Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how this was one revert, and this is a well established user, a week old "warning" by a different administrator is not even close to being acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole

In response to this thread, User:Crotalus horridus created an MFD for WP:MOSNUM that is here. Given that this is pretty much trying to change policy by deleting a page, User:Kotniski (who I should point out is not an uninvolved editor) speedily closed the MFD (here) pointing out MFD is not the place to established policy, and removed the MFD template off WP:MOSNUM - a move I think is appropriate. Locke Cole has since gone and reverted those changes (here on the MFD page and here on the MOSNUM page). (As I wrote this, Kotniski has again tried to speedily close this). There is a lot of disruption going on here, which I feel needs some action at least on Locke Cole's side. As I'm involved on that page, I won't do it, but seek opinions if there is problems going on here. --MASEM 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...and Locke Cole's gone and reverted the close, invoking IAR. --MASEM 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm done reverting this. But it's getting REALLY frustrating seeing these kinds of actions from editors who are clearly involved... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not involved and what I am seeing is some very disruptive behavior from you. If you revert again, in any shape or form you will be blocked. Enough is enough. Tiptoety ^talk 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated I won't revert again. But it'd be nice if we could get more than fifteen minutes of discussion before someone closely involved tries to shut it down. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Locke Cole's rollback access; see also #Edit_warring_at_MFD.--Maxim_(talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it clear yet what Tony1 has been dealing with as he tries to keep the MoS pages usable and coherent? All this while Tony sleeps down under, and will awake to find his work was rewarded with a block log. Gee, I want one, too; seems all good editors have one these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm isn't the slightest bit helpful. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Let's dilute the hell out of the system. This whole debacle has done nothing for the dignity of the admin process.  HWV 258  22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I too have been sleeping down under; and I am appalled to wake up and find that Tony has been treated like this, simply for adjusting a tag. I think there should be a formal apology, and everything should be done to ensure that this mistake by an admin will never count against Tony in any future deliberations on Wikipedia. Tony is a fiercely hard-working and remarkably competent editor, passionately concerned to bring order to WP:MOS and its associated pages – where I for my part simply left, finding certain editors' lack of good will and good sense too much to endure. I am sure others have done the same.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, if you harbor delusions that this won't be held against Tony, you missed the Ceoil case. He was blocked because an admin misunderstood jokes between him and another friend on their own talk pages. Then yet another admin later misunderstood another set of jokes between Ceoil and another editor, and baited Ceoil on his talk page, specifically mentioning his block log, and then threatened to block him because of how Ceoil responded to being blatantly baited. Then that admin tossed a truckful of F-bombs all over the place, was desysopped by Jimbo, but had the bit back within hours. Such is Wiki; that all of this happened in about a month gives us an idea of the circus we've got going. The Tony1's and Ceoil's, who work to turn out what we put on our main page every day but aren't admins, are judged and hung on one word or edit, while admins are protected even if they toss out a truckload of F-bombs. And then some admins don't understand why hard working volunteers are insulted about having their block log smeared. There needs to be some dialogue somewhere on Wiki to get better understanding about those who are toiling away at the different tasks in different areas of Wiki. Admin tools and tasks are needed and welcomed, but all too often, the vandal fighting mentality is turned on our most productive writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said Sandy. — Realist² 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly true. Admins takes a quick look at a block log and then double the last block. What that has to do with building an encyclopedia will forever remain a mystery to me. Administrators get away with murder, but regular editors have every one of their alleged misdemeanours recorded in their block logs. It's about time that administrators were held equally to account. Number of blocks reversed, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Outrageous. WTF? True that Tony's been very vocal on the talk pages, which everybody bar none agrees is the correct action. He discusses, makes one teeny edit and he's blocked - This is kangaroo adminship in action! The real danger is that it can be totally arbitrary and retrospective, as it appears this incident to have been. I'm totally quaking in my boots now to learn that any old admin can come along, see me doing something xhe disagrees with, and blocks me without warning. How can this be considered resolved? Tony's block will forever be an ugly wart on his nose, unless it is rolled back or expunged forthwith. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Tony is a persistently uncivil editor with a bad case of ownership over all of MOS. Those of us who know him have learned to deal with this; but the assertion that this block is outrageous is nonsense. He (and his supporters here) are one side of the current date-linking rumpus; Locke Cole is a champion on the other side. We should seriously consider demoting MOSNUM either from being a guideline, or from controlling FA; it is no service to the project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some context for those unfamiliar with life at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM: PMAnderson is the foremost opponent of Tony's selfless campaign of improving and maintaining WP:MOS and its associated pages. Anderson is notorious at those pages for his weakening of established and new guidelines, in accord with his obscurely motivated wish that there be no clear standards for high-quality editing. Tony himself is a highly skilled professional editor in his life beyond Wikipedia, sought out by academic writers in many disciplines, and we are privileged that he donates so much time and energy to Wikipedia. If he is sometimes uncivil, it is in the face of unrelenting provocation from the likes of Anderson, who should consider (once more) backing off and examining what he might do that is constructive, himself. Let him first look to Tony's additional work in coaching editors striving to improve their work (see this page of Tony's, one of several such initiatives he has undertaken).

I am happy to count myself also as one who believes in our Manual of Style, and who has also worked hard to maintain excellence – though nowhere near as hard as Tony. Surely now Anderson will have some gall to spread against me, too. But let anyone interested enough consult the history of WP:MOS; taking a long view, it is clear who has been constructive and consensual, and who has been negative and a deleterious maverick.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite disagree that Tony has ever established consensus; after looking over the history, it seems he's outlasted his critics, rather than providing a reasoned discussion. Tony may think he's improving WP:MOS, but there is real debate on that subject. I believe that those parts of the manual of style which have a real consensus should be followed. I just don't see consensus on this particular section of WP:MOS, or any of the specific alternatives proposed. I see a weak consensus that autoformatting is deprecated, and a very weak consensus that WP:OVERLINK provides that almost all day-of-the-year links and most year links shouldn't be linked, but "most" is not adequate for bots or certain editors who don't check each individual link before approving semiautomated edits.

Unfortunately, I agree with Noetica that it's clear who has been constructive and consensual, and who has been negative and a deletionist (pun intended) maverick, but, as we don't agree which is which, it doesn't seem to serve much purpose to dwell on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am appalled at the above attacks on Tony. We might disagree on some things, but I have found him to be ever sincere, polite, a tireless worker for understanding and clarity, and one of those editors that Wikipedia should fight to keep around performing volunteer excellence. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. Tony1 has worked closely with the FAC and FAR groups and his view on the MoS seems to be built after months (and even years) of learning about how people in those areas feel. That is not to say that he hasn't also done the same with those outside of those areas. However, it sure shows that Tony1 has worked with dozens upon dozens of some of the best content contributors in establishing consensus upon MoS before making changes. That is indisputable. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a link to an off-wiki website entitled "Jennifer J Dickinson and Mark Bellinghaus cyberstalking on Wikipedia" on their user page. I am pretty sure this contravenes our user page policy; Bellinghaus is a real person with an article here, and Dickinson is his colleague. I removed it once after discussion with the user, and the user has now restored it. Rather than block I thought I would bring it here for others to review, as I have been involved in editing the Bellinghaus article and am therefore not disinterested. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block? For what? I restored the userbox after reviewing WP:UP#NOT and finding nothing that seemed relevant. I asked you in the edit summary to bring it here or MFD if you continued to have concerns. Your comments on my talk page were added after I had restored it, fully 20 minutes after you had removed the material from my userpage. I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your comment about blocking me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than repeat the discussion here, please see the discussion on my talk page here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a block is premature until DC refuses to take down the link. This link is definately bad; one should not game the system by linking to pages that merely exist to contain information that would not normally be allowed at Wikipedia. We do not allow this sort of information on a userpage, so we also should not allow links to this sort of information. A userpage is not about discussing the behaviors of other people in this way; we don't maintain lists of "perceived wrongs" at Wikipedia, and therefore we should not also link to such pages from our userpage. The link should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The very short version of this is that I am falsely identified in several places on the internet, including Bellinghaus' own blog as Pauline Berry. I am not Pauline Berry. I have linked to the page on Berry's site where she addressed this misidentification. I do not control the content of the site. Most of the page is actually just cut and paste of WP discussions. I am not refusing to take down the link, but I don't have time for this discussion at the moment. If a consensus is reached that the link must go, please leave the userbox intact and just remove the link. Thanks. 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since DC is being falsely linked to Pauline Berry on other sites, it is not unreasonable for him/her to want a denial on the userpage. However, DC, I wonder if you might be willing to remove the link. Perhaps people can e-mail you if they want more than just your denial. Let's leave aside hitting DC with policy, and just ask nicely. Would you please, in the interests of reducing drama, be willing to remove this link?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hey, if I say my name is Xing, will you do as I ask? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Having read all the proof (following the links on DC's talk page)((PS: I read it a long time ago)), I was astounded at the attempts to identify DC, and the lengths someone went to in order to trash them. I have NO issue with DC defending themselves. You insist they remove the link, then DC can just copy and paste a whole whack of it ... and place <ref> </ref> with it, so that it's properly cited. ►BMW◄ 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est folie ! L'escarboucle doit utiliser tous les outils il ou elle a à leur disposition pour se défendre du "bellinghaus" d'équipe et n'importe quelle suggestion autrement serait comme mettre un tas des briques sur un hamster et l'instruire au " équilibre, " de monsieur. Les tendrils de la marque Bellinghaus vont loin et profondément. Cahiers du jason (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Parlez en anglais, s'il vous plait. C'est la "English" Wikipedia. (Putting bricks on a hamster and telling it to "balance" - have to remember that one.) Avruch ^T 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloqué pendant une semaine pour perturbation, je suppose avec Google translator. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacré phoque!!! ►BMW◄ 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest resolving any off-wiki problems off-wiki and just doing stuff on here that is designed to improve our encyclopedia. I don't think this falls into that area which is why I raised it here, after my attempts to persuade Delicious carbuncle to remove the material were unsuccessful. And, although naturally we are all highly able linguists here, this is best resolved in English. --John (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki things are often brought here, such as threats, etc. We have a policy against WP:OUTING. Editors may also defend themselves. They're not spamming/advertising. Case closed. I see very little support for your attempts to remove their defense. On top of that, I know that I am a cunning linguist, and the block of a user noted above is partly because of comments made in this thread, so relax a little. ►BMW◄ 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of "defense". "He did it first" is not a defense against WP:BLP. I am relaxed about most things but this is a flagrant breach of a policy which exists to keep our organization safe from being sued. I am not relaxed about this. I do not want to see anyone blocked over this, I just want the offending and unencyclopedic content removed in accordance with our policy on user pages. --John (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to settle any dispute through having this link on my userpage, either on- or off-wiki. I'm simply trying to correct the misidentification by pointing to the web site of the other person being falsely identified. Let me point out again that what you refer to as "the offending and unencyclopedic content" isn't on my userpage. People coming to my userpage will not see it unless they choose to click on the external link. I don't think there's anything even remotely actionable on the external web page, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really qualified to offer an opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BUt the whole point is, if its information that would not normally be allowed on your userpage, then its not information you should be able to link to from your userpage. The distinction between "actually printed on my userpage" vs. "printed in a link from my userpage" is moot, and attempting to claim that the former should be allowed where the latter is not is simply gaming the system. The link should come down! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, either, but there are tons of editors linking to their personal blogs on their userpage. Instead of racing to claim the lofty moral righteousness of Policy, why can't people start off with the basics - that the page linked in DC's userpage makes them feel uneasy; nothing more, nothing less - and then have a level, paced, reasoned discussion from there? Part of what's dragging the project down (as well as many other Web 2.0-style projects, I should add) is this notion of discussion as a "race" of some sort. If people could feel comfortable asking for clarification and/or elaboration ("What do you mean? ~~~~") without being looked down on as trolls or threadshitters, not only would we all collectively end up with a lot more clarity and elaboratification, but long-winded folk (*cough*) wouldn't feel as pressured to address every single conceivable point in one long mass of tl;dr, perhaps skipping over important nuances in our drive to explain all. Focused conversations are good, but there's such a thing as too focused. Badger Drink (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I think there's a difference between the content actually being on WP and being on an external site. If the guidelines are to protect WP from being sued, as John suggests, there is good reason to disallow certain content on user pages, but that no longer applies if the content only linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it makes any difference? More importantly, what is this contributing to our mission to build an encyclopedia? If you cannot answer convincingly, you should take the link down. --John (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES was rejected. --NE2 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur though. I am not objecting to this because of BADSITES but because it contravenes WP:USER and WP:BLP, neither of which has been rejected. --John (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as you suggest above, WP:BLP exists to protect WP from potential legal issues, then there is no issue here since the content is not on WP. I still don't see any part of WP:USER that applies here - can you be more specific? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. WP:BLP exists to ensure that this project does no unnecessary harm to living individuals. It way beyond what might be legally actionable. It certainly does apply to userspace, and can at times apply to links that contain libels, or other grossly unhelpful material. We don't link bios to attack blogs for instance, and we don't link the names of private individuals to unauthoritive attack pages. BLP is pertinent here. Please do remove the link.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:USER that may address the charge from Jayron32 that I am attempting to "game the system": "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it." The clear implication is that content which is not allowed on user pages may be freely linked to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well and good; but BLP trumps USER I'm afraid. Please remove the link. --John (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I know you've corresponded with Bellinghaus and you may feel that you need to protect him. If he were simply posting nasty remarks about "Delicious carbuncle", I really wouldn't care. Sadly, he is targeting an entirely innocent party and claiming that we are one and the same. Bellinghaus' account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here for similar comments. I am simply linking to the page on her site where Pauline Berry defends herself against Bellinghaus' accusations. I don't feel that the content of that page is offensive, but it's a moot point since it is a private website and WP rules don't apply. She has, as a result of the discussion on my talk page and unbidden by me, changed the title of the page to "Mark Bellinghaus Accusations Addressed". I don't feel that I am violating any policy or guideline by linking to the page, but does the title change alleviate your concerns? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. If somebody accuses you of something on-wiki, we can deal with it, as you have seen. Off-wiki stuff doesn't need to be dealt with on your Wikipedia user page. I find it astonishing the amount of time and energy you have spent defending this link. It contributes nothing at all to the reason we are here; why is it so important to you to keep it? --John (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The time I've spent defending it is only as the direct result of your attempts to have me remove it. I've explained several times now why the link is on my userpage. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I will remove the link if that is the consensus that is reached. I honestly don't see that consensus here, nor do I feel that I am in violation of any WP rules, but I'm sure there's an admin or two who will weigh in shortly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm growing rather tired of John's continual one-sided arguments about this. It's starting to look like a jihad witch-hunt relentless-chase-very-much-along-the-same-line-as-the-hunt-for-the-one-armed-man. We got your point from the start. Further repetition of the same point, although with different wording, is not swaying anyone. I see no real consensus to take punitive action, and I really still don't get why there was any feeling that immediate intervention was required. ►BMW◄ 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A link on wikipedia to a web site, where someone complains of "being harassed by telephone and being defamed online as a 'criminal'" by a named living person is completely unacceptable. It is indeed a one-sided argument and is spelled out clearly in WP:BLP. We do not allow such links. Ty 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review this entry on Bellinghaus' blog entitled "Pauline Berry, 45, the Cyberstalker & Marilyn Monroe mocker is bored to death in New Zealand and hiding behind names like Delicious Carbuncle on Wikipedia and more of the hired haters, freaks & creeps". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite irrelevant to our policies, which are not dictated by people's blogs; nor is wikipedia a place to promote off-wiki attacks on people, whether justified or not. Your implication about John above is quite unfounded. Both he and I have had email correspondence with the individual in question, and both of us in the last 24 hours have received what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life, so I can assure you there is no motivation for personal favours. I am, for the record, apparently John, as well as some other people I've never heard of before, and am in league with Delicious Carbuncle. Now, will you kindly remove the link. Ty 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Through no actions of my own, my username has been inserted into a pre-existing off-wiki dispute between two people and my userpage linked to by one of those parties. As Bellinghaus' own blog entry shows, the parts of the linked web page that you picked out as offensive are factual. I don't think that it is accurate to characterise Berry's site as an attack page, nor is it reasonable to expect that any external site will follow WP policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External sites can follow whatever policies they want, but users on this site have to follow wikipedia policies. That is a requiring of having the privilege of editing here, and that is why one of the individuals involved in this dispute has been blocked from this site. It is not appropriate for a user page to direct people to extreme accusations in a vicious blog war. As you don't seem to be willing to take the link off, I am making a proposal that it is removed regardless. Ty 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated at the very beginning of this pointlessly long thread, I am perfectly willing to remove the link of there is consensus for me to do so. Despite John's constantly shifting reasons for deleting the link and your assertion that this is in violation of WP:BLP, I don't believe that I am in violation of any WP policy and I don't see any consensus for removal of the link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To date those asking for removal are John, Jayron32, Scott MacDonald, Tyrenius. The only clear supporter (in English) of this link is BMW. It's quite obvious that the consensus is that it is not appropriate. Ty 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I took Scott MacDonald's comments as a request to reduce unnecessary drama, and I think I addressed Jayron32's concerns about WP:USER#NOT earlier in this thread. NE2's statement is pretty clearly against removal. I don't know how to take Badger Drink's comments. BMW also finds that no consensus has been reached. You and John have dominated this thread. Given that both of you have been involved with Bellinghaus' bio and have off-wiki communication with Bellinghaus, I question your neutrality in this matter.I think I've said everything I need to say here and I'm tired of repeating myself, so my only request is that someone other than you or John remove the link if they decide that there is consensus to do so. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my 10c worth as owner of the site pointed to from DC's page is this: since both Ty and John are in contact with Bellinghaus could they possibly suggest he could solve his own problems by removing HIS accusations on his blog?[54] I know its almost too simple a solution to consider. Then DC I am sure would have no problem removing the link, the same as I would have no problem with taking down the page itself referring to this wiki dispute. I have to say there is nothing attacking in my page, (Ty said "vicious" - I am really confused about that, as I think that word applies in a "Godzilla-like" way to the above link on the Bellinghaus site about myself). At most, there a little sarcasm on my page, which outlines my looking into the reason for the phonecalls etc. I don't see how it can be viewed as "accusatory" either, as it simply reproduces "on record" wiki conversations between myself and DC including Bellinghaus's own words. Accusations? I am not accusing him of making a threatening phone call, it actually happened and you can hear a recording of it on my page. Yes the text is somewhat damning - yes, the text gives a very bad impression of Bellinghaus - but he authored it and admitted his wiki ids! He is the author of his own bannings all over the net. No, the page is an explanation for anyone catching a very bad impression of DC and myself via highly critical and incorrect information on Bellinghaus blogs.

