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

Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

[1]

Section deleted. Given the nature of this problem, there is nothing that anyone who is not a checkuser can do about it, so there's no point fuelling the fire by discussing it and keeping him interested. WP:DENY, please. If you have concerns or questions of any kind about this, please e-mail the functionaries mailing list, functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. We are looking at ways to solve this problem. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:40, 02 June 2009 (UTC) (fake time stamp to stop archiving)

Seconding Deskana's comment and request. Newyorkbrad (talk)

Update: We now have the ability to block IP users (and therefore, IP ranges) with the ability to send e-mails from accounts on that range disabled, which with some careful deployment by CheckUsers, should help this problem greatly. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes

Eh? Do you mean, "We have blocked the ip's from certain ranges, blah CheckUsers blah, from being able to use the email function."? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Threat by User:Petri Krohn

Based on this initial discussion that I've now archived, I blocked Petri Krohn as detailed and linked here. Please discuss the block or possible unblock if any in that lower section. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootology (talk • contribs) 9:51 am, Today (UTC−5)

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

---

Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a fairly unambiguous threat against User:Digwuren here. I urged him to remove it; he has edited since then and not done so. I think he should be blocked, and I move for an immediate and permanent community ban. He's been given enough chances. //roux   09:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User notified. //roux   09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair, it doesn't look like an actual threat, more like "MY DADZ A POLICEMAN AND HE'L GET U" — extremely childish, but not a genuine menace (though I'm not familiar with the case, and might have misunderstood it). Therefore, I think that a permanent ban is a bit of an overreaction, and "horrifying" a bit of an exagguration. However, allowing such abuse, absurd as it is, shouldn't happen, so I suggest a block of a week, to be added to any block that might come separately out of the discussion in which the thread was made. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See further comment below. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This may provide some needed background to this apparently intractable problem. //roux   09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, horse of a different colour. Permaban seems much more palatable now, sorry for the ignorance... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I really did not read the statement as a threat, but (as he himself said) as a friendly piece of advice. I don't know what he was talking about, but perhaps he meant this "agency." At least give him a change to explain himself before jumping into conclusions. Offliner (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Given Krohn's past on Wikipedia, I read it more like "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean?" than actual friendly advice. //roux   10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"You may get yourself into trouble because of agency X, you should be careful" is taken for "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it"–with the threat of a permanent ban for the user? (What?) PasswordUsername (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The absurdity of thinking that someone would intitiate a threat against another user at ANI is beyond me. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the actual edit, it doesn't read like a threat. Petri Krohn is not threatening to take or initiate or cause any action. Warning editors of possible real-world consequences that could follow independently, from the warned editor's actions, isn't a threat. It's wasn't "my Dad's a policeman," which would be a threat to tell Dad. Whether or not it was advisable to say would depend on many factors, but PK's post is primarily a recounting of his history with Digwuren, and to sanction such reports would be chilling. And to propose it here disruptive. That post, to AN, would probably have been seen by many administrators, and if it called for immediate action, surely they would have noticed it. Complaining here is spreading discussion. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no request to User talk:Petri Krohn to remove the comment. The request cited above is to AN. AN is very difficult to follow and I often remove it from my watchlist even when I've posted there. No presumption can be made that an editor has read it. Some of the editors commenting here seem highly involved in disputes with PK, that should be considered as well. --Abd (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No request? How about my diff posted above? //roux   18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret", plus telling that a Russian Agency will take care of him. Not a threat? Of course he did not tell: "you will be killed for making too much noise" as was said by another user in my case [2], but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a threat, yes, but not coming from Petri Krohn, if he is correct. If he's not correct, then, of course, blow it off. I see no sign that Petri Krohn himself is threatening. Now, if it could be shown that he's connected with this "agency," then, of course, he should be out of here in a flash. But that's not the story here, at least not yet. More below. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offend someone. I did not intend to threaten anyone. I have removed my offending comment.

As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Petri, it has always been true, and remains true, that if you exercise your rights to free speech, in a way that offends someone with power, you can be harassed, prosecuted, murdered. Wikipedia hasn't changed the world in this respect. In fact, sometimes you can offend someone with apparently no power, and the end is the same. Basically, human beings have power and sometimes use it, make them angry enough. Some of us will do anything given sufficient provocation, and there are a few who will be provoked simply by their own imaginations. The world is a dangerous place, still. Welcome to it, it's also quite a nice place and usually safe if you don't go around pissing people off. Unfortunately, some of us find it necessary to speak up, on occasion. I'd probably be high on a list if certain people or organizations were to gain more power, or if I were considered more of a danger, and one of my old friends is seriously dead, for exactly the crime of speaking what he believed, there is an article here about him, you could probably figure it out from my edit history. He lived in Tucson, Arizona. Safe place? Not if you become well-known for something that some really don't want to hear. {He was wrong, by the way, but that doesn't make a difference here, he's still dead.) --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any activity at Joseph Stalin which seems related to this. If the "Russian Agency" was getting involved in Wikipedia, we'd probably see some efforts to rehabilitate Stalin's image. So far, no. --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my statement in the original thread. What I have now said explicitly is that activity similar to what we have seen on Wikipedia may become a criminal offense in Russia, and by extension in Estonia. I was too vague originally. I took efforts to avoid linking anyone to criminal activity, especially as this activity is not criminalized in the United States. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Please note that whatever I wrote on ANI was not addressed to Digwuren but to administrators in general and User:Offliner in particular. I have presested my {{WikiThanks}} to Digwuren here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you also implied that Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, hence your original "friendly warning" when you said: "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret. Things said on Wikipedia do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Wikipedia may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency" The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee that you felt compelled to give him this additional "friendly thankyou" on his talk page? --Martintg (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Permban, I am not sure, but a few month may be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support a permaban. Krohn was already banned for a year for this kind of anti-estonian polemic. Krohn's remarks read as a threat that this Russian agency would be notified of Digwuren's identity should it ever be revealed, implying that Krohn would report Digwuren to the agency if he continued participating in editing Wikipedia. This is intimidatory. Wikipedia doesn't need editors with extremist agendas threatening people for the sole reason of belonging to a particular ethnic group. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of intimidation. --Martintg (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What you are in fact reading from my comment, is that I would be willing to provide evidence to law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses. This is not what I am saying. Even if I did, I do not think this could be considered a threat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support permaban or very long block. Petri Krohn 's warnings are directed only to people who disagree with him, especially user:Digwuren. Someone who says that dire things will happen to people who dare to disagree with him is not giving "friendly advice"; he is using intimidation to attempt to give himself an advantage. This is an utterly unacceptable debating tactic on Wikipedia. Abd's argument that no-one has actually proved that Petri Kohn is "connected with this ‘agency’ " is utterly irrelevant; we don't have a rule that people get a free pass on making threats until someone proves that they are able to carry them out.