Furthermore, I dare not communicate with Bellinghaus myself, as anything I could possibly say (and I tried total understanding and kindness, believe me) will be twisted against me and reproduced a 100 times on various blogs.

On another note; Ty and John are worried about threats of Wikipedia being sued, rest assured Mark's threats are simply that. I have heard all that before (as can you if you listen to the recordings on my site). Now a question: is the threat of a lawsuit an actual threat? i.e. an empty lawsuit threat is simply a tool of intimidation, thus a threat, is it not . . . . ? Restawhile (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Restawhile. If you read upthread a few posts you will see that Mark Bellinghaus and I are no longer in contact with one another as a result of some highly abusive emails he has sent to me and Tyrenius, accusing us of both being one and the same and also being someone who he has been in conflict with, so the idea of me or Ty asking him to do anything like that is out of the question. Let me also clarify that I have no interest whatsoever in your blog, Bellinghaus's blog or any other blog. My interest has only ever been in removing this offending material from Wikipedia. Once that is done the matter is concluded for me. Furthermore BLP is not entirely predicated on the likelihood of a user actually filing suit against the Wikimedia Foundation, but simply in preventing harm to living people. However ironic it may seem after MB's abusive behavior, I remain committed to correcting this situation on-wiki. --John (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that John or I are not neutral because we have received emails from MB to be absurd, unless it means we are biased against MB, which I don't think is what was intended. I mean, DC, please actually read the post you are answering: it describes the emails received as "what I can only describe as the most abusive communication I have ever received in my life". So I am under no illusion about the nature of the aggravation involved. But it has no place on wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia. WP:BLP mandates that no contentious material about living people has any place on the project, unless it is properly referenced by reliable sources, not personal interpretations of the blogosphere. That includes links on wikipedia which go to such material. Find acceptable sources which think it is a sufficiently important matter, and then it can go in the article. Until such time, wikipedia does not provide space to promote it. Ty 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "basic human dignity" goes both ways: if someone's pointing people to a user page, saying that user is someone, that user should be able to deny that. And for everyone that says BLP requires removal of links such as this: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statement, March 1st, 2008 --NE2 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an objection to a simple statement of denial (especially as the RL person mentioned is supportive). It's the link that is problematic. The linked page had an extremely inflamatory heading, which has now been toned down, so it is an unpredictable page (just the reason blogs are steered clear of), but essentially geared to negative information about a third party. Jimbo's statement is not criticising a third party: it is defending his own actions and relationship to wikipedia. Had there been a litany of Rachel Marsden's perceived flaws, it would have been received very differently. Ty 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

John apparently has a problem with more than just the link. --NE2 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The diff shows him removing the link(s). If you mean he removed the user box as well as the link in it, well, that's just nit-picking, and is not going to help reach a solution, which seems to be evolving further down the discussion. Ty 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems a highly tenuous connection for you to make for two reasons. One is that the Jimbo sex scandal was a major gossip story back in March, placing it in a different class entirely from these people bickering over who said what about Marilyn Monroe's dress. The other is that while people half-jokingly refer to Jimmy Wales as a god-king, we all know that he does not create policy or precedent by his actions.--John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how someone's user page can be considered part of the building of the encyclopedia, its simply a user page, of no consequence to actual articles on wiki Restawhile (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, BLP does apply everywhere, including user pages. The question is whether it applies to this statement and link. --NE2 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess Jimbo Wales is in trouble too. I am for the general consensus bearing the weight of decision. If my vote counts, I say "keep". However, I didn't ask DC to link to my site and am well used to my stalker, so I don't really mind what happens here. I do however, thank DC, if chivalry was behind the linking, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about my real name and his/her user name forever being linked on the internet in such a negative way.Restawhile (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to make a signed statement on DC's page that there is no evidence that DC is Pauline Berry and all the evidence indicates that (s)he is not, and that DC is a respected editor on wikipedia. If some other editors provided something similar, it would be immediately informative to anyone going to the user page, having read about it elsewhere in a negative way. Ty 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great solution to me. Perhaps mention there is no isp number in common? Restawhile (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I too would be happy with this solution. Far better than linking to an attack blog out of some misguided sense of equal time. Wikipedia is not here to provide equal time or to address perceived wrongs off-site. --John (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what people's IP addresses are, but for the rest I have the evidence of my own eyes. Ty 06:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert move from userspace into mainspace

Resolved

 – The page move has been reverted by an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin move Patrick Slider back to User:Autodesigner, including talk? The editor moved his or her user page into mainspace (actually moved it twice, since originally the move was to Autodesigner with a subsequent move+redirect), and now it can't be moved back to that user without admin rights. Incidentally, if there is a specific report page or tag for this type of situation besides AN/I, I would be interested in learning of it, since I encounter this situation every so often. Wikipedia:Requested moves doesn't really fit. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, but I'm more concerned about what he's planning on doing with his user page. Language like "you can browse through photos, view my discussions, and more" plus email him if someone edits it tells me he probably doesn't understand what Wikipedia is about. PicJungle ("to be completed in January 2009") also looks to be a WP:COI problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PicJungle PRODded, I will AfD if necessary. — neuro^(talk) 11:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear CSD#A7 (web). Gone. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple moves can be undone without administrator intervention by rolling back each of the moves in reverse order. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The way he is using his user page seems unacceptable - he's using it like a Myspace page or a blog. His only edits are to his userpage or PicJungle. dougweller (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly belongs at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't undo moves if there's been intervening changes, as was the case here. I tried moving back in order and it failed, as I had expected. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An admin has now undone the move properly. The content of this editor's user page is tolerable, in my view. Anyone who wants to propose it for MfD is welcome to do so, but I see nothing further for us to do in this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I put up a welcoming template on his talk page. Hopefully he can use the links to better understand what WP is about.--Adam in MO Talk 10:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of Baby P

Concerning the death of Baby P, there is a British ruling protecting the names of the baby and two of the adults convicted of his murder. On the talk page, it has been pointed out that this is primarily to protect Baby P's siblings. Nevertheless, the names of those involved are available on the Internet if you search hard enough. Various editors have put the names in, but have been reverted and there is some discussion on the talk page indicating that this is the preferred state for the article.

It has been suggested on the talk page that the edits naming the people involved be deleted entirely - otherwise it's pointless reverting since the information is still easily visible.

I don't know what the right thing to do here is. Legally, Wikipedia is probably safe. Out of respect for the decision of the British courts and in the interests of protecting these individuals, I wanted to raise the issue here to see if administrators believe deleting parts of the history is the right thing to do. GDallimore (Talk) 10:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Legally wikipedia doesn't have to do anything. (Although British editors should take care!) However, our "do no harm" rule comes in here. The law is passed to prevent harm to minors, by reducing the prominence of their names in print. (A prominence that will endure into adulthood!). Given the intent of the law, the possibility of harm to minors, and the fact that the names add little to the reader's appreciation of the case and its significance, then all such names should be expunged from wikipedia pages.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting that you comment about British editors - it was something that also occured to me. I could say that I have an onus and duty to uphold the court's decision and should remove the material on that basis irregardless of consensus or 3RR! But I can't delete it entirely, which is why I've come here. The "do no harm" is a policy I can agree with without any hint of sarcasm and wonder if that's enough to scrub the edit history. I can do the work in finding the diffs if required of me. GDallimore (Talk) 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They have all been oversighted, and I am leaving the user a note now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind. There are other examples in the edit history. Would you like me to go back over it and provide you with the diffs? Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have got one more oversighted, and added a commented warning. — neuro^(talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, if one person could please email the list of diffs (any/all that contain the names) to the list mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, that would be great.

Also, we have the ability to add notice when a specific page is edited - could someone create one of those for this article, informing the would-be editor that these names are being systematically reverted by editors, and oversighters are removing the edits. Note that semi-protection isnt likely to be effective - it is also regular contributors who are adding the names. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that semi-protection still could be more effective than nothing at all. I will add the edit notice if necessary, but for now I would think that the standard comment warning will suffice. Naturally, if someone feels different, the page is at the /Editnotice subpage. — neuro^(talk) 12:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that the decision of the British courts was made to "protect the children" however I am not quite agreeing with this decision, especially as the talk page seems barren of any real discussions of concensus apart from some randomly placed yells of wikipedia is not cneosred. It brings to mind Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required where the opposite decision to this one was reached on a similar case. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This case is a unique situation, and requires a sui generis solution. It is certainly within the spirit of the relevent policies, such as WP:BLP, to do no harm. While this situation may not be covered within the text of any policy, this is an WP:IAR case in the sense that what is best for the encyclopedia is to avoid propagating harm against individuals who themselves did nothing to deserve it. I endorse the removal and oversight of their names; and feel that there is no value to the information being added to the article. I am not bothered by the lack of policy guidance in how to proceed here; common sense says that removal is the right move... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More diffs should they wish to be oversighted. I think you got the rest. Thanks:

• information added [55], some info removed [56], rest of info removed [57]
• on talk page [58], removed here [59]
• another one [60], removed here [61]
• new one [62], removed here [63]

As for the comment about lack of discussion on the talk page, yes, there wasn't much, but it seemed pretty clear to me that the prospective harm outweighed the insignificant benefits. I also wanted to take discussion away from the talk page to an arena that was more likely to be neutral - ie here. Also, the names will doubtless be released in time and they can be added then. GDallimore (Talk) 13:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, there is a guideline that is relevant to the mother and her partner: Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_names

How widely disseminated are the names? Appearances in news sources or on blogs/forums? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it matters much, but it's apparently on some blogs and also on Myspace (I'm told). The BBC did publish the names, but then took the report down although it can still be found through google if you're really desperate. A paper referred to as "gutter press" published the names. Can't recall the details. That's about all I know based on the article history. GDallimore (Talk) 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

break

Interestingly, 3 days (or so) ago I admin deleted a few revisions mentioning the names and emailed oversight. Theresa mailed back saying oversight had been refused on the basis that the Daily Express had published the name and she supplied this link to an online copy of the story. I figured I had just overreacted. However, I notice that the edits I deleted have now been oversighted, some time in the last 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Call me a moralistic ass, but I'd like us to aim at higher ethics than the Express.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and I'm in agreement that the names should be left out, at least for the present. I only brought it up to illustrate two points: that oversight can be fickle and that the legal position in the UK (relevant for British editors) may not be clear cut. CIreland (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am a cretin; the edits weren't oversighted, the page got moved. CIreland (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Express article was from the first day the "trio" appeared in court and is therefore likely to be before the court secrecy order. If the fact that this article is still on their website were brough to their attention, the Express might actually remove it, as the BBC did with their similar article. GDallimore (Talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the Daily Telegraph (which is a considerably more reliable source) also published the names at the time of the trial. – iridescent 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actioned all the outstanding oversight requests for this article. I believe it is within policy due to the court order that Baby P should remain pseudonymous. However, I havent oversighted when there are too many diffs between the introduction and removal of the information (i.e. there is an editorial reason to keep the diffs). Editors have been firm in reverting this information being added to the article, and one other more experienced oversighter acted on a request for oversight on this issue.

I think the court order came into effect after those news sources went to print. Are overseas sources covering this? Are they disregarding the British court order? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for curiosities sake, what does the government hope retracting their names will protect them from? The accused are the parents and a guy living in the house.. I'm pretty sure they all know the names of the other siblings...--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The court would be seeking to protect the siblings from ridicule and harassment. They'll be in care or fostered and may be subject to undue interest (eg bullying) from other children in the children's home, at school or in the street, or from adults or the press. The protection order should cut down on this. Wikipedia isn't obliged to obey the order, but I don't think there's any harm in voluntarily following it and practicing some self-censorship when we're dealing with the ruined lives of minors. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, the police are investigating a number of websites which may have breached the order, see the BBC [64]. Redvers is right, the court is seeking to protect the siblings of the dead child, and possibly members of his extended family. I do not see that adding the names of the two adults concerned to our articles would add anything encyclopædic, but I do believe it would increase the risk of harm, to the surviving family members. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing abuse and attacks by Libro0 keeps getting ignored: I demand action!

I demand an investigation of Libro0's actions, pattern of uncivil behavior, and frankly and apology from him. If he was polite and civil to begin with we would not have this sort of mess. He needs to be penalized for his actions and not defended. He intimidates those who disagree with him. He attacks in a textbook passive aggressive way, which those who aren't familiar with how passive aggressive people act would dismiss as normal. I have tried to bring his behavior to light, especially his attacks, often done in a passive aggressive manner to light several times, but it has fallen on deaf ears [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. Here are some examples of his false allegations including the first and the second in a series of false sockpuppet alegations. Then there is this exchange where he eventually issues me an ultimatium -[70] [71]. There is more. Can't something finally be done or will this rouge be allowed to continue his bad behavior and waste the community's time dealing with the mess he creates? My guess is no. How about you step up to the plate and take some action? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nice to see you are polite, civil, and non-aggressive. On your user page you've told us all to 'go to hell'. I won't be going there, but I'm certainly not going to spend time looking into your 'demand'. I'm not your servant. dougweller (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, "demanding action" will get you nowhere. I will draw admins attention to User_talk:Libro0, User_talk:Your_Radio_Enemy and User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy to see the oh-so-fun background. ►BMW◄ 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If you can't resolve it by consensus on the talkpages, then I recommend mediation (see WP:DR) between the 3 of you. There's nothing that requires immediate administrator action that I can see. ►BMW◄ 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I demand that everyone who edits this page gives me $1,000,000. I suspect we're going to get the same response...except my demand might not be received with an understandable eye-roll.

        Seriously. "I demand" is like the Godwin's Law of AN/I--the minute you invoke it, you've totally outweighed any perfectly-reasonable point you were making by the sheer tantrum-esque-ness of the WAY you chose to make it. If you raised the point before and didn't get the answer you were looking for--hey, it happens to all of us. Try again, CIVILLY, and maybe you'll get a better outcome. But I can well-nigh guarantee that "I demand" won't get you there.GJC 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

        • Plus, if it was "ignored" the first time(s) it was brought up, then nobody here must have agreed with this being a situation that required immediate intervention ►BMW◄ 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
        • It's the Majikthise–Vroomfondel Law. I demand that I am Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Phew. I thought "Your Radio Enemy" was talking to me there for a minute. I demand that I may or may not be SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is simply impossible for anyone here to imagine how utterly crushed I am that I didn't come up with that reference. I will be under the bed crying if anyone needs me.GJC 22:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How about you step up to the plate and take the action suggested by user:Bwilkins? I demand...lol. Shnitzled (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ForesticPig

I've been looking at this user for a couple of days now, and I can't for the life of me figure out what to do, so I'm bringing it here for some opinions. The userpage of ForesticPig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggests this is an alternate account of an administrator. CU is showing that the account is using anonymising proxies to edit so the data is useless in figuring out if this is actually an administrator. My concern with the account is that it's editing in a highly contentious area (pedophilia/child abuse) and getting involved in big debates on the article talk pages. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as saying that ForesticPig is a pro-pedophilia editor, I do get the impression that his POV swings towards that direction. My personal opinion is that this would go against WP:SOCK because the user is using an alternate account to evade scrutiny on his main account. The Privatemusings RfArb had this principle which would also seem to suggest that what ForesticPig is doing is against policy. I'm inclined to block the account, but I'd appreciate some more opinions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to use another account for contentious articles, for instance there have been problems with aggro writings on other sites over these articles. There are separate sanctions on the paedo articles though which he could fall under if he becomes/is too pro-paedo though, aren't there? Sticky Parkin 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that using these other accounts that mean scrutiny is evaded was a big no no. The thing is, I'm not sure his edits completely cross the line to sanction him for pro-pedopdilia editing - I think there is a minor POV problem, but it's small fish compared to some of the other editors. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously my concern is that he is not an admin and faking it on his userpage to avoid being blocked. I have been in email communication with him and would urge that we hold off blocking for another day or so until he can verify to a third party the identity of his primary account. Obviously if this sock is being disruptive, knowing both accounts would help in that both should be blocked. MBisanz ^talk 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As a further comment on policy, if their other account is linked or traceable to their RL identity, then using an alternate account to edit particularly contentious articles would be OK. The best course of action I can see is for ForesticPig to register their main and alternate accounts with ArbCom through the mailing list. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig

I comment here, having been contacted by Ryan himself - and having already been in discussion with Matthew concerning the secure, private verification of my account via another administrator (who appears to be on leave, but may still comment). I would like to stress that disclosing my ownership of another account - specifically a sysop account, is intended to be an assurance of good faith. If, however - it is working in the opposite direction, I will be happy to remove said disclosure until someone can securely verify it (I would rather remove the disclosure than expose myself to arbcom or any other authority). If the arbcom itself concludes that my disclosure is inappropriate, then fine - I'll do away with it. I can see how it could lead to certain suspicions concerning my use of an anonymous (SOCK:LEGIT) account.

I would just like to specify that the IP I am using is not what would traditionally be called an "anonymising proxy". It can be verified as a normal ISP-linked account IP. I would also like clarification from Ryan, concerning what he sees as a "POV problem". Whilst my editing often focuses on Sexology, and fringe sexology at that, it has always attempted to correct biases and flaws that are present. This is the nature, it would seem - of an anonymous account for editing such articles. It would be useful if Ryan could provide a few diffs to support his contention.

Attention should also be paid to the possibility that this kind of discussion/block could damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Without a balanced approach to editing fringe topics, we are likely to attract extremists - fair gain for the vigilance groups and journalists who are already tracking this issue as it develops. In light of this, it would be useful if I were just allowed to go on demonstrating without undue alarm, that not every article involving one or more of Children, Sex and Trauma need be reduced to a talk-show rant (the likely perception engendered by censoring the kind of work I do with ForesticPig). forestPIG^(grunt) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

Um.. [72] [73] forestPIG^(grunt) 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was requested via email to confirm that ForesticPig belongs to an administrator. (Sorry for the delay, I don't check that address often...) This is the case. I am personally acquainted with the account's operator. Sade 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, can you also confirm whether or not you think that this alternate account is being used in line with the WP:SOCK#LEGIT policy? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just to clarify, the reasons I cite for the use of this account are:

• Avoid linking alternate locations I edit from, in light of security concerns.
• Avoid linking the PI associated with my main account with my work on psychology/sexology/race articles and other articles that may be used to maliciously and unreasonably infer conclusions about my personality. The protection offered by the account is also family-related. It is not an attempt to escape justifiable scrutiny towards the work in and of itself. There would tend to be more attention paid to the edits of an account with a narrower focus. forestPIG^(grunt) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Policy Changes Behind Our Backs....