Petri has made two "clarifications". They are oddly different from each other, and neither of them is very clear. One is that “As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over.” The other clarification possibly means that, when Russian law extends to Estonia, Estonians who have disagreed with him are likely to face criminal prosecution. So, possibly this second clarification is "only" a legal threat. Whatever these statements may mean (and I expect there will be more clarifications to these clarifications), in both of them the threatening tone comes through loud and clear. Also, that the threat has now been repeated, and in more than one version, proves that it was not a fluke. Petri Krohn has already served a 1 year block for misbehavior related to his disagreements with Estonian editors; apparently it was not enough. Cardamon (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support permaban. This user's list of misdeeds is enormous. He is known for advocating inflammatory 'points of view' that he apparently is fighting for in real life, too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor should it be battlefield. Petri Krohn's hint that his 'opponent' Digwuren might get Russian secret service's attention in real life был последней каплей for me. --Miacek (t) 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose permaban > 6 months? I've actually just had quite a civil chat with this user on their talkpage, and they don't seem to be the complete crank that they come over to be here. I think that they deserve a long cooling-off period, and then another chance, so I'm suggesting 6 months. Sorry to keep chopping and changing my opinion on this subject, but I hope this will be my final word! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that what Krohn regards as Digwuren's POV on Estonian history corresponds to the view of eminent historians such as David J. Smith (who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies). This is what Smith writes in his book "Estonia: Independence and European integration". Krohn on the other hand is an apparent member of SAFKA (This has been previously reported to the COI), an activist group that believes the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states is a myth. The activities of the SAFKA have been investigated by the Estonian security police who have discovered some members have links with certain elements within Russia and this has widely reported in the Estonian press. Hence Krohn's "friendly warning" to Digwuren had a chilling effect that was certainly intimidatory. --Martintg (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permaban - Digwuren and Petri Krohn were both banned for a year, in part for clashing with each other. Since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so. Implying that the Russian government is going to go after you if you don't change your ways is bound to have a chilling effect, especially on someone from tiny next-door Estonia. We don't want that kind of editing environment, and so I propose Petri Krohn should be excluded from the project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to admins–As said before, I find it ridiculous that a particular number of editors who have written above, largely the same group of user who always seek to justify Digwuren's latest pattern of behavior by slinging mud at his opponents, is now seeking to make the claim that Petri Krohn's warning to Digwuren about the latest development on a contested historical issue from the perspective of the Russian government's commission, which he has already amply clarified, is taken for a threat when he posted it on ANI–publicly and under his own name!
Laughable is the assertion of the editor above, claiming that "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so." As Offliner has clearly demonstrated here (I strongly recommend reading this thread in full detail–Offliner's post, among other things, features a whole compendium of personal attacks and crass incivility against a number of users, including myself), Digwuren has not shown good faith–rather, the bulk of his edits have been constituted by disrupting and making personal attacks against other editors, including against myself. (This new diversion from Digwuren's behavior–a transformation of the issue into an attack on Petri Krohn for supposed "threats" is interesting of itself.) Digwuren is now proceeding to stalk my edits: compare the good work done by Digwuren as far as these unmistakable instances–plainly obvious from the most recent histories of articles such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Moreover, as Digwuren himself wrote on May 11, the day on which within 24 hours of encountering me he laughably accused me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu or Jacob Peters (he never actually made up his mind as to which editor I was)

"Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise -- it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors." 7.

My explanation for "picking Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors," of course, is explained fully at the same link provided. What is funny is that even Digwuren himelf (in fact, a SPA, unlike Petri Krohn) has publicly acknowledged the good nature of Petri's contributions (again, oddly enough, this being in the context of an obscene attack against myself), but, having now given a history of his rather difficult co-existence with Digwuren's belligerent editing patterns, Petri is accused of some great malice by Digwuren's loyal crew. Frankly, I interpret this as nothing but the bad-faith insults of a lynch-mob threatening to conduct "punishment" against a user whose productive, if not exactly quite passive, editing history stands in sharp juxtaposition against their own. Between Digwuren and Petri Krohn, I can say in all good conscience that if anybody deserves to be permabanned, it is not Petri Krohn–although given the administrators' reluctance to intervene in the dispute against Digwuren by taking measures more stringent than simply asking both Offliner and Digwuren to "walk away and behave," I strongly suggest that the accusations here simply be dismissed as equally frivolous. (And what has been said about Petri is much more frivolous than the substantial cases made against Digwuren many a time in the past.) I encourage all administrators to examine this issue seriously–claims against Petri Krohn are partisan and blatant character assasssinations which should be observed and analyzed just for what they are. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Krohn has just issued another "friendly warning" on Digwuren's talk page, implying that this commission will take particular interest in Digwuren and ominously talks of Digwuren in the past tense [3]. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That isn't a "friendly warning" in quotation marks–what Petri says is clearly a commendation for the article he himself had wanted to start and the tense is the grammatical feature of language known as the "future perfect"–but thank you for noting it. I should also note that Petri Krohn opposes the commission, if you're still fond of equivocally speaking of the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Simply not true. SAFKA endorses the law and hails it as "a victory for Safka". The connection between SAFKA members and one of the committee members Alexander Dyukov is well known. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, or so Krohn claims. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how does Krohn know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee? --Martintg (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you obviously haven't bothered to read what Petri Krohn has written here at ANI/Incidents, at the main administrators' noticeboard, or on other pages. Whatever organization he may or may not happen to be part of, the opinions he holds as an individual are his own personal thoughts–and he has clearly written online that he, too, "find[s] the law threatening." (See here.) I think you should stop throwing in people's real-life identities in these disputes–regardless of one's ideology, opinions, occupation, or activities in real life, the benchmark for judging the conduct of online contributors is simply their online conduct. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Your initial claim was "Petri Krohn opposes the commission", this is a long way from "find[s] the law threatening". Evidently he was hoping Digwuren would find this law threatening too, enough to intimidate him from further contribution to Wikipedia. However this law has absolutely no jurisdiction anywhere outside Russia, except perhaps to those Russian citizens living abroad who may contribute to Wikipedia. Yet this "friendly warning" was not offered to any of these Russian editors, only to Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • The commission is "the law" being referred to here–I think you're attacking the imprecise semantics, yet doing injustice to the concrete meaning (the proposition) being brought up here. (Perhaps the best way of gleaning this is to consult the informal fallacy trivial objections.) The application of the law is coordinated in conjunction with the work done by the Historical Truth Commission–and Petri's already clarified that his concern related to the law's not being limited in scope to Russia's territory. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I even misquoted Petri Krohn's remarks–rather than speaking of "the law," he specifically made clear:

"P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" (1)

Whatever else was said by Petri Krohn, it was all in the same vein: nowhere does he endorse the commission (you might want to try asking his own opinion of the commission or gleaning it from what he's written about it before you jump to conclusions). Here's to hoping that this has now clarified everything up for you, Martintg. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the specifics here, because they may come before the Arbitration Committee, but I strongly urge everyone interested in this situation to carefully review and abide by the principles outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This hardly should come before the ArbCom because this user was already banned by ArbCom, and a consensus about his behavior was reached at AE noticeboard [4]. Telling another user "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret" and reminding about an "Agency" was clearly an attempt of intimidation, as noted by DGG at another board [5]. Biophys (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I get from the ArbCom case NewYorkBrad refers to are principles in that case concerning harassment and threats, which states: "The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.", which links to Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats, stating "Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.". --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of legal threat but of legal risk. The relevant section is Raising good-faith concerns:

“ 5) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient... ” — Raising good-faith concerns

The text goes on to say: However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. If I had felt a need to send communication to Digwuren, I am sure I would have taken great care to ensure that it would not have been perceived as threatening. However my communication at WP:AN mainly served the legitimate purpose of informing the administrators and User Offliner. On the issue of Russian law enforcement we have been in friendly communication. In fact we have collaborated on the article, without a hint of conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

However the tone of your original message was one of frustration: that if the admins weren't willing to deal with Digwuren, this committee certainly will, hence your advice that he had better keep is identity secret. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren was apparently singled out for special attention by this committee, so you have claimed a number of times. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities have figured so prominently in the formation of this committee, which you also claim? --Martintg (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permaban From the evidence presented it is clear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. He has been banned before and still has not changed his ways. It is high time to eliminate his disruption from the editorial process. I also support removal of Arbcom review. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not support permaban I haven't read any of the nonsense contained herein, but one thing that I did not take what Petri Krohn's comments as was a threat. The truth is, Digwuren is an Estonian nationalist; the worst of the worst not yet permabanned (it's ok for User:Moreschi to characterise others as this, so this is fair too eh Moreschi?), There was no threat, and other editors are generally acting like teenage girls, and pack dogs (as is usual), and this is yet more grandstanding by said editors. The new laws being introduced in Russia will make people like Digwuren a target; not for assassination, or other such tripe, but for targetting by these laws against people who try to rewrite history as is seen every day in the Baltics, and right here on Wikipedia. As Petri mentioned, Digwuren best not make his real life identity known, otherwise the web brigades (note its presence in conspiracy theory category) could make his life difficult, and he could be refused entry into Russia, etc, etc. Oh and User:Biruitorul, Digwuren's conduct has been anything but good since his return; his calling other editors pigs (without a single apology), characterising others as neo-Nazis (without a single apology), stalking, tedious editing, disruption of AfDs, etc and generally being a right pain in the ass, is not what one should characterise as good conduct. How about letting the wikidrama subside, stop f'ing around in trying to off content opponents, and everyone gets back to editing? --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At first I was thinking that the whole Petri's comment was simply an attempt to discredit his long-time content opponent, but what puts it to a different light is "he should make sure his true identity remains secret" - however, Petri Krohn knows the real-life identity of Digwuren and has known it for years. This in effect means "beware, I know who you are and if you don't back down, then...", an obvious attempt to intimidate/threaten, so I am forced to agree that an extended ban is needed. Threats like that have no place in Wikipedia, ever.

Now, as for Russavia's comment above, I think it is worthy a ban of his own. This is pure hate speech, "Estonian nationalist; the worst of the worst not yet permabanned", "other editors are generally acting like teenage girls, and pack dogs", "new laws being introduced in Russia will make people like Digwuren a target", "generally being a right pain in the ass", "rewrite history as is seen every day in the Baltics". I hope that no editor will ever get away with a comments like this anywhere in Wikipedia, especially in Administrator's noticeboard. -- Sander Säde 07:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's an interesting diff. Petri tells that Diguwren's name was "listed in the whois data" and that Diguwuren was a former student of the University of Tartu. This is frightening: "keep your name secret to avoid problems with an Agency" and "I know your name". Could be also qualified as WP:Outing? Biophys (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1 year block for Petri Krohn

Based on the strong concerns and apparent concensus here, I am placing another long-term (but not indefinite) block on User:Petri Krohn. I am placing another 1-year block on him. I was considering an indefinite block, and had this discussion been unanimous, I would have likely done so. However, this sort of behavior--implied or otherwise--is appalling, and he needs to know that's not acceptable. Unlike most of my admin actions, please don't overturn this one without a public consensus, but feel free to overturn if such a thing forms. I'll drop a note on his talk right after this edit. rootology/equality 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have lengthened Malcom's block to indefinite for ongoing personal attacks whilst already blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Posted here for input and review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Attacking large numbers of volunteer editors who sacrifice their time to maintaining Wikipedia should never be tolerated and if someone continues to do so even while being blocked for exactly those reasons, they should be shown the door. I'd even suggest disabling talk page editing for this editor because it's unlikely to become better... Regards SoWhy 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. He's basically trolling to get blocked and then claimed victimhood. I think the month-long game at Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Any_constructive_suggestions.3F shows he isn't here to edit the encyclopedia, but just to argue for the sake of arguing. He'll be elsewhere complaining about the users here and his "mistreatment" soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• • It is the previous section Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The problem with Finlay where he totally misrepresents Mick Finlay's record of published writings and calls that academic an apologist for Islam that got to me. I was on the verge of posting in another place something asking what Malcolm brings to Wikipedia apart from niggling comments that waste other editor's time. So that's a Support block from me. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Long overdue. Has a knack for juvenile condescension against users of different POVs...don't have diffs handy, but he got a kick out of addressing me as Tark for some reason. Plus he has been calling other editors antisemitic for quite awhile now, and was even tossed off an ArbCom case because of it. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support Pretty nasty ongoing commentary, and obvious from his last few months of article space edits that he's only here to push what appears to be a pretty fringey POV, which is never helpful. Has been pretty much on a rampage of nastiness since people on the same political wavelength as himself were topic-banned from the Palestinian-Israeli topics in the recent RFAR. rootology/equality 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Based on discovered additional blocks and apparent socking from his days as User:Kwork, see below. rootology/equality 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I have been following this at a distance and I think indef is now merited. --John (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, I don't know him except one encounter at Talk:Porcelain#Lead image. Before reading this, I'd have suggested that his profound knowledge of fine art is too valuable, so just allow him to write such subjects only. However, the "Empty skulls" comment is way beyond any acceptable range of incivility, so I support.....Caspian blue 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Though not necessarily for the precise reason stated in his block log. I think his general abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground is a more accurate summary of his problems.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. Malcom isn't willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies so this was inevitable. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support It might have been less inflammatory to have requested another previously uninvolved admin review and act as appropriate - but I am certain the end result would have been the same/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom's way was to strongly attack admins trying to deal with him, then claim they were "involved" and "harassing" or "out to get" him. Hence Malcom said I was involved, but I never was. I always hoped he'd settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why having yet another admin do the review and likely block does not feed into that culture of being accused of having prior bias - but ultimately, it was a good block for the right reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If every admin a user encounters is then "involved", sooner or later that user would run out of admins. Better that we just be shut of the user well before that point. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Better that we actually apply a little common sense to "involved" - warning and attempting to guide an editor, or having edited the same page in the past six months or whatever arbitrary time period, is not "involved" unless one is excessively rules-minded (read, anal retentive wikilawyer.) I for one am getting a little tired of seeing worthy admins instructed to fetch someone who has never dealt with an editor, explain the situation, provide background and difs -- or else ask them to block on the first admins' judgment alone. If the first case, what a waste of time and effort! and if the second, then why the heck get another admin at all? To satisfy those with no common sense? because it is clear in the second case we are relying on the first admin's judgment, just as we would have been had they simply blocked. Enough of this "involved" crap. Don't worry about it unless there is an actual editing dispute or conflict between the two. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No objections, I generally support incivility blocks. It's somewhat amusing that he's blocked for displaying poor social skills by ranting about the supposed poor social skills of others.  Sandstein  19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he's amused with us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good block. And by all means, let his amusement continue, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think one should be able to blow off some steam on their talk page, and while his comment on 'empty skulls' was over the line it doesn't warrant an indef block in my opinion. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Support based on his continued justifying of behavior on his talk page Nableezy (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• We have granted his wish for a block, as it were, and I think both the wiki and Malcolm will be better off. Support ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The user in my experience does treat WP as a battleground, and has a substantial block history [6]. But none of those blocks were for longer than 72 hours, and occasional flashes of reasonableness meant I hadn't, despite my experience with him, quite given up on hope of productive interaction. Now that he's accepted it, I guess it's moot, but I'd have suggested a longer "think about why and how you're doing this" block (maybe 2-4 weeks) first, rather than jumping to indefinite. Maybe I'm just a softie, but I'm wary of indefinite blocks, especially of users engaged on very political topics. Rd232 ^talk 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The admins involved have a long history of blocking/warning Malcolm and have taken a disturbing obsession with the user. The initial problem with Nableezy was one of controversy and typical I/P trick and probably did not warrant such an extreme response. The vast majority of his blocks have been the result of opposing editors in militant-topics reporting him. Outside of that, he has been a very productive editor and seems to be quite knowledgeable on a lot of topics. I doubt Malcolm truly wants to be blocked indefinitely, it seems he just does not want to have his final edits revolving around another fruitless appeal. As R2 suggested, I believe a more fitting "punishment" (if blood is all that is desired here) would be a 2-4 week block. I don't see any precedent where a user is given an indef block like this and for admins to endorse such a punishment is suspect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support never had any interaction with this user, but one look at the block log is enough to know that this fellow is incapable of turning over a new leaf. Maybe in a year or so.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support At the top of Malcolm's Talk page he all but states that he is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. "I'm going to do what I think is right, whatever the consequences." That may be an admirable attitude for a Greek philosopher, but it doesn't bode well for an editor in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Malcolm and I have disagreed in the recent past (see Talk:Self-hating Jew for details), so feel free to discount my comments if you think I'm too close to the situation. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For those opposed to an indef block, question