Resolved

 – Refinement of the guideline instruction resolved this dispute. Modocc (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

and with no discussion or consensus to back them up. Although there is a disclaimer at the top of the policy page that ends with..Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. This disclaimer seems to have been ignored. I tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but only one editor left one comment. These are the edits that were made to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). [First] [Second] [Third] [Fourth]. These edits are a change in policy, without consensus or a discussion. What has happend is that the policy was changed to reflect the [template]. Is there a precident for that? Further more, the template was changed [here] over a year ago, by a user who had no consensus, no discussion, and no authority to to so. Should we change policy based on a unauthorized template? I may just be pulling at the bit here, but it all seems a bit strange how this has all happened.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand. I would say you should just accept that he is being WP:BOLD and begin the cycle of bold, revert, discuss. If he insists or edit wars over the reversion, then there is some "incident". However, absent behavior like that, it is ok for most policies to be changes slightly without discussion beforehand. Let's say (for an example) that the changes made were uncontroversial--simply making the changes and waiting for reversion would be MUCH easier than proposing them, ensuring that no one had objections, then making the changes. If I am missing something about this, please let me know. Protonk (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are not changes in policy, they're changes in wording. I made the initial change because someone was pointing to that page as a guideline on person infoboxes, and it occurred to me that a person is not an "item". Then someone pointed out (and added to the writeup) that there is a separate infobox for persons. And so on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness Baseball bugs, your edit was what I would consider the least controversial and in good faith. They were made in good faith. I only added it here to show the progression of the policy change. That being said, the second edit is what I would consider the most controversial, based on the fact that the user decided that the template for persons must somehow trump the actual policy. That user may not like it, but I may have to remove that part, and then fix the template to fall in line with the policy. I was hoping to get more guidance before I did so, but WP:BRD, here I come.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, someone needs to 'splain just what the bleep is going on here. You changed it back to the way I had it, and now someone has put "item" back, based on some argument that doesn't make sense. So tell me - is, or is not, that infobox supposed to be used for people? If it is, then "item" is offensive, or at least confusing. If not, then what infobox are they supposed to use? If it's another one, why not state it in that writeup? P.S. This is why I usually don't bother messing around with infoboxes, categories, etc. - they are shifting sand, and not worth the effort they cause. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I changed it back to the version that baseball bugs did. That was the last change made that did not actually change policy. It only clarified it. The other changes actually took the policy in another direction, then used the template as an explanation for the change. That never made sense to me. I researched the template's history and found that it was also changed last year without any discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:131.247.244.234

The above IP continually removes sourced information from the Taurus article because it is "sexist". Numerous editors have reverted him, including myself. I have given him a final warning several times and encouraged him to take the issue to the talk page, but he simply won't. Please assist by either blocking the IP or protecting the page. Cheers. — Realist² 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've given them a 3RR warning, if they revert one more time contact me and I'll block them for long-term edit warring. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. — Realist² 03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The address is the University of South Florida, I've added the appropriate template, so they can get a schoolblock. dougweller (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

...which amuses me, since their mascot is the Bulls. shoy (reactions) 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:75.49.223.52

How long do User:75.49.223.52's attacks on another editor get to remain here? This user is not here to be productive. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks from here like he's blocked now, on the way to being banned, and the stuff on his talkpage (Am I right that that's what you're referring to??) remains only as part of an ongoing discussion. It ain't pretty, I'm with you there, but it may fall under the category of "giving him enough rope with which to hang himself". GJC 09:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's the stuff on his talk page. His ranting and attacking there has nothing to do with trying to be unblocked, and all to do with giving him a forum to continue his attacks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See thread above, #Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless his Talk page is blocked, banning him does no good, since he still has an outlet for his attacks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about indef blocked user, and editing anonymously

Resolved

 – IP blocked 1 month

I was under the impression that when a user was blocked indef, that the block would even apply to them if they began editing anonymously? Well, not that the block applies, I realize that the block doesn't follow the named account to an IP, but the concept applies: an indef blocked user is effectively banned, and editing as an IP is attempting to evade blocks.

Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) was indef blocked, created several socks, which were blocked. He recently came back as Special:Contributions/76.167.244.204, which was blocked several times in increasing duration.

Now that the block expired, he is back, doing the same basic thing. Moleman was very militant about adding YouTube poop to articles, and the now-unblocked IP of Moleman continues [74]. The contribs of the IP give me no reason to beleive that this IP is no longer assigned to Moleman, and that the IP editing is Moleman. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SSP and WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So even tho this is a known IP of the blocked user, I should still go thru the sock reporting procedure? Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I took care of it. In the future, should this re-arise, SSP is an appropriate venue to take this; however there is no need to jump through the hoops for such obvious socks. The "investgation" took me all of 2 minutes to verify via the WP:DUCK test that this was Moleman 9000. If he wants to edit, he can request an unblock on his main account or contact arbcom. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I did file an SSP, so if anyone wants to archive it, feel free. I have no doubt that once the current block wears off, he'll be back. If you look at the IP, and the blocked socks, he's pretty persistent, and there's no apparent reason to think otherwise in this case. He's had the same IP for over a month, which has never been used by anyone other than him. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The SSP report is at WP:Suspected sock puppets/Moleman 9000. For a previous report that mentions the same editor, see WP:Suspected sock puppets/Particleman24. The common theme is 'YouTube Poop.' Blocks have been issued; nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Starczamora

Resolved

 – Wynchard Bloom has been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of Gerald Gonzalez, per the SSP Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gerald Gonzalez. Sarah 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He keeps on vandalizing my userpage almost 7 times. he suspect me as a sock which is not true. I'm complaining on this user. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gerald Gonzalez. I'll also notify Starczamora.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying him so that he'll stop doing these disruptive things to me which i dont really know. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Angel Locsin currently has four images that you present as your own work, Wynchard Bloom. At least one is an obvious copyvio up for deletion, and the other three, frankly, don't give me a ton of confidence that you actually took the pictures with your own camera, as you assert. I'm not surprised other users, like Starczamora, feel the same way. Darkspots (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I swear to you that Its really my own work.Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just adding "My own work" on the infobox for images says very little on how it became your own work. For instance, did you personally took the photographs as Angel Locsin's oficial photographer? Or, as what sometimes happen to other photos that later become deleted, did you download it from a website and uploaded it on Wikipedia and then, by virtue of you personally uploading the photo, claim it as "My own work"? Or at least, have you tried providing a reasonable fair use rationale for uploading the photo on WIkipedia in case you weren't the photo's original creator? --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to revisit your personal definition of "vandalism". There is, as noted above, a Sockpuppet case that involves your userid. Placing a "suspected sock" tag on your userpage is therefore a valid action. If proven that it's NOT true, it can be removed. Could you please provide diffs of actual vandalism to your userpage? Thanks. ►BMW◄ 12:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I actually reported about sockpuppets of Gerald Gonzalez, who has a history of beautifying articles related to ABS-CBN, especially about Angel Locsin whom Gerald claimed as his cousin. User:Wynchard Bloom also claims to be a cousin of Locsin, and also exhibited patterns that are similar to the puppet master such as:

• Uploading copyvio images taken from Flickr into Commons, and claim it as his/ her own.
• Harassing Wikipedians who do not agree with his "style" of editing, calling them "insane" (as seen in here, told by a previously banned sockpuppet; and here, as said by Wynchard himself/ herself). Not to mention when he/ she added a sockpuppet tag on my own userpage (saying in the edit summary "if you are not a sock then prove it" to that effect), suspecting me as a puppet of Gerald whom I have reported.

I find his actions immature, narrow-minded, and definitely UNFIT to be a Wikipedian. Starczamora (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but Its really just normal to improved many articles including Filipino related articles including actors, film, tv series ect. About Angel Locsin, well she's famous and many loves her, well theres no doubt that many wikipedians are interested to make her article good, but only you is against her, well i dont care. If my works are the same or related to your boyfriend, i mean to a sock you suspect that its me, well i dont really dont know about that. It just only happened because i'm a celebrity fanatic who wants to edit showbiz related articles. And dont tell to everybody that my uploaded images were copybio because its really my own work and you have no right to say it because you have no proff. Excuse me Starczamora but i never harassed you? huh! And I'm not that wikipedian to harrased to a fanboy and a desperate wikipedian who hate my cousin, Angel Locsin too much. I've mensioned that Im a cousin of Locsin which is true and why are you complaining, are you only just insecure or envious with me? I also put sock tag on your userpage because you deserve it, you almost put sock tags 7 times on my userpage. Because you're blaming me as a sock which is not true. And last I'm not totally immature, im just immature to the animal i mean person who's most immature wikipedian. Ive ever known. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud WB, you're in a forum full of admins and you're tossing out incivilities towards another editor like candy from a Santa Claus parade float. Tone it down if you a) expect any positive light on your complaint and b) don't have a Wikibreakwish ►BMW◄ 12:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Too long, and I do not bother to read it. Besides, it is an obvious flamebait as you posted that same message on three different pages. (including my userpage and that of an administrator who banned you in the first place. Starczamora (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Unfit to be a Wikipedian" is a little harsh. The ACTIONS and EDITS of the person are unfit for Wikipedia, but WP:NPA says don't attack the editor. Everyone has something to add to Wikipedia, but only if they follow the rules/processes. ►BMW◄ 15:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I know his comment about Wynchard is a little harsh, but I also observed that behaviour, too. His patterns seem to be suspicious, and so he decided to tag him as a Gerald sock. It's also true that Wynchard also acted rather uncivil and called some other editors names (either by using derogatory words or something). I guess it's normal for him (and also me), to vent out especially when dealing with fanboys and persistent socks, but we don't really want to bash or trash-talk at other people here, it's just that the socks seem to be the fire-starter sometimes. Blake Gripling (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blake, you're my friend and I believe on you but I'm really not the sock that this immature user thinks on me! Cheers Blake. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) @Blake: That doesn't still detract from the fact that the argument between starczamora and wynchard started on a dispute about copyright violation and also on a potential conflict of interest issue...per Wynchard's own admission (see [75]) and per starczamora's finding out that the name of the uploader shares the same real-life surname as the real Angel Locsin (see [76]; also, the said name does appear in the disputed image page). True, there are issues about incivility between both users, but that doesn't mean we should ignore this other issue that started their argument. In my opinion, that should also be inevstigated as well, and keeping that in mind, I think that a checkuser should also be performed on both the Gerald Gonzales and Wynchard's account, just to resolve the issue that these accounts aren't sockpuppets. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I found the original source of the disputed image which featured Angel Locsin riding on horseback in Bukidnon. It was allegedly taken by a fan of Locsin, as testified here:

thanks to my sisters (from gelos) of pex (or PinoyExchange.com) ......i got the chance to visit and see gelo on the set of their movie 'land down under' in bukidnon..spent 3days there...

(Note that "Gelos" refers to the Locsin and Piolo Pascual "loveteam," much like Brangelina. Meanwhile, the "sisters" refer to the people who belonged in the same fan club as the photographer.)

We can assume that such testimonial would not be written by a relative of Locsin. We can also assume that the person who uploaded the image on Wikipedia is not a cousin of Locsin as claimed. Starczamora (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious copyright concerns, input requested

• User:Chrisieboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Following up a note at WT:CP, I've developed serious concerns about the contributions of this user, some of which have made the front page. He several times restored material to Anglia Regional Co-operative Society after it was removed, with explanation, by another user. The article does duplicate text from the identified and several other sources. I then found he had received and removed a CorenBot notice about London Pensions Fund Authority (also removing it from the listing at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations). (It still contains duplicative text and has been blanked.) Now I find that his DYK article Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England is at least in good part a direct paste from a "for purchase" student essay, here. (Internet archives confirm that they published well before we did, here.) I think his other contributions need investigation. I bring the matter here both because of its severity and because the contributor seems to think my investigation is a personal vendetta. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can add UIA (Insurance) as another cut-and-paste job by him. You're in the right here - these are obvious copyvios and I simply don't believe his wikilawyering over the precise definition of plagiarism and copyright. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned the user, and will block without further warning should they persist in either restoring removed copyvios or introducing more copyvio material. Ignorance of our copyright restrictions is excusable, but quibbling over the details once they've been pointed out and removing a notice from WP:SCV is not. Thank you for catching this. EyeSerene^talk 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Hopefully your input and that of Doug Weller at my talk page will help underscore the seriousness of copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It might interest people to know that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this - back in January this year he tried to get me 3RR-blocked for reverting his addition of a non-free-use image without valid rationale - see here. More relevant would be the simultaneous discussion on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page (here in his archives), in which Chrisieboy tries hard to Wikilawyer us into believing he's right. It's crystal-clear that Chrisieboy has learnt nothing from this, and the observable trend is concerning - we have a serious copyright violator here. _TalkIslander 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, considering that The Co-operative Bank seems also to have been an infringement I cannot read the source, but the contributor who cleaned it is the one who brought the problem to WT:CP to begin with, and he has been correct with respect to other contributions, as when he cleaned District Bank. The contributor attempted to restore that, too. See here. His response to that contributor for restoring infringement to Anglia Regional seems illuminating: "Sorry, I thought (hoped) you had disappeared." I've been working on some other copyright concerns, but hope to have time to take a deeper look at some other contributions later. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that last message from Chrisieboy in you post is very concerning, to say the least... _TalkIslander 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed 2 or 3 lapses into cutting and pasting by Chrisieboy, that I cleaned up one by one without disagreement. I hadn't wished to trawl through all his contributions, so after inviting Moonriddengirl's intervention, I am surprised to learn that there are so many so early in the search, and surprised that his perception of free content has lasted so long.

He is a serious contributor, and has a featured article to his name (much more than I have) and I have dealt with him cordially in the past. I notice that he has done little editing in the last two weeks, and I sincerely hope that he acts to de-escalate things, and we can look forward to more of his very useful contributions here.

Oh, by the way, I can't read the source for the possible copyvio at The Co-operative Bank either. However, Google Scholar seems pretty certain that the text I deleted came from that 1996 article. Chrisieboy did not contest my deletion there.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have been the very model of civility in this. :) Good contributions can balance well against a lot of concerns, but persistent copyright infringement is not among them. In my opinion, on the contrary, copyright problems are even more worrisome with a prolific and dedicated contributor, since we do run the risk that copyright violations will work their way into what should be Wikipedia's best content. I hope that this contributor has simply misunderstood the policies and laws in question and that there won't be any further infringement, but his defensiveness in response to these concerns (including in the initial article's talk page, on my talk page and in response to the issues raised by TheIslander above) and his removal of the matter from WP:SCV does concern me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Personally I'd like to have some kind of assurance from Chrisieboy that he now understands the issues and won't be repeating them. In the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off, I think future contributions will also need to be monitored, and to protect Wikipedia the account should be blocked at the first sign of any new problems. As Moonriddengirl has pointed out, a good contribution history often does result in the odd hiccup being overlooked, but copyright violation could have consequences for Wikipedia as a whole and we have no option but to take this very seriously. If we don't get these reassurances as to future behaviour, but editing continues, I'd suggest perhaps blocking the account until we do. EyeSerene^talk 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Chrisieboy to come, take a look at and comment on this thread - hopefully he will, and if so, we'll take it from there. _TalkIslander 12:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

request for comment

Could someone please comment on whether these edits are appropriate:

• revert of recent additions to RfC page
• addition of "archive" tag to same page.

Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The above user has attempted to edit a case after it has been closed, as explained here that is why the page has been restored to the last good version. The above user has also been attempting to forum shop (edit disruptively) as described here in the pending RfC. Fnagaton 17:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Complainant is a single-purpose account ({contributions} {home page}) to promote the adoption of IEC prefixes: computer-related issue whereby Thunderbird2 would have Wikipedia using terms like “kibibytes (KiB)” instead of “kilobytes (KB)”. On WP:MOSNUM we went back to using the terminology observed by the rest of the real world. This editor refuses to get the point, won’t let it go, continually brings the issue up again and again (in what appears like the vain hope to catch WT:MOSNUM when we’re sleeping), is making a thorough pest of himself, and needs to be banned. The disruption he causes here (significant) far outweighs the value of his contributions (zero, since he is a single-purpose account). Greg L (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To come back to the original question, yes, the RfC was closed by (uninvolved) User:Ncmvocalist on September, 15th, so Fnagaton is correct. —Quilbert (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Quilbert, but I don't see any edits on the page dated 15 September. Where can I see that the case is closed? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible threat regarding images of Muhammad

There has been a signficant uptick lately in cases of people removing images from the Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Depictions of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) articles as well as those posting on the article talk pages requesting or demanding removal of the images. For the most part the activity is so minor and duplicative that it doesn't warrant much attention. Unfortunately, this morning somee made a posting which comes dangerously close to a threat. In particular, the comment "...we muslims don't give a rats ass whether your laws permit you to put up these pictures. Eventually we will get them reserved through peaceful or forceful means" grabs attention. Being that the only posting this user, CapTa1n Half (talk · contribs), has made I'm torn between sanctioning and ignoring. It is likely just typical blather, but it does still represent a stated threat against Wikipedia. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignore, and return images; this is on the level of "I'm going to hold my breath until you say you are sorry..!" I am also suspicious of the use of language by these "muslims" (they would, I should have thought, have capitalised the word) in that "rats ass" is no real insult or invective in such culture. I think this is trolling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the notion that a sincere follower of Islam posting in good faith would let slip an uncapitalized muslims in the same sentence as rats ass, much less in a posting having to do with Muhammad, is highly unlikely. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking. Not to stereotype or anything, but this rant just doesn't sound like the usual requests for image removal, which usually come in a more reverential-of-Muhammad style. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Extending what Gwen Gale wrote above, I would also add that WP:RBI comes to mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The next time someone states that images of Muhammad are not allowed in Islam, point out to them that Wikipedia is not Islam. The two are often confused. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question; could we revert the "remove the images!" requests from the talk page itself, and save everyone the trouble of pointing out the guidelines of censorship, etc...every time? Or was that in reference to just reverting the attempted removal of the images? Tarc (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We could put an editnotice on the article page linking to the FAQ that they could then ignore. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD assistance required

The article preacher's kid was nominated for deletion at the location Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid (2nd nomination). As there was no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid at the time, I moved the discussion there. However, I have now found the previous discussion, which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's Kid (note capitalisation). Should the page be moved back, capitalised and moved back, left where it is, or what? And can someone get all the links and listings straightened out? It would be much appreciated. Thanks, the skomorokh 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

These are different article spaces so I wouldn't move them about, else things could later be even harder to follow: Instead, make a note in the current AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the current AfD links to the previous one now at least. Thanks for the advice, the skomorokh 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's kid (2nd nomination) to free up space for possible later AfDs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

BNP members

At the British National Party talk page links to websites listing over 12,000 peoples names, addresses, telephone numbers have been posted can someone remove these and delete the history this is surely inappropriate. - dwc lr (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly inappropriate. Contact an oversignter. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 15:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to contact the BNP to inform the of the leak as well. May be a UK version of the "Privacy Act" violation. ►BMW◄ 15:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been headline news for two days, they are well aware of the leak at this stage... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oversight is pointless, just remove the links and report anybody who edit wars over it. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the link from the talk page; there are many comments between the introduction and removal of this link, which would all need to be removed if oversight was going to be used here. Obviously that is a lot of collateral damage. BNP will need to specifically request WMF that these revisions are expunged. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Questionable userpage?

Resolved

Let's not get carried away by jokes now... the content has been removed, carry on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the way Cmmmm's userpage has a link to Category:Muslim Wikipedians so close to his views that Islam is evil and violent. His comments about Jehovah's Witnesses being paedophiles also seems close to the line. I don't want to pick a fight by blanking the page though; perhaps I'm being too thin-skinned? Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Large sections of it certainly fail WP:SOAPBOX. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this kind of kooky ranting has no place here. I've blanked it and told the user why. Friday (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

He also can't spell. Although he may be under one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Careful Bugs! Some other very nasty editors are know for their poor spelling. Giano (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now you're intimitating me. "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Come see the violins inherent in the system! ►BMW◄ 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, now yer fiddlin' with me. Stringin' me along. But I won't fret none. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Move along and sing your sob song elsewhere---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are you calling a sob? Them's fightin' words, boy! You'll hear from my lawyer - Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga, of the firm Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and McCormick. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oooops WP:NLT, I have applied the necessary template to your userpage!!!!--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Scott, I would have indef blocked him for that, except it's clear Bugs is a WP:DOLT. Insert smiley face here --> :) <-- to avoid being templated or blocked for a personal attack --barneca (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest demand that Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) be indef blocked under WP:NLT unless he indicated that he has withdrawn his instructions to Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga, HHHH & McCormick. And can someone inform Mike Godwin?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All things considered, I would rather be "indefinitely" blocked than to be "definitely" blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Related to the above, there was a threat of violins above. Have the authorities been alerted?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone called the authorities, but nothing was done; they were too busy having sax. GJC 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried contacting someone at the Hungadunga office, but none of the Hungadungas were there. I spoke to McCormick, and he gave me some good a-spice. I wanted to challenge the defendant to a handball match, but my lawyer recommended an out-of-court settlement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I thought this was a serious attempt to indef block Baseball Bugs. I guess I have to go back to trying to get him blocked for having bad taste in baseball teams. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, haven't we Cubs fans suffered enough? We're lapping 100 years now. We've practically got our own Y2K problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

'You have balls. I like balls.' HalfShadow 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User page that needs attention

Resolved

O.K, this userpage is a little old, but it sends a bad message to new user's that may get in trouble for having personal info. here it is. It gives his name, town he lives in, and the worst of all, phone number! What should be done about this? SteelersFan94 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks, GDonato (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer at Kent Hovind

Resolved

Voicewr (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted a disclaimer into the Kent Hovind article claiming bias against creationists, Christians, etc. He is not responding to talkpage requests. Can someone please help. It has gone on a little too long. Aramgar (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours by User:Arthur Rubin. Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the article as well and don't see any major POV issues myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

 – Taken care of (for the moment at least). Kralizec! (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your kind attention at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is requested. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Suicidal Lemming

User was blocked for 24 hours, and appears to not get the point. In his comment to an admin here, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, he appears to be making threats in an odd Stewie Griffin monologish way, ie:"First off, I would like to say that if you do not consider my case and ignore it, as Harout foolishly did, I will simply revert to the edit war. Please, listen carefully."

Then he speaks endlessly about AC/DC being English and Australian, and closes with "I'm sorry to be so arrogant and demanding, but Harout's attitude towards the issue is very irritating, and the 1-day ban without any form of discussion was fairly annoying also. Please, respond swiftly. This is an issue that MUST be resolved."

I don't know if Cavary has seen this or not, but it appears the last block was insufficient, and I am betting an indef is in order. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Got to run, but it looks like they're starting in on Gene Simmons as well, and it's a slow edit-war on whether Simmons is American or Israeli (wouldn't it be Israeli-American?). Concur that a block may be in order, if only to prevent the threatened edit war. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any attempt to encourage this user to follow dispute resolution procedures? They certainly seem to make a good case for their preferred version of the content, and providing them with a venue to pursue the issue may also end the edit war, and coincidentally improve Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on their history, I expect they'll continue. I left a final warning before another block. I'll follow up with SheffieldSteel's advice on reminding them about WP:DR. --barneca (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked the merits of his arguments, since he was arguing them with threats and I don't edit those articles. He's been an editor since 2006 over 500 edits, people have approached him on his talk page, he was already blocked once, his contrib summaries show a complete disrespect for other people's opinions. I am trying not to read too much into this, but he is pretty consistant in his actions and attitudes if you read his talk comments on other issues. Example summary: Changed to Israeli again. It's very annoying that I have to keep doing this - please, just accept the facts. Lots of "just accept what I say as facts" going on and an open willingness to disregard common courtesy and Wikipedia policy. But hey, thats just what I am seeing. And by this I mean I don't think he is very interested in a 3rd opinion. Or a 2nd one. And he has been here long enough to know better. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So it's "my way or the highway" for this editor....well the highway might be a good start. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

--desperately tries to stop a "Highway to Hell" comment from bursting forth...fails--GJC 22:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

barneca is trying to reach him, but he keeps saying stuff like: it's a shame we have to be civil about ignorance and Well, thanks to ignorant users instigating an edit war (the ones you really should be talking to, by the way) and this is the to the admin who is warning him in the most kind of ways. Wow. I am not trying to be an ass here, but this guy sincerely appears to have "issues" when it comes to socialization. The more I read of his posts, the most it seems like the rest of the world are idiots in his eyes. Everyone. I have no idea if he is "right or wrong" as I can't seem to get passed the tone to get to the content. We shall see, but I just don't see this ending any other way. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(new) Right after barneca spoke to him, he had this to say to another editor. Including: Ignorance and stating opinions as fact are not the same thing. Please, learn to use the English language. as well as lol, now here's where your ignorance comes in. and Of COURSE it does. You are a fool for saying otherwise. Best to read the whole comment, which demonstrates the problem better than I can. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User evading block, seeking outside help in resolving

Resolved

 – The blocking admin doesn't see a problem, why should I?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• DrummerMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• See also [77] and [78]

Drummermike was blocked by User:Orangemike initially for spamming external links. Drummermike requested an unblock, which I granted in good faith, with Orangemike's blessing, since he appeared to sincerely want to edit again. However, upon being unblocked, Drummermike's first action was to vandalize Orangemike's userpage: [[79]]. I returned the block because of this. He has not yet apologized to Orangemike, or accounted for his actions with another unblock request at Drummermike's userpage. He has since edited via IP address 78.145.107.117 (talk · contribs) and has also created a new account: Trap The Drum Wonder (talk · contribs). He has never tried to hide his new identities.

Now here is where I am conflicted. I am willing to accept that this person wishes to edit constructively, however standard procedure dictates that he do so via the correct channels; that is he should request an unblock on the first account before being allowed to edit further. However, given that I am quite involved at this point, I am asking for other admins to comment and act in this case. Part of me is OK with letting the new account edit and let this all go, and part of me thinks that we shouldn't just allow these violations of procedure. I am REALLY on the fence here, so I am asking for any other admins who can comment and/or give guidance as to how to proceed. Please let me know what you all think, and make any comments you wish. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

the editor self identifies with being 14 years old - I don't think that we are going to get a great deal of maturity from a 14 yo (apologies and stuff) yet I also think that having such an editor contributing usefully is far better than causing a potential vandal. In this case I think WP:IAR might be invoked so that it is made clear this is an alternate account of a blocked editor, that any transgressions will be treated in this knowledge, but if they keep editing usefully then they are to be allowed to do so. I would like Orangemikes comments, he has always struck me as being reasonable and if he is content to allow this account to edit then I suggest we proceed as I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) A long while ago, I had a very similar situation: an edit warrior asked for a second chance, and when I unblocked his first act was to put a swastika on the talk page of the admin who blocked him. I reblocked indef. I recently became aware they're editing under a new name. Since there's no indication of edit warring or harassing the admin he harrassed before, I figure Wikipedia is reults oriented, not rules oriented, and ignored it. If they ever edit war or put up more swastikas, I can reblock immediately with no warnings.