Since the I/P topics and civility seem to be what does the user in, would there be any consideration if you are opposed to an indef block, for a topic restriction in regards to I/P or a civility probation? rootology/equality 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the hostilities have mostly taken place at Malcolm's userpage, and that not-so-nice comments came from both ends, I believe the civility restriction is hardly a fitting punishment. Topic restriction is basically an indef-block for Malcolm so that is even worse. I really don't see why there is such a strong interest in nailing this guy. I'm looking through his edits and there isn't anything particularly unique aside from typical user-page fights. If you bait an editor long enough and treat them like a criminal, of course they are going to get angry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly, that you think all these blocks including those for edit warring a POV are his being 'baited'? Please back up with diffs where he was "baited". This is a guy who was so lacking in AGF and civility that he was actually barred from even editing RFAR by injunction. rootology/equality 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the allegation that the blocks were mostly done by the same-set of admins and some of the blocks were reversed, yeah, I can't say with all honesty that the punishment fits the crime. And yes, Malcolm was baited relentlessly by editors and admins alike. I/Per articles aren't particularly notable for its attraction to good-faith. Do you dispute this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In order we have blocks by all these people: Scarian, Scarian, Elonka, Scarian, Gwen Gale, Smashville, Gwen Gale, Sandstein, Tznkai, Connolley, Rootology, Rlevse, Gwen Gale. That is a lot of different admins, but then we see he was also User:Kwork, who was blocked an additional three times[7] by Jayjg, Jossi, and Jpgordon. That is a total of 12 different admins having blocked him. Again, please provide evidence of admins baiting this guy with diffs. Deleted contribs for Kwork here, which show the exact same MO as his turn under the Malcolm handle. In fact, I see that Kwork is indeffed still, so I don't know how we all missed that Malcolm was even editing--he should have been blocked once it was realized he was Kwork. Again, please provide diffs of all these different admins, even Jayjg and Jpgordon, harassing and baiting him. rootology/equality 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom was blocked 6 June 2008 by Scarian for abusing multiple accounts (which is to say, for evading the Kwork block). I had tagged Kwork's user page and he emailed me, claiming he didn't know sockpuppetry wasn't allowed and after a number of emails, I helped him with the aftermath of RTV for Kwork and Malcolm Schosha (deleting his MS user page history among other things). Then Jpgordon unblocked him on 25 July 2008 and he came back from RTV. This is why (and when) I started watching his account. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing my suggestion of a topic ban/civ paroles etc. based on his history across two usernames, that I just noticed. rootology/equality 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez you really took the time to investigate, eh? I don't know much about Malcolm's previous handle so I rather not comment on it. The degree of action, proportional to the blocks listed, has been extremely generalized and overblown. I'll enumerate and simplify the blocks (though I don't really want to) to prevent confusion:

• Since the sock-violation was in good faith, we shouldn't count those.

• Between June 2008 to May 2009 (we can round it off to a year), 19 blocking-related actions occurred.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were administered by Gwen Gale.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 2 were administered by rootogoloy.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were reversed. 1 block by Rootology was self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:DGG for being "excessive," 1 block by User:Smashville self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:MZMcBride for being "improper," and the last was for sock-proving.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 4 were for personal attacks (one being reversed), 6 were for edit warring (mostly baiting situations), and the rest a mixture of disruption/arbitration concerns.

Out of approximately 5,114 over a span of almost 1.5 years, Malcolm received 15 unreserved blocks. That's 1 block for every 340 edits. But these blocks aren't exactly eye-popping. Edit warring is standard, and blocks are almost solely dependent on who reports who first. Personal attacks etc.. aren't defendable but again words can be miscontrued and Malcolm has laid pretty clear rationales in the past which had led to blocks being reversed. That in itself is a strong reminder of the strong partiality that has occurred throughout this whole ordeal.