If this user has stopped spamming, and is leaving OrangeMike alone, I'd be inclined to let it go. I know it's slightly trickier since he's left a couple of messages on your talk page, but that would still be my inclination. But if he spams even once, or bugs OrangeMike again, I'd reblock in a heartbeat. --barneca (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was kinda leaning that way anyways. I think I will IAR this as well; he seems to be doing NONE of the problems he was blocked for, and his new account has caused no problems. Thanks for the input. I think I will leave this guy alone for now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as 1) he isn't vandalizing, and 2) he isn't once again creating vanity pages about himself, his garage band, etc., I'm agreeable enough. (And thanx for the compliment, LessHeard vanU; I usually see myself denounced as an evialllll deletionist poopyhead [or worse].) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all he's saying is that you're a very reasonable eviallll deletionist poopyhead. --barneca (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion on this matter is that we're kinda undermining our own rules by not reblocking here. An indef block is an indef block. Failing to re-block him gives the clear message that "If you've done wrong, and have been indefinitely blocked for it, just come back with a new account and, so long as you behave, you'll be fine", in which case an indef block is no better than a finite block. Worse, in fact, because the user can dictate the length of the block by the length of time before they create their new account. _TalkIslander 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, consider that the blocking admin has raised no objections, I think the matter is largely closed. Yes, this is a dangerous precedant, and because we have allowed this user to edit, the sun will run dry, the earth will stop turning on its axis, and every nuclear bomb in the world will detonate at the same time. However, who cares. He's been a good user since, so we'll risk the end of world in allowing this user to continue... I consider the matter closed, given the thoughtful opinions of everyone above. Thanks for the help. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Srkris - Persistent uncivility, wikihounding and disruptive POV edits

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

---

I have read the arguments presented and my view is that unless both of you find a way to work together and without edit-warring or making comments on each others supposed motives, it will not end up well, resulting in either or both of you being eventually blocked for disruption. My advice: seek dispute resolution via WP:3O, or WP:RFCs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

---

User:Srkris has been:

• Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
• Uncivil edit comments
• Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
• Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
• Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And he continues,

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

• ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Wikipedia policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Wikipedia has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Wikipedia by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Wikipedia has been completely within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Wikipedia, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues here. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies.

Also, User:Dab(Dbachmann) recommending his 'newfound' invention, 'cool down' block, is immature and outright silly. I don't know why I should be blocked because User:Dab(Dbachmann) thinks that an edit war with a blatant POV troll with a miserable edit history in Wikipedia, requires also the other editor, with a two-year clean record, to be blocked for 'equality' reasons. I have heard of 'equality', but this is nuts! Maybe he thinks that one user has to be blocked for every troll who is blocked or warned.

User:Srkris is a classic example of someone getting away from all the hue and cry by cleverly posting an 'inactive' status message in his userpage while at the same time being hyper-active and removing ALL warning messages and hiding traces of his bad behavior by occasionally taking breaks from Wikipedia. All necessary information pertaining to his current behavior has been listed very clearly with diffs. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 10:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• And he continues, for the fifth consecutive day, to stalk me wherever I go. Also, please note that I understand the difference between edit wars and wikihounding. He continues it here, here again and also here. User:Srkris sneaking under the system of policies and guidelines and continuing to be a previously blocked five times, uncivil, wikihounding POV troll is, simply, just a problem with the system, seriously!! [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... this is not an easy one. We could make a case as per Dbachmann to give both users a nice break so that they can reconsider the way that they are interacting with each other and participating. OTOH, there is some disruption by Srkris that goes beyond the edit-warring between them, which may warrant a block. I will wait for further comments from other editors before acting on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not the angry user here and I don't need a 'cool-down' break for having reported this behavior here. If reporting such behavior would earn a block, it would only create an aversion towards the very purpose of having WP:ANI. Citing WP:BLOCK, "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. So I cannot be blocked 'solely' to cool me down. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption".

Now I am neither angry nor disruptive, but seeking action by reporting it here. User Srkris on the other hand is angry, disruptive, uncivil and is indulging in WP:HOUND. Blocking me, just because someone thinks that I should be, for a 'cool-down' effect would work exactly in favor of User Srkris who is stalking me to create a distaste and aversion towards Wikipedia. You'd succeed in helping him if you block me to 'cool' me down!!

Presenting or endorsing a case to block me, just to foster 'equality' is sheer nonsense. Please don't create an aversion towards WP:ANI, otherwise no one would report anything here owing to the fear of being 'blocked' just for reporting bad behaviour, since some admin might be trying to foster 'equality'. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 08:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User Srkris is involved in every single thing that WP:HOUND describes: "following another user around" accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. All this has been happening for over ten days, and for over a week after I have reported it here. I have listed ALL of them in the posts above this one. I request someone to look into this. Thanks. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 08:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn above is appealing to tradition when he wants me blocked just because I had been blocked here 2-3 years ago. Sudharsansn has been actively edit warring to push his biases intoSanskrit, List of languages by first written accounts and Indus Script; in spite of the warnings/notes he has received in the last 15 days from me and other editors/admins. I have been more active than the others in trying to stop his "agenda" and that makes Sudharsansn want me first "out of the way".

• In the Sanskrit article, he has been revert warring to push his bias, see 1,[80],3,4,[81],6,7,[82],9,10 and 11. Each time his reverts were undone by different editors such asme(multiple times),Dbachmann, an admin(multiple times),Bharatveer andJazzmand(multiple times).Sudharsansn becomes irate and calls us a group of vandals, indulges in wikilawyeringissues me a bogus warning, bad tone reply to Dbachmann, "blatant POV nonsense" in reply to Mitsube,calls me a patently obvious POV pusher,says I am hellbent,says it is "POV pushing" & "sheer nonsense" in reply to Dbachmann,later deletes his rash remarks and saysits all "patently obvious,calls me desperate,says it's all "pure nonsense by POV editors". This much only pertains to the Sanskrit article.
• In the List of languages by first written accounts and Indus Script articles, he wants inclusion of his Original Research that the undeciphered Indus Script was Dravidian, and that the dravidian languages are attested to 600 BCE, and misquotes references towards that aim, indulges in revert warring, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts&diff=251706471&oldid=251701594 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In this article it was User:Dbachmann who was mainly undoing Sudharsansn's OR & reverts, although I did the same as Dbachmann once or twice. Here too Sudharsansn is irate and uses uncivil language - calls my reverts to his Original Research claims as POV edits and me a stalker, warns Dbachmann not to use POV to counter facts, reverts Yogagates' edits and calls us all as "Sanskrit chauvinism revert mafia trolling the same pages" and asks us to "read the damn WP:RS citations"andcalls Yogagates' edits again as "blatant POV nonsense".
• In the Indus Script thread, the same thing happens with Sudharsansn pushing his bias and Dbachmann undoing it.He calls it again "POV pushing".
• Dbachmann the admin issues him a 3RR warning and also explains to him patiently 123 not to push his bias through unreferenced edits.
• So he is here in WP:ANI to "get me first out of the way" by drawing attention to blocks placed on me two years ago, and his imaginary wikihounding that I have allegedly been doing him. Apart from these few articles which I check periodically, I have no interest in Sudharsansn's edits in other articles and I dont have any motive to stalk him. However I see him as a desperate editor with a strong tendency towards indulging in OR and personal attacks as indicated above.
• Finally notwithstanding his bogus charge about my uncivility, I request everyone to read his latest textbook definition of uncivility directed against me. I am a bonafide editor who has made significant constructive contributions to the article in question (and related articles on Sanskrit), see [83], [84] & [85], which is obvious from a simple perusal of the last 100-200 edits while Sudharsansn has made absolutely none, apart from these revert wars to inject his Original research.­ Kris (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is all patently obvious, what Kris has written above is a mere optical illusion, there are links and diffs, but they do NOT point to what they claim to 'testify' and all of them have been spiced up so that it 'looks' like it is heated up, but sadly not. If one reads through it NONE of the above comments or links provided by Kris point to ANY of the behavior he claims. Calling someone a vandal is not uncivility, I was issued a warning of potentially violating WP:3RR NOT violating it, I don't have WP:OR on Sanskrit or IVC and basically the fallacies include the whole list except one or two, which are not against any policies. NONE of the above points raised by Kris point to ANY violation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines except a normal editing process in which multiple reverts and talk page discussions very well happen.

No wonder why there is so much haywire behavior here on Wikipedia. The system favors ONLY those with more time, backing of editors and some admin support while the old lot seems to consciously boo away any attempt made by anyone to change what they have constructed. The guidelines and policies seem to be here to fool people into thinking that even anything remotely similar is being followed whereas reporting any violation leads to a heading-towards-nowhere conclusion and all it takes is a random suggestion by a random admin to also block the person who has reported the violation, and there we have the picture perfect frame of pandemonium. Well, an awful waste of time and a near-total collapse of the system, anyway. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

203.33.181.133 Shared IP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=253083965 for reference

This IP has been registered as coming from Catholic Schools Office - Diocese of Maitland- Newcastle, AU and has a high amount of vandalism from it. The recent edit was only the latest in a large number (in my opinion) And they have been given a last warning allready. I just wanted to make it aware for the admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.163.92 (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Softblock for {{schoolblock}} issued. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I still say any IP identified as a school-IP should be permanently soft-blocked.

And before anyone starts saying 'Assume good faith', I defy anyone here to show me no fewer than three school-IPs that aren't a giant list of warnings and blocks. HalfShadow 00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to extend the block. IMO, some schools when they see their IP blocked, make some effort to educate students about how not to use the school computers to vandalize Wikipedia, so that is why I always start with one month block and escalate the blocks if needed later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To half-shadow; its because only those IPs which are the source of vandalism are the ones that get checked for WHOIS and get tagged as school-based IPs. Lots of great edits likely come from school-based IPs; and lots of registered users probably edit from school computers. The deal is, no one does a WHOIS check on any IP that isn't vandalising; so the results for your test get wildly skewed towards looking like schools are all vandalising. Its sort of like going to a courthouse and deciding that the entire town must be criminals because everyone at the courthouse is a criminal; law abiding citizens don't show up at court... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Telescope, history of telescope, optical telescope articles have POV

Hi, these articles have a consensus (in the talk archive) for the inclusion of the Muslim scientists, yet the editors there now have been deleting useful information for "UNDUE weight". Usually, I wouldn't mind so much its just that the editors there now have taken part in the discussion, but only started to edit-war now---after the main group has gone. I don't see why they are so tenacious at deleting information helpful to Wikipedia... Here's the archive. 208.96.109.12 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: This anonymous post seems to be by user:InternetHero based on his continual comment "I'll be back"[86][87][88]. although he is supposed to be hanging with his gf [89]. He gets allot of encouragement from similar (pro Islamic?) editorsUser talk:InternetHero#Don't give up, but also gets into trouble User talk:InternetHero#August 2008, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InternetHero. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources seem to be valid although they are pretty hard to browse, however, per WP:ROC this does not look to me like something that went into the right article. The articles Lens and Refraction would be a better location for that information, and mention of these Arab scientists should be done in no more than one sentence in the articles listed above. Ibn Sahl did not invent the telescope, and that's that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The originator of this request has only three edits prior to this request, all of which are related to the content in dispute. Two of those edits are reverts, and the third one contains the exact same text previously inserted by InternetHero (talk · contribs). Now because of dynamically allocated IPs, I would refrain from assuming that we're dealing with a single-purpose account, but it is obvious that we're dealing with InternetHero acting anonymously. InternetHero has been blocked once over a not-too-bright response to a warning, but has been warned for breaches of policy several times. Additionally, the way he/she evaluates "consensus" (8 votes against 5) is clearly not the way things are done in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Sahl, Ibn al-Haytham, Taqi al-Din, and also Leonard Digges, Giambattista della Porta are already dealt with in history of telescope. As to Telescope and Optical telescope, user:InternetHero is adding to a summery something that is not in the intro summery of history of telescope. Besides WP:ROC we have major WP:SYNTH problems re:Ibn Sahl, Ibn al-Haytham, and Taqi al-Din since "History of telescope" articles on the web[90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] do not include them in their summery of the topic or support the the synthesis that Ibn al-Haytham was the (only) optical "father of the telescope". History of optics has an awful lot of people contributing to pre-telescope optics, not just Ibn al-Haytham. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging v. untagging

Hi there, I did a stint at new page patrol, and I'm rather new to it, so I'm just trying my best. This article Sho Uchida doesn't seem to have established notability, so I've tried to tag it, but I get reverted. If someone wants to explain why I'm wrong (there is no edit summary in the reversions) or suggest the appropriate course of action, I'm all ears... or eyes, as the case may be. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert either, but if the contents on the page is correct the page does meet notability, see WP:BIO "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.[9]", so you should not have added a notability tag, what you might question is the references, my chines is not so good and a better reference should be resonably easy to find. On the other hand, to just revert you was not really correct either, the user that removed the tag should have explained in the comment why he removed your tag. --Stefan ^talk 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. I'm not really worried about the other user, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning. Does this mean that every Olympian can have an article? What about Div. 1 athletes? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think so. --Stefan ^talk 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on this line of WP:BIO is currently happening at the talk page of the guideline. Fram (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input and the pointer to the relevant discussion. It's been helpful to me. I think this is resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, why don't you ask the person undoing your edits why they did do so? It is much easier and friendlier than directly going to an noticeboard over something like that. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not an appropriate use of rollback by Yellow Monkey. He reverted clearly good faith edits. Enigma ^message 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have notified YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) that he is being discussed on an Administrators' noticeboard. Should you mention an editor (and especially an Administrator whose actions are being scrutinised) on a noticeboard, please take a second to issue them a notice in the interests of courtesy, and to solicit their view and/or an explanation on the matter—such is the routine discussion etiquette and procedure, really. Thanks, AGK 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't know he was an administrator, as his userpage contains no such designation and he's not in the category. Either way, it was more of an aside than anything. Not worth any drama. Enigma ^message 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Krazy Komodo

Resolved

 – Blocked infinitely by Persian Poet Gal. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This guy and his fourth-rate sense of humor are continuing to be disruptive on the talk page. Can someone kindly drop the curtain on this individual? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was already done by Persian Poet Gal, indefinitely blocked. --John (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the talk page was open and the guy just kept at it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• And he's still at it. I've left word with PPG, but no answer yet. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Still at it. I'll keep on hiting the rollback until he gives up and/or has the talk page locked down. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And still at it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore he ain't. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You da man. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Caspian blue more than one person? (long-term Korean issues)

Resolved

 – spurious complaint by self-confessed banned user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

View rants

As loathed as I am to them new ideas to use against others in their conniving ... I have been working on a fairly long term project to document the abuse of the wikipedia system by users such as; Caspian_blue (talk · contribs · logs), aka Appletrees (talk · contribs · logs). In this case, a Korea 'editor or editors', with "issues" relating to the Japanese and the rigging of the Wikipedia against Japan's public image. I have witness similar MO on other interest areas.

I was looking at their editing pattern, as evidenced by wikichecker.com [97]

• http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Caspian_blue&l=2000
• http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Caspian%20blue&l=all

Whether over a short period, or the total period, the results are fairly identical. A 20 hour solid block of edits with only mechanically regular breaks at UTC 8, 9, 10 and 11 hours. 7 days a week. (noto bene, this does not account for either their additional 'off wiki' preparation of cases brought to admins or topic research).

Now, frankly, I have to believe it is inhuman for one person to be able to keep that up.

I would like to evidence this further by drawing attention to the disproportionate time they invest into rigging the system via the lobbying of and complaints to admins (also documented above). I do not wish nor do I believe I need to identify specific patterns at depth here, beyond the provocatively anti-Japanese stance and the unwillingness to invest a similar rigor to contentious South Korea topics. That will take further time. I believe their reputation is well established.

What I am looking at is the suggestion that there might a darker agenda or modus operandi at operation here. Something will require closer admin and checkuser inspection. Something does does not fit into the establish category of sock puppetry or tag teaming but that suggests group effort.

My questions are;

• Is it possible to tell whether Caspian blue is actually more than one person editing from the same account?
• Would this constitute an abuse of the system?

Please note: Caspian blue's registration date and first edit with that was 20:16:47 14/12/2006. They were still editing as Appletrees right up until at least June 7 2008 [98]. Accounts that were only finally merged on 10 June 2008.

(--Occidentalist (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)).

"...20 hour solid block of edits...", is that taken from the "Edits by Time of Day and Day of Week (UTC)" graph? If so that means that I must be several people as well, http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=CambridgeBayWeather&l=2000, or that I work shifts and can edit at work as well as at home. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I believe the sort of thing Occidentalist is trying to do here ought to be very strongly discouraged. looie496 (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue is a renamed account. His old edit history is maintained. So the registration date is when he registred as Appletrees.

meta:Role_account, multiple people sharing an account is frowned upon. I doubt there is any way of proving this unless the persons edit from different ISP's.

Considering the idiosyncrasies in Caspian Blues behavior I would say that if the account is multiple people then they would have to be fairly good actors. Taemyr (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is becoming ever more obvious that "Occidentalist" is just another in a never-ending row of harassment socks, same pattern as User:Documentingabuse, User:Lucyintheskywithdada and many others. Checkuser just came back "inconclusive" due to age of the other accounts, but behaviour pattern is pretty obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

98.18.130.129 et al

{{Resolved}}

98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted abuse to the subject of Talk:Michael Rosenblum after replacing a warning on that IP's talk page, for earlier abuse, with "Fuck off"; and doing the same to the talk page of another IP (75.91.74.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) which has also abused Rosenblum; as have other IPs from the same ISP (Windstream Communications Inc): 98.17.164.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); 75.91.74.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also one from the US military: 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), using identical terms. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Barneca has sprotected the article, and I blocked the most recent ip for 31 hours. Hopefully this is an end to it (for a while, at least).LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing: [99], [100]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a high traffic talkpage, so if there is a spate of ip vandalism then a request for a short semi protection could be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll suggest that. Meanwhile 98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 174.131.13.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are both involved in the same abusive behaviour. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And now 162.39.211.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same ISP). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

162.39.211.92 now posting abusive comments on my blog. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And now 174.131.99.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same ISP). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And now 174.131.11.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stick 'em up at AIV - you will likely get a quicker response. The most recent ip has been blocked, btw. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayhawk of Justice again,

Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now, I brought this user up here once before because I was unsure him/her, and due to sleep issues, notifying him/her of the discussion slipped my mind.

My original concern with this new user was this edit to Jimbo's user talk page, which is basically an attack/rant/monologue about how his time at WP was running up, he would be replaced, etc.

So far, this user has been rude to various IP users, who, as we all know, are users too. Even if the content of the IP's edit was vandalism, there is a reason that have standardized warning messages. Here are some more, rather rude warnings that the user has left on others' talk pages.

What made me bring this to AN/I again, however, was this edit to my own talk page, as noted in the edit summery, and in the message, this user is telling me to quit wikipedia because of a small mistake involving common courtesy. Not only that, but... well. No, I'll let all of you read the message for yourself. Something needs to be done here, as this user does not seem to understand how Wikipedia operates. I would suggest mentorship.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this guy's trolling. A misguided user doesn't write a long, elegant rant citing bizarre historical precedents in response to a minor error - i really get the feeling he's just after a reaction. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAPBOX... Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Image

Hi! I've deleted some profanity on this image, but there is still some in place. I found it on the Wikipedia Commons page, which I removed from there, but it is still showing up on the Wikipedia image. I have tried refreshing the page, but it still shows up. Could someone help, please? Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - it's gone now. I guess there is a bit of a delay between the servers, or something like that. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There can be a server delay, it can also be your own browser cache (for sundry reasons). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tenditious editing on List of violently killed transgender people, Murder of Gwen Araujo, Murder of Amanda Milan, Matthew Shepherd

I was trying to rescue List of violently killed transgender people which is at AfD. I placed {{In use}} on the article which went smoothly for the first several dozen edits. Unfortunately two editors Cameron Scott (talk · contribs) and Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) who've I've become more familiar with at a handful of articles all about LGBT murder victims which have been targeted, repeatedly, for notability concerns, content deletion and bad faith assumptions seem ready to jump and revert and delete and I kinda don't see the point in continuing. -- Banjeboi 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Again with the bad-mouthing (I was homophobic yesterday, which for personal reasons makes me chuckle) - please provide diffs of misconduct and provide specific examples where I have acted incorrect on the two articles you mention that I have editted (I have never edited either the murder of amanda milan and Matthew Shepherd]]. You seem pissed off with me because I raised the fact that the sourcing didn't support the inclusion of many names on that list (Which you then *instantly* moved to a random title so that literally anything could go on the page and you could avoid my question) - well I'm sorry but that's what talkpages are for. ANI is for specific issues, so let's have them "those are bad men! wah!" isn't a specific complaint.--Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that my name is all that good here, but , I've had run-in's with Damiens as well.

He does the same thing on this article. ...BTW...hasn't he been banned for this before ? KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

and If I remember correctly, my own (and only) connection with the guy was here when I supported a block on him for a different issue. _{just mentioning that in case people think there is some team editing between us.}--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Violently killed" as opposed to what? "Killing him softly"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was moved to that name in the last couple of hours, previously it was at list of people killed because they were transgender. I looked at the sources and at least half didn't say anything about their deaths being linked to their transgendered nature. I mentioned this on the talkpage and Benjiboi pretty much instantly moved it to the new title to avoid the issue. I guess that's the root of this complaint - WP:OWN. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "Violently killed" is definately NOT WP:NPOV compliant as a title. I take no position as to whether or not the list should stay or go, but the list MUST be renamed to a more neutral one. Maybe something like "Transgender murder victims" or something... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham K. Biggs

I've posted this at WP:BLPN, but vandalism is going uncorrected so perhaps admin attention would be beneficial. This is an article about a recent suicide that was allegedly broadcast live over Justin.tv. It's already internet-famous and has attracted the attention of the chans. There is likely to be a lot of traffic to this page over the next few days, so I'd like it to be on as many watchlists as possible. Danke, the skomorokh 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just speedy this per WP:BLP1E or something? Or per WP:CSD#G13, "articles that drag the encyclopedia even further down into the tabloid gutter"? --barneca (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Topics like this always resurface, and reliable coverage of them tends to emerge slightly slower than coverage in tabloids/blogs. To delete now would not serve any long term purpose. See Megan Meier, Jason Fortuny etc. the skomorokh 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be callous, but if he is dead how is this a WP:BLP issue? – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual response would be family, friends etc. You can imagine how inaccurate information about Abe's suicide disseminated via Wikipedia might effect them. the skomorokh 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point, but as it stands WP:BLP applies only to living people. I agree that the article should stick to the facts and avoid tabloidism etc, but that is pursuant to WP:V, WP:RS etc. If material otherwise conforms to WP policies and guidelines, we should not, in my view, be censoring it out of sympathy for his family.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that the article be censored out of sympathy for his family; I only mentioned BLPN so that editors here would not recommend I post it there. I would simply like responsible editors, preferably including some admins to watch the article so that vandalism is quickly dealt with and high standards of sourcing (note the types of sources that have been used so far in the article's history) observed. Regards, the skomorokh 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the article per BLP1E. While there is some coverage by sources much more notable than those that were present, this is still a classical example of what Wikipedia should not publish - we're not a news site nor tabloid. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a way, I guess I am. I don't mean per the exact wording of BLP, but the philosophy behind it; that we should try not to be dicks when it affects real people, like any family or friends. Having this pop up as an article while the body is still warm just makes me feel like I'm associated with jackels and hyenas. I wish we were more civilized and let one of the 10,000 websites devoted to immediate pop-internet phenomena deal with stuff like this. I also wish I had a million dollars, though, and that's not going to happen either. --barneca (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been speedily deleted. What foresight.[101] the skomorokh 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by, among others, the Associated Press and The Times. WP:BLP1E does not justify speedy deleting articles, it only justifies—"cover the event, not the person"—moving and refocusing articles. I propose that the Abraham K. Biggs article be restored and moved to Suicide of Abraham K. Biggs, with the aforementioned coverage in reliable sources added. the skomorokh 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec

I would like to ask for a community review of editor Krzyzowiec. I have run accross him in relation to the National Revival of Poland article. After looking through the history of his contributions, it seems to me that this is a highly tendentious POV-pushing editor who is a net negative to the project. His user page essentially proclaims that his intention is to do WP:BATTLE here: "I am here to edit a lot of English Wikipedia's articles about Poland and Polish right wing or "middle" movements, history etc. because a lot of articles here are written by Polish left wing liars. I'm here also because Polish Wikipedia isn't fair, 3/4 of Polish Wikipedia's Administrators have left - liberal point of view on everything and they make changes as they believe in real life, so their articles aren't fair." There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Wikipedia (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!" His edit history shows that a great deal of his edits are indeed related to extreme far right, fascism and Jews related articles and appear to be exactly of the kind that WP:BATTLE proscribes against. There are 5 blocks from May to August of this year for edit warring, 3RR, incivility, personal attacks and the like. Although there are no more recent blocks than the one-week block on August 11, it does not seem to me that the editor changed his attitude much or that he is in any mood to reform. Just by looking at the edits for the last few days, one sees the following examples: an anti-Jewish rant[102], tendentious fact tags[103], more tendentious and clearly inappropriate tags[104] on National Revival of Poland (the article is well-sourced and the notability and primary sources tags are obviously not abpplicable), an edit summary[105] Who are you to decide what belongs in the article ?!, and finally the charming placement[106] of the fact tag next to the statement about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax in the List of conspiracy theories article. All this shows a dedicated POV and WP:BATTLE warrior who is here for the wrong reasons. I think that either an indef block or a topic ban on all Poland, Jews and fascism related articles would be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking for a community review as you said, wouldn't a request for comment for user conduct fit that bill nicely? That is, that would be the best way to go if a topic ban is desired. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that an RfC is for less clear-cut cases than this one. Here, according to the proclamations at his talk page and his actions, we have a self-described POV warrior whose main motivation on Wikipedia is to do WP:BATTLE and whose actions confirm this. I do not believe that this is a close call. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as a "rant against the Jews" as you say and quote: >>There is also a charming rant against the Jews there:"This user can't understand why everyone tries on English Wikipedia (and everywhere else) show the Polish society as a bloody anti-semites while "Jewish pogroms" in Poland ("officialy" commited by the Poles) took approximately 1500 victims from 1944 to 1989. During the World War II Poles saved up to 400,000 Jews (official numbers), 3,000,000 Poles risked their lives under the Nazi occupation of Poland to save the Jewish people. This is how you pay us back ?!"<< I see nothing wrong with what was said, and it's a sad state to see any mention of a Jew lead to accusations of insensitivity or antisemitism. In addition, his ideas and opinions on the "left wing liars" bending Poland related articles towards their views...well it may be true! Who are you to decline him the opportunity to contribute here? The editing power of Wikipedia, the way this place works, prevents a lone person from hurting the project. Everything can be undone. I think you're over reacting, and I see no action necessary against this man. Good luck though. Beam 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You do not think that the passage about the Jews ending with This is how you pay us back ?! as offensive and repulsive? Now, that is pretty sad. What about Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a hoax fact tag? Nsk92 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Beamathan: Sorry no... Wikipedia is not the place to post ones political views regardless of whether said views support the left or right wing of any political system. Wikipedia is about collecting verifiable information from reliable sources and reporting that information in a neutral manner. Its not the place to post random rants about personal beliefs over conspiracies and the like. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, if one wants to post their personal political views, there's another place called "the rest of the internet" where such views are quite welcome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is precisely what WP:BATTLE is about. Someone who, according to their own user page, comes to Wikipedia with a self-professed agenda of fighting some political and ideological battles here should find another place to do it. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:NoKindOfName - Legal threat report