Again, can you provide a single diff or evidence that he was "baited"? Especially, how is one "baited" into Edit Warring on article content? rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I'd also like to know how Malcolm was baited. It seems to me that he has done more than his share of baiting around here. In one instance, he described the actions of editors with whom he disagreed as "gang raping" an article; in other situations, he referred to ArbCom members as schmucks and to other editors as antisemites and anti-Zionists. Name-calling may be acceptable on the playground, but it has no place here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Read through his talk page. Either Malcolm is nothing less than an angry troll or people really just want to stonewall him out of wikipedia. Malcolm takes the concept of honesty a bit too high, though his remarks tend to come with clear and obvious rationales. He doesn't call everyone he disagrees with as antisemites/anti-Zionists. It's safe to assume many subscribe to that level of thought, however. Do you endorse the belief that all responses to Malcolm have been done in good faith and without prejudice? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What I believe about his justifications or personal views on topics and policies, or external politics are irrelevant. Can you provide a single diff or edit to back up your claims? It should be easy. rootology/equality 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems Root has taken the liberty of finalizing the issue and declaring Malcolm a "banned" user per direction of the talk page and ANI. I consider this a bit premature. I don't think it is very fair of us to not give Malcolm a voice. I'm sure he has a lot to say. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was reversed by me as well I believe and some days ago. rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right I did not check the date. Apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345: "Edit warring is standard" ??? um, no. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a standard violation in those kinds of articles. Thanks for taking what I wrote out of clear and obvious context. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The context is clear enough, you seem to be saying that Malcolm spent a significant portion of his time at the kind of articles for which "edit warring is standard" and ... he edit warred. After a certain number of warnings, which he had received, and then some, enough is enough. There is no "kind of article" for which edit warring is acceptable. We have arbcom case after arbcom case that makes that point, including the one that Malcolm was disinvited from participating further in. You appear to have several edit war blocks in your own record. I suggest that you need to internalise that you yourself should not edit war. End of story. That would be the best use of your time, I think. This block is sound. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's standard conduct. And the standard response is blocks and topic bans. So, anything out of the ordinary here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good God... 1 block for every 340 edits is appalling. "Baiting" presumes that a person is generally policy-abiding, but in a moment of weakness was driven into an uncharacteristic fit of blockable behavior. You can't be "baited" into 15 blocks - at that point, it's your responses to everyday editing stresses that are inappropriate. This isn't "baiting" - it's someone who has a long-term problem contributing here, and doesn't seem to be improving. MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by that 1 in 340 metric, anyone with less than 29 blocks per 10,000 edits is ahead of the curve. I'd be sitting at about 32 blocks now, and I think someone like Charles Matthews or Rich Farmbrough would be around 260-270 lifetime blocks by now. rootology/equality 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, do you dispute the partiality that has occurred? Does sheer # of reversed blocks and dependence on the same admins to make those blocks not bother you? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is much more to the background of those blocks than that: There were many unblock declines following most (nearly all) of those "reversed" blocks, some of which lasted for most of their set length before they were undone, without consulting the blocking admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is not addressing the concerns that have been raised or answering the questions they have been asked. I think we're done here. Consensus for an indef block seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. Please don't shove this under the rug. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rootology asked you for a diff to back up your claim, several times. You went off on tangents. Those tangents have been refuted. But more importantly, this is all after the fact, because the thread above this shows a clear consensus... lots of supports, one weak oppose... and you. It may not be unanimous, but it's a consensus all right. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In a sea of hostility and bad faith I'm expected to point out the obvious? Ok. There are several sets of baiting that have been confirmed by several users, most notably User:IronDuke, but this is the most recent and easiest for me to find because I am a very lazy person:

Self-hating Jew...this should turn out well. Malcolm attempts to explain why mick finlay bite is POV and does not belong in the lead. That in itself isn't really important. The editors seem to take great offense at Malcolm accusing Finlay of being an islamic apologist. This is then followed by a round of typical noticeboard-threats, one by Peter Cohen (who can be found above) This thread contains a violation of WP:BLP and promises to file a complaint. According to Cohen's history, he has yet to do any noticeboard filing, aside from a friendly confirmation of his support for the lifetime Malcolm ban. :D

Prior to this, User:untwirl considered Malcolm's 1-sentence removal violated consensus policy. Malcolm responds, pointing out the obvious that You confuse majority with consensus. There was never any effort by the majority to compromise with other editors.

Then user Malik Shabazz throws the disruptive accusation and threatens to file an ANI complaint.

Malcolm responds: ake it to the appropriate noticeboard, and we can discuss it further there.

This goes on for about 30 paragraphs. Over 1 sentence that clearly was out of place and did not deserve a spot in the lead. Even considering the islamic apologist comment (which is arguably accurate depending on one's perspective, and there are many in this article), editors immediately threatened to sue and you can clearly see Malcolm's mood switch from thereon. We call that baiting, and it worked quite well. Malcolm seems to expose himself way too much in these kinds of situations so the outcome is not a surprise . People want blood and they'll probably get it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis shows the same flaws in reasoning and misrepresentation of the truth as Malcolm's postings did, albeit in more temperate language. Examples of errors in the post to which I am responding include claiming that I did not post to any board when I did straight after saying I would, misrepresenting the initial tone of response to Malcolm by captioning the three moderately worded responses to Malcolm that you link above as "great offense at", ignoring that Malcolm had less than a month earlier consented to the version of the lead following my revision to a previous version meaning that the version as I left it represented prior consensus and not the imposition of majority rule and therefore WP:BRD should apply. And the "Islamic apologist" slur is not "arguably accurate" but a misrepresentation of the truth as argued by several editors in the thread and by me in the linked post to the BLP board. It also shows that Malcolm was resorting to personal attacks in describing those with whom he disagreed prior to what you claim was us all ganging up and bullying him (and with the added problem that Finlay wasn't there to respond to slurs on his character).--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions

I'm taking this here because this will likely need administrators to undelete pages. Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) has for some time been deleting redirects for being unused or "polluting Google". He doesn't seem to understand that he's wrong, even after a successful deletion review; relevant threads are User talk:Maury Markowitz#VIA redirects and User talk:Maury Markowitz#Redirects. The next step would be to go through all the redirects he deleted and undelete those that should not have been deleted. I can help create the list, but for obvious reasons cannot help with the undeletions. --NE2 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've left him a message to point out that there's more than just you thinking that the deletions are a bit off. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, this is still going on?! Undelete them all, with my blessings! I don't care one way or the other. But I do care about NE2's constant complaints and casting aspersions. So if undeleting all of these makes him leave me alone, great, full speed ahead! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; if someone sends me a list I'll work through it. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:NE2/redirects includes all of them. There are likely a few non-redirects and a few valid redirect deletions in there. --NE2 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've checked through #39 (PostScipt). --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And done. About half of the redirects have been restored. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --NE2 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer resignation article at The Register

I just saw that an article was published today on The Register about Sam Blacketer, and wanted to give you guys a heads-up. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct link ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a rather good article, actually, thanks for sharing. I particularly like the quote in the final paragraph! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh! That might explain this (reverted) edit, which had me scratching my head. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Its rather a bummer. Sam is a pretty good editor, but the aforementioned edit was clearly pov. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the situation. All that Sam Blacketer did was revert vandalism in Cameron's article: New Canadian (talk · contribs) inserts a picture designed to mock Cameron: [8]. It is a picture that shows Cameron, making a stupid face, in front of something in the background that makes him look as though he has a halo. Sam Blacketer then reverted that edit, restoring the normal picture, showing Cameron smiling in his suit: [9], with the edit summary "(Undid revision 290191421 by New Canadian (talk): Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones.)" His crime was to have a sense of humour. Two days later, Sam Blacketer reverted another vandal: [10]. Metz makes it sound as though Sam Blacketer had inserted a less flattering picture of Cameron, to score a popularity point against Cameron. The exact opposite is the truth. Thus I conclude Cade Metz is a journalist whose writings should not be given much credence, and that is putting it politely. ;) JN466 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I get that, Jayen466 - I do - but there is a reason we avoid those articles with which we have conflict of interest issues. It's incredibly poor judgment. It isn't like editing Hitler and Ghandi's page to keep junk nd out (when you hate one and love the other); the editor had a real connection to the subject. Hmm, we should have a policy or guideline about this... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a Brit, Sam Blacketer's handling of the image seemed impartial, balanced and fair-minded. No need for a witch hunt here. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the edit was ok, but a politician should know better (as Brit and a Reg reader). "Sam" did ok, and the big mistake he made was editing under his real name. I also think that Cade Metz is an ok guy, having spoken to him in real life, and that their coverage of wikipedia is rather tongue-in-cheek and funny (it's quite a british thing, though I don't think he's a brit). He's written some good pieces, and this is just a gossipy piece which happens to be correct. Also, WP:BLP applies to comments about Sam and Reg writers, I'd have thought, so lets keep it nice (not directed at MathSci - he's a nice guy too). Verbal chat 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I am rather surprised at all this furore. Among those of us who edit UK politics pages, its well known that Sam Blacketer was David Boothryd. As someone from a different party to David I can say his conduct has been excellent and impartial in all his dealings with both users and articles throughout his editing here. Its a real shame that he has felt that he needed to step down from ArbCom over this. Perhaps this ill informed IT journalist thought he had a scoop, not realising that he was telling the online political community what we knew anyway. I just hope that David carries on contributing to Wikipedia as both his in-depth historical knowledge and his eye for detail have raised the quality of our politics articles. - Galloglass 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ill informed? He seems to have been correct, and Sam resigned because of it. I hope he keeps editing too, and I hope attacks on living, identifiable, people stop. I didn't know sam had other accounts. I suggest this section is closed. Verbal chat 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not until "The Register" explains exactly what they meant by calling him a "Labour solider". That seems to be a typo for "solder", but I'm having a difficult time picturing how anyone could be a material used to join metal. Or is this another example of "The Register"'s penchant for erroneous reporting? -- llywrch (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Real world journalists have an annoying tendency to call the ArbCom Wikipedia's highest "court" that makes me cringe; this article seems no different. :) AGK 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

David Boothroyd article

Someone may want to take a closer look at this article and the drama quickly emerging behind this. I think this is going to get ugly. MuZemike 08:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is, it has been rapidly recreated, and another user has a copy of the article on his userpage, which is now up for MFD. MuZemike 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Deleted again and salted. MuZemike 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DRV. No need for drama. Jehochman ^Talk 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is now posted on the user page of TAway (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've resolved that. Jehochman ^Talk 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am being hounded

An IP has been following around Wikipedia for about a month now and shows no sign of stopping. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked a month for disruptive editing based on a previous block that appears to not have been effective. Nakon 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may add a note here, there is another user, SqueakBox (talk · contribs), who may be worth investigating as well. Looking at his contrib history shows a similar pattern to the now-blocked IP's of reverting QuackGuru's edits. In a 7-minute spree on 26 May, 2009, he reverted QG 15 times, all of which were soon reverted by admin, Jennavecia. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that this user did not know there was a consensus against removing co-founder? Or possibly thought that guackguru was trying to hide vandalism by implying he was correcting a typo, even though anyone familiar with the situation understood the sarcasm there? A cursory search would suggest the IP user was not told about the consensus, so the IP users unblock request might actually be valid. This still does not really explain why the IP user is editing in that area, possibly following guackguru. David D. (Talk) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Plausible, as the reversions occurred before the IP's involvement in Talk:Jimmy Wales. But it seems to be a hounding issue nonetheless, as this anon has been involved in revert wars with this user in the recent past, [11], down in the April 15-17 range. And their first edit to Jimmy Wales was to revert the accusation against him. Maybe a block reduction, then. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A rogue bot

I am concerned by what I consider a rogue bot. It is working its way through the biographical articles, adding a {{DEFAULTSORT}} parameter to each one.

Various other people have told the bot owner that they have concerns over this bot. Maybe the bot owner paused their bot. But, if they did they didn't leave a note informing those with a concern that the bot was stopped.

What this bot was doing was an enormous mistake, for every individual who does not have a name that fits into the European naming scheme of inheritable surnames as the last component of the name. Chinese people use inherited surnames -- but it is the first component of their name. People with Arabic names don't use inherited surnames at all. That is billions of individuals.

This bot has generated a considerable burden of extra work to clean up after it.

If it has not been disabled, could an administrator stop it? If it has been stopped could someone leave a note to that effect on the bot's talk page?

For what it is worth I think there is no mechanical way that a bot can determine whether an individual's name should be put into a defaultsort template, and this bot, nor its brothers, should not be restarted. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the bot being refered to is DefaultsortBot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DefaultuserBot's owner, Mikaey, has been notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

<sigh>. I don't know how many times I try to explain this to everyone. The bot isn't deciding on its own how to arrange the name, it's pulling the listas parameter of the {{WPBiography}} on the talk page. I agree that it's extra work to clean up mistakes, but a) I think it's doing more good than harm in the long run, and b) we need to focus more on editors who are getting the listas wrong in the first place. Anywho, I've turned the bot off for the time being so that hopefully we can get this cleared up. P.S. -- the bot's RfA is here. Matt (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To err is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.

Well meaning, but ill-advised volunteers have assumed the European style of inherited surnames was applicable to all names -- when it demonstrably does not apply. Over the last N years they have added ill-advised, unreliable, templates and parameters, to an enormous number of articles where they do not belong. Bots written by well-meaning but ill-advised bot-authors, which rely on the already unreliable data, are compounding an already serious problem.

At this point more than half of our articles about individuals with Arabic names have had someone add an ill-advised, unreliable guess at what their inherited surname would be. This data is so unreliable no bot should rely on it. Geo Swan (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we come up with a good way of fixing the problem? Geo Swan, what should the defaultsort/listas be? I or other can try to generate a list, then go through purging/just plain removing the offending defaultsorts/listas. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's really unfair to call it a "rogue bot", when it was approved by the Bot Approvals Group after positive input from the community. The bot takes sorting information from WPBio and puts it into DEFAULTSORT. The vast majority of the time, the sorting information is correct. When it's not correct, the bot can't know that, and it puts it into DEFAULTSORT anyway. The incorrect information would be there with or without this bot. The correct response is to fix it when it's incorrect, not blame the bot operator. This is similar to a bot that changes malformed links like [[http://www.example.com/]] to [http://www.example.com/], but isn't aware that occasionally http://www.example.com/ is an irrelevant link. I don't think this is an issue for the Admin Noticeboard.

So as a solution, it would be great if we could find editors familiar with the Arabic and Persian naming conventions, who can say with a good degree of certainty whether Mohammed Mosaddeq should be sorted under Mohammed or Mosaddeq. Does anyone here have to expertise, and where can I ask? Is there, perhaps, a reference work that lists this? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I posted something on my talk page about to that same effect -- that if the data is incorrect, there's just as much work involved in fixing the bot's edits as there would be if the bot hadn't touched the page in the first place. Like I said earlier, I think we need to focus on teaching people what the right way is. Can we mark this resolved? Matt (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed myself that the bot was adding DEFAULTSORT even if it was needed (for example in single-word terms). IMO this bot was approved very fast, in only four days discussion without enough feedback from the community. BAG must be more careful. For the rest we have to reach a consensus as a community. I always though that adding DEFAULTSORT in all articles could not be a bot's job. Only in small approved lists maybe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's causing a similar problem with Ethiopian names: Ethiopians do not have family names. The surname is their father's name, e.g. in the case of Mengistu Haile Maryam, his name is "Mengistu", & "Haile Maryam" is his father's name. I've been deleting DEFAULTSORT in these bios as I encountered them -- which means in the rare cases where an expatriate Ethiopian does use his father's name as a family name, I'm introducing an error. (And I won't go into the problems of compound names like "Zara Yaqob" or "Haile Selassie".) -- llywrch (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The solution here is to draft the bots in to help. I used AWB to add the Listas parameter to several hundred talk pages, a few months back, but limited the pages under consideration to those consisting of specific patterns such "John" followed by an initial followed by an un-hyphenated capitalised name. Wherever a rule can be laid down you will find a bot editor willing to apply it for you. On other point, don't delete the DEFAULTSORT rather replace it. This makes it clear that the sort order has been deliberately set. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Rich -- this is exactly what happened here. I wrote this bot because I was approached by Carcharoth with the request that, in the end, all biography articles have DEFAULTSORTs on them. The rule we decided upon was that "all biography articles fall into either Category:Biography articles with listas parameter or Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, let's take the ones that are in Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and copy their listas parameters into a DEFAULTSORT for the article". Matt (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The problems are the following:

• Not all articles need a DEFAULTSORT
  • Single word title articles
  • Article where DEFAULTSORT = Articlename (Chinese, Arabic names, musical groups etc.)
• Sometimes the DEFAULTSORT is different than listas for a good reason i.e. YOB/YOD categories listing is not the same with most categories
• Some articles are for duos, groups of more people and the categories should be piped but no DEFAULTSORT

-- Magioladitis (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we can make exceptions for the "articles where DEFAULTSORT = Articlename" situation pretty easily (which, when you think about it, would also cover "single word title article" most of the time, but not always). I'd argue against not having DEFAULTSORTs for single word titles by default because the name may not match WP:MCSTJR.

As far as category sort tags, the bot only removes them if they are identical to what the new DEFAULTSORT is going to be. We realized at the BRfA that some categories may want to be sorted differently, and we made a conscious effort to make sure they were left alone.

Why would you not want a DEFAULTSORT for duos/groups? Matt (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To Magioladitis (or should I address this to Matt?) -- So if you start opting out Chinese & Arabic names, could you also opt out Ethiopian ones? (We can take this specific conversation elsewhere if that works better for all.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about opting out cases where the listas/DEFAULTSORT would be the same as the page title. Distinguishing Chinese/Arabic/Ethiopian names from everything else gets VERY tricky, especially for a bot. Matt (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated many, many times before by me and others in many, many places and was restated by Rich a few hours ago, the placing of a DEFAULTSORT value on a page makes it clear that the sort order has been deliberately set. This is especially true where DEFAULTSORT=PAGENAME. (I have found a few of the latter where the article has indications that the pagename is wrong, however. Sometimes the indications are in the wording of the article and sometimes the indications are in the pipe values for the Categories.)

It is also a good idea to put a DEFAULTSORT value on a page where the proper value would not be obvious or acceptable to the average user, a person who would not be well-versed in the various naming conventions employed throughout the world, with a non-viewable comment that the value is correct and a short explanation of the reason it is correct.

I am not certain what what is meant by the DEFAULTSORT is different than the listas for a good reason and even less certain why it applies to the issue of not applying a DEFAULTSORT value to the article. In cases where a page should be sorted in more than one way the alternative sort value would be a pipe in the category assignment. (The Icelanders seem to do things that way.) The categories that have been moved from the article page to the talk page (for what I consider to be specious reasons -- the first one to be moved was approved because of the precedents) will need pipes because the DEFAULTSORT is not to be used on the Talk page.

This is yet another reason to get groups out of WP Biog. A biography is the story of a person's life as told by another person or persons. However, if separate members of a group have to be put into separate categories and they are not sufficiently notable to have separate articles (a condition that I have seen so often that I have stopped wondering about the notability of the group), that is when pipes would be used. Although doing such may may confuse more than it clarifies.

I agree that one of the answers to the problem is to find a way to teach each of the editors how to construct a DEFAULTSORT value from the information that is in a biographical article. Another part of the answer, and the one that should be applied while we are contacting all the hundreds of thousands of editors.

Those who have experience and expertise at creating DEFAULTSORT values do so. It is not possible to locate directly the articles that lack this value so it will have to be through either of the categories regarding the listas parameter. There are currently 44,750 items in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. That should keep manual editors busy for quite some time because, being responsible people, they will also take care of such things as completing the living parameter, ensuring that the blp banner, if present, is on top, ensuring that the DEFAULTSORT is above the categories to which it should be applied and pipes are used if necessary.

There are other reasons to correct rather than delete wrong values. There are pages that must be sorted on a value other than the PAGENAME. Until all the other pages are removed from Category:Biography articles without listas parameter it will be almost impossible to locate the ones that must be addressed. (This could be an issue for blp as well.) As an imperfect example look at Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. The pages that are there are permanent residents and will always be there but are causing no harm because no one will see them. When a new page is placed in the category by a careless or unsuspecting editor I resolve the conflict as soo as I see it, generally twice per day, because there the conflict occurs on the page there is a sentence in red on the page describing the nature of the conflict, alerting the viewer to the sloppiness of some of the editors.

When Category:Biography articles without listas parameter is down to a dozen or so pages that are waiting for editors with special expertise to take care of them, it will be easy to notice the new pages.

Unfortunately, what all this means is that editors will have to take responsibility for all aspects of the articles on their watchlists, even the way the pages are sorted, and that editors with special knowledge may be taxed with a little more work for a while. This is not work in the truest sense as minimal amounts of force will be moved over very short distances. Much less true work than would be involved in getting another beer out of the refrigerator, for example.

It also means that the work will go much more slowly than is has over the past couple of months. As I said above Category:Biography articles without listas parameter has 44,750 pages in it. When I joined the others who were trying to do things manually there were 375,812 pages in it. A month later when listasbot started there were 334,000 pages in it. The manual workers had managed to do a little over 30,000 pages in a month. In the two months that listasbot has been working the number of pages has been reduced by nearly 290,000.

JimCubb (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing to see any arguments here that tell me that the bot's behavior is inappropriate. So, with that, and also at JimCubb's request (see here), I'm going to let the bot resume its work. Matt (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is worth a report or not - but it seems to be 4:20 already

Resolved

 – pages smoked, editors could be socking but no real disruptive sock editing to block for that reason alone. Watching. Mfield (Oi!) 04:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mfield (Oi!) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what could be construed from the contribs of Smoker2000 (talk · contribs) and Marijuanasmoke (talk · contribs). Could it perhaps be something portentous of things to come? --WebHamster 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of blanking Smoker2000's user page. It's an apparently nonsense article, but it included an illustration of an identified person. This may be a novel interpretation of WP:BLP, so others feel free to correct. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the other, and believe it could,m and should, be G3'd as well. Interesting that Smoker2000 contrib'd to Marijuanasmoke, whose ONLY contribs are to his faked biography. 'The Golden Ear-rings'? c'mon. It's a farce. ThuranX (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted them both. Mfield (Oi!) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Smoker2000 has reposted his page - [12]. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has blanked it again, since he posted an attack directed at me[13], I am not going to rise to it by deleting it again or blocking him personally, someone else can do that if he continues. Mfield (Oi!) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, now he's adding to it again despite the final warning. Mfield (Oi!) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have G3 CSD'ed the page, because he has again reinstated it. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The same page has now been recreated under a different username: User:Smoker1999. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like smoking dope makes you go back in time. I wonder if I can afford enough to go back to when my back didn't ache when it rains? --WebHamster 22:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd support all three accounts Smoker1999 (talk · contribs), Smoker2000 (talk · contribs) and Marijuanasmoke (talk · contribs) now be indefed for abusing multiple accounts. I have to run off but I'll do it when I get back later if no one else has already done it or objected. Seems like the users have actually been smoking quack. Mfield (Oi!) 01:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Emely1219

Emely1219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Doesn't seem like Ratel, probably a sock from the looks of it. Soxwon (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it -- seems not to like Ratel particularly, in fact. Seems to be a new user who happened to alight on Copperfield from the looks of things. Collect (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not me, I don't "do" socks. Checkuser will find it's either TheMagicOfDC (talk · contribs · count) or Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) I would guess. ► RATEL ◄ 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it is a sock, at least not worth a checkuser. Wikipedia:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet may apply here. We can wait a bit on this one, IMHO. Collect (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's annihilate this SPA/COI/sockpuppet before he/she has a chance to do any real damage -- or good -- to this project. Ten edits should be enough to tell. Flowanda | Talk 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've only just seen this section - looks like a sock of Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) to me and I've reported it as such. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this edit could be considered vandalism or evidence of a Ratel sock. I'm not objecting to the CU or COI concerns, but I am genuinely confused...is there a conversation somewhere else that I am missing? Flowanda | Talk 01:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange SPA behavior

{{resolved|Blocked indefinitely as spam-only accounts. rspεεr (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)}}

Micheliachempaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Twice, this user has rewritten Eagle Brand Medicated Oil as a blatant advertisement. After a level-4 warning, they did this. Obviously replacing referenced info with that rubbish won't fly, but should something be done about the account? --Sable232 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I say block away. I'm guessing AIV could more expediently handled this in the future. MuZemike 03:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be blocked for using multiple accounts: as User:Bordenwiki and as User:Micheliachempaka. --64.85.210.19 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Slow down. It is not the whole truth to say "after a level-4 warning", because you gave micheliachempaka two warnings. The first was a level 2, then a level 4 before they were blocked. Same with the Bordenwiki account. You started off with a level-2 warning. Sure, the accounts were rewriting the article to sound more advertisement-like, but you could have attempted to discuss with them before giving one account two (out of sequence) warnings, the other one (out of sequence) warning, and bringing it here. You didn't even leave a note for micheliachempaka, telling them about this thread. The user came into the IRC help room at about 02:30 May 26 (UTC) and for the limited time they were on IRC, I tried to actually talk to them about Wikipedia and its policies. Unfortunately the user had to leave before much was discussed, but I went to leave them a note on their talk page right now and I find they've been blocked after 2 warnings and nothing but templates on their page. Surely this must be reviewed? The user didn't seem to be malicious, and was obviously a newb. I'm unresolving this in hopes of further discussion. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert I. Sherman

Resolved

 – Article has been deleted. Early closure by Gwen Gale.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert I. Sherman
• Related discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert I.Sherman - Balanced or CSD G10.3F

As of this posting, the deletion discussion has seven votes for deletion (including nom) and only one keep (that of the author). Note also that the subject of the article has expressed strong objection to the content of the article, which had been stubbed as a borderline attack piece on a living person. The author persists in restoring the content. There is no biographical information on the subject's life or career outside of these two incidents. As the admin who began the stubbing and opened the AFD, and having already restubbed it once, I feel it inappropriate for me to take any further action here. I do, however, believe the article should be restubbed and protected until the AFD concludes. Further opinions requested. لennavecia 06:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since my comment on the BLP noticeboard is rather elaborate, let me give a short version here. I am not so much opposing this afd on the basis that I consider Sherman notable as person. I count roughly 1000 hits with search engines for "Robert I. Sherman". What I am strongly opposing is the presumption that the material is ""bordering on an attack page" or that it "it may actually qualify for [CSD] G10." For previous discussions see here and here.

All I did was clean up (and later move) an article called Historical persecution by Christians. The old version included a section "20th century" and a subsection "United States", and there was a single sentence: "In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." The remainder of that section was a piece of junk and I could delete it, diff but that sentence appeared to be relevant for Wikipedia, only not for this article. So I merged it and later expanded the material, since it turned out to be a difficult issue. And I have been battling about this ever since.No one attempted to show that it simply isn't notable, everybody simply bashed against it on the grounds of wp:blp or wp:verifiability. If this material was unverifiable or a blp violation, I would not have kept it. If it turns out the Sherman is not notable, then I suppose that I will have to merge the material into Freedom of Religion in the United States, unless someone can convincingly argue that it would not be "one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society". And if we have to go through the arguments based on wp:blp or wp:verifiability, so be it. But then, let us do it only once, and properly. Zara1709 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The AfD will clearly conclude with deletion. Meanwhile, I think it's not worth the bother to stub and protect; the content is not a clear BLP violation.  Sandstein  12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article disagrees, viewing the article as an attack piece. He has approached the situation respectfully and, considering all commenting editors agree that the content should be deleted, it seems to me that it would be prudent to remove the offensive material, which I contend is a violation of our BLP policy. لennavecia 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible early closure? There is only one keep. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

SPA making personal attacks in summary

Resolved

Could some kind admin delete this defamatory accusation from a SPA IP 92.14.248.193 (talk · contribs) currently in melt down on the Death of Baby P article? --WebHamster 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No matter, already sorted. --WebHamster 12:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Could someone please block the above mentioned IP editor, and delete the defamatory comments in his contrib history. This person's a real cuddly customer! --WebHamster 13:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd. 31 hours didn't strike me as sufficient, given those edit summaries. Cleaning up talk page diffs, too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a high likelihood that JohnRedwood (talk · contribs) is the IP risen from the dead... worth keeping an eye upon methinks. --WebHamster 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 92.15.9.8 over threats of violence. This is certainly a charming corner of WP I've stumbled onto....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but have changed the duration to a finite one per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths.  Sandstein  13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

31 hours is more than sufficient for this dynamic IP. You'll notice that it was no longer being used by this user after only a few minutes. Please reduce the block length to avoid excessive collateral. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree - the ISP in question (TalkTalk) does not offer static IPs and I doubt a block of anything longer than a week or so will achieve anything other than collateral damage. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, lowered to 24h.  Sandstein  18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You idiots, unblock the talk page so people can discuss this important case! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRedwood (talk • contribs) 13:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to answer WebHamster's question. JohnRedwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now also indefblocked.  Sandstein  13:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I also blocked three of JohnRedwood's IP socks yesterday for harassing User:Mw-wsh. We'll likely be dealing with this one for a bit, so any watchlist help on Death of Baby P would be greatly appreciated. — Satori Son 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Historičar and Bosniak fundamentalis PoV pushing at the article Bosnian language

Historičar and his likely sockpuppet User:Journalist 007 have been edit-warring on the abovementioned article, by simply removing content they feel like is added by "Croat and Serb nationalist", despite being abundantly sourced, and at the same time ignoring the talkpage discussions altogether, where everyone can see that he ("them") has no case at all, by either deliberately milsleading and lying (e.g. claiming that the English version of the B&H constitution which contains the disputed phrasing Bosniac language is "translated from Croatian" despite the fact that there are several cited places where it is claimed otherwise, the Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian versions