Resolved

 – user blocked until threat withdrawn  – ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Update:Legal threat retracted, user unblocked, all is well. --barneca (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

This user is apparently somewhat annoyed that his Apollo OS article was taken to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo OS. User has now made legal threats on user page, hence this report. – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left a hopefully gently-worded note on his talk page. Usually I think giving someone a chance to retract before blocking is a good idea, but this threat was so crystal clear and unambiguous that I've gone ahead and blocked the account until the threat is withdrawn. --barneca (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - will mark as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

206.176.127.131 Death threat

Resolved

 – IP reblocked and talk page protected

206.176.127.131 (talk · contribs) registered to South Dakota State Government, apparently a school ip, expressed wish to kill US President elect [107]. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP has had its block extended and their talk page protected for the duration. I don't really see where this sort of thing needs to go much farther. Its not really a credible threat, just some loser high school kid vandalizing Wikipedia. I personally would pay it no mind. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In any event, judging from a traceroute, the IP in question is related to the Brandon Valley School District, or Brandon Valley High School in Template:City-state. It might be prudent to contact a LEO in the area. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't someone also notify the FBI the last time this happened? MuZemike (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but if someone wants to the appropriate local office would be the Minneapolis office. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Jayron here. It seems like pure vandalism, and little else. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another troubling user page - Judge Florentino Floro

User:Florentino floro -- I blocked this user indefinitely for outing (and you should see what he's written on this talk page now), and never looked at his user page. Is it a record for weirdness? And is it acceptable? He talks a lot about other people so I'm a bit worried about BLP. If I type his name into Google, his user page is the first hit (hey Diligent Terrier, you're in the snippet!), which doesn't seem too good. And our article (Florentino Floro) on him is 2nd, which is no problem obviously. dougweller (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear god... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the same Florentino Floro who claimed to talk to invisible dwarfs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shnitzled (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That picture...wow what has been seen cannot be unseen. On topic, that talk page might need to be locked down to prevent further, uh....rants. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Aagggghhhhh where's my eye bleach?! – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ad infinitum arguments

Levine2112 has continued the general original research discussion[108][109][110][111][112] after he was cautioned[113][114] and now is making wild edits to the proposed text at the mediation page.[115][116] QuackGuru 18:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Plyjacks requesting unblock, pledges that he has changed his ways

• Plyjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Plyjacks

The user above has been blocked for some time. They are a known sockpuppeteer. However, they claim to have not edited Wikipedia in two months, and have pledged to edit under only 1 account and to avoid problematic behaviors if unblocked and allowed to edit. I have requested a checkuser to confirm his claims, and as far as checkuser is able, they do confirm that the last sockpuppets created by Plyjacks were on September 30, which matches his story exactly. Given that he has largely obeyed the rules for the past 2 months, could we get a consensus to lift this block and allow the user to edit Wikipedia again on a probationary basis? I intend to keep an eye on him, and blocks can always be reissued if he steps out of line. We have done this several times before, however each case is unique, and I am seeking additional input before proceeding here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The concepts I have seen written on their userpage make perfect sense to me. We also monitor if they return. Maybe mentor. ►BMW◄ 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support unblocking and monitoring, given the situation. Wikipedia always needs more good editors, and we shouldn't lock people out forever if they wish to be a genuinely positive contributor. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

SupportAgreed, I think it doesn't matter as much as how long he's been blocked, but that it did it's job and he'll do the right thing from now on. It's how I would want to be treated in the situation. SteelersFan-94 19:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ohlookwhoitisn't possible Joshuarooney/Igniateff sockpuppet

I came accross this [117] edit whilst looking through recent changes, I done some digging in user:Shielddane's tp history and found myself reading through a major conflict between Joshuarooney/Igniateff and two innocent users he claimed was a sockpuppet.
Could an admin look at this? I've let one user, TharkunColl know about this, and also asked him to comment here to shed some light on the matter but I think the other user, SheildDane may have left shortly after the incident occured. Shnitzled (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

'Outing' of BNP members

User:Emeraude is persistently attempting to out someone as a BNP member, using as his source, 'the BNP membership list'. This person's name has not been published in any media source at all. I have removed this four times as it is clearly unjustifiable, and there is simply no justification for using a private membership list as a source on Wikipedia. Please could you ensure this doesn't continue 82.31.162.27 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is complete and utter bollocks. I am accused of "attempting to out someone as a BNP member". Seeing as the complainant fails to indicate where this alleged misconduct has occurred or who it concerns, let me point readers to Andrew Brons. The article clearly states that Andrew Brons is a member of the BNP, indeed that in the past he was a leading light in the organisation (and previously, over a period of 40 years or more, a leading member of a variety of other fascist and neo-Nazi organisations). This is a matter of record. However, the article did not make it explicity clear that, although Brons retired (or was removed) from active BNP leadership he remained a member. I have added this for clarification, and cited the leaked BNP membership list on which he appears (not surprisingly) and backed this up with a further citation that the BNP Leader, Nick Griffin, has accepted that the list is genuine. User 82.31.162.27 would have us believe that Andrew Brons is a private citizen, a non-entity if you will, who has been brought into the limelight by my minor addition to his already existing article!! (Incidentally, the use of the word "outing" was first used by me in a discussion with 82.31.162.27 when I said something to the effect that the membership list should not be used to "out" people. Brons is already 'out'.) Note, please, that 82.31.162.27 is an anonymous user who has made edits on only two articles: Andrew Brons and Simone Clarke, both well-known BNP members from the same region of England. Significant? I leave others to decide. Emeraude (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is - the membership list is real, is the version you have real? I've seen at least two altered version to add people want to piss off (if you follow me). --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute, for which this is not an appropriate venue. As for the actions of both editors, there is nothing here for admins to concern themselves either - I do not see any bad faith violation of policy. "Nothing to see here; move on, please." LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise is taking admin abuse to a new level

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Yeah, this complaint is going nowhere fast. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems incline to take the definition of admin abuse to a new level. He is the ultimate epitome of unsavory administrator conducts.

In his most recent exploit, Future Perfect at Sunrise aggressively albeit controversially pushed for the lifting of the ban of User:Alex contributing from L.A., who has a habit of making death threats, creating ban-evading sockpuppets, and possessing an overall lack of respect for the due process. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#User:Alex_contributing_from_L.A. He controversially unblocked the ban-evading sockpuppet Alex contribution from L.A. himself after little discussion on AN/I [118] claiming that there was since there doesn't seem to be any fundamental opposition here, I've unblocked

As a neutral editor, I noticed the AN/I thread and immediately questioned Future Perfect's judgment in this episode as well as his categorization of "fundamental opposition". Alex from L.A. was extremely hostile, but Future Perfect's continue to patronize the ban-evading sock. Future Perfect, angry at the fact that someone is questioning his judgment, became extremely defensive and was eager to shut me up by saying "let's close this discussion". He accused me of NPA against ban-evading sock Alex. [119] He then tried to exonerate Alex's pass transgression and sockpuppetry [[120]] as well as demonstrating a flawed understanding of WP:SOCK. He then failed to assume good faith WP:AGF by accusing me of boosting your Arbcom candidature by creating a tough-guy profile on ANI? Good lord. Go do what you must and get your "landmark case" rolling, but try to not waste the time of your more mature fellow wikipedians all too much in the process, willya?[[121]]

He then launched a relentless campaign to wiki-stalk/harass my contributions as well as censor/impede my editing. He even threatened to block me [[122]] just because I questioned his unblock of a ban-evading sock. After he stalked my contribution, an edit war occured at Salma Hayek [[123]] [[124]] [[125]] [[126]]. He continued to threaten to block me, even claiming that "conflict of interest" does not apply despite the fact that no other editor reverted me during this time except himself. [[127]] He seems to be reverting out of personal vendetta. Even my attempt to compromise by telling him to move the objectionable sentence to another part of the article was rebuffed as he continued to hurl insults in edit summary such as accusing me of being a sexist, misogynist, among other personal attacks.

I urge the community to take decisive action against this rogue admin who plays by his own rule, have little regards for the due process or wikipedia policies. I demand a formal apology and I also sincerely hope this admin can refrain from wikistalking and censoring my edits based on personal vendetta. If this desysopping is the only solution, then we have to do what we have to.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Alex situation, but your behavior at Selma Hayek was quite bad. Your post here is ridiculous. If your other allegations are as sensible as what you're saying at the Selma Hayek situation, I see no reason to look into them. Wikipedia requires that editors behave like reasonable adults. If you're unable to do that, this is not the place for you. Friday (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Friday. You try to force content onto a WP:BLP about someone's breasts and then scream "censorship" when removed? Sorry, not going to fly. Ronnotel (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday, you are one of those people who can't look past my userpage and tried to censor it. Judge someone by their contributions, not by their userpage.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that. This time around, I was looking at your contributions. Altho, now that I look.. your userpage is inappropriate. Please put this content on your own website, not on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go thru your contributions and see if all your edits are as dumb as the one at Salma Hayek, so I guess without research I can't just block you as a troll. But that's a really stupid edit, and it makes me have zero interest in whether you have anything remotely resembling a legitimate gripe here. No, that's not quite right; it makes me quite confident if I actually spent time researching it, I'd find it was groundless. Perhaps leave Wikipedia to the grownups? Or go focus on your sure-to-succeed ArbCom candidacy? Or something? I tried for over a minute to resist hitting "save page" on this, in the interests of assuming good faith and civility and treat the children with respect, etc., but I failed. Shoo. --barneca (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrrrmppphh. Not really worth commenting here, is it? If anybody besides NWA.Rep should want a comment from me, let me know. Absent that, I intend to continue upholding BLP standards of quality against people who think it is a good idea to claim of prominent Hollywood actresses such as Scarlett Johannson that their notability rests wholly or entirely on the size of their breasts [128]. Have fun desysopping me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With contributions like this (notice the player's name and the poor format of a four digit number), this, this, this, and this, maybe it'd be better for you if people judged you on your userpage. Badger Drink (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And you tell people to go fuck yourself? User:Badger_Drink/sandbox If we are not talking about breasts, then we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately, wikipedians are overly puritan.--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Perhaps one useful thing can come of this

Any reason not to just go ahead and community ban? Apparently many are familiar with, and tired of, these antics. Friday (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at users contribs- quite a few edits exactly the same as those to Selma Hayek- to other female celebrities' articles. While I'm not sure we're at community ban yet, a block for disruption seems to be in order. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and community ban me :-)) – Seriously though, I'm not familiar enough with NWA.Rep to judge such a suggestion. Note that he has a longer history, including some Arbcom conflict, under his previous account name "Certified Gangsta". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See also User:Freestyle.king; User:Bonafide.hustla; other former identities of NWA. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of such sentences are quite common among the category of big bust models and actresses, usually with citations. I fail to see how an established editor, a rollbacker, an arbCom candidate should be community banned when he questions Future Perfect while Alex from LA is allowed to roam around as a ban-evading sock.--NWA.Rep (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus persistent POV edit warring, gaming etc

Piotrus is engaged in a bit of a POV edit warring tear on the as is most recently explained here. Given Piotrus' admin status, and the fact that his persistent behavior in this vein has resulted in 1RR restrictions applied to both of us, and given that Piotrus consistently atempts gaming maneuvers to provoke a violation of the 1RR on my part, I believe this behavior needs the attention of this board. It is not a simple content dispute, but a symptom of some seriously problematic behavior on this admin's part. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Piotrus ArbCom is that way. Badger Drink (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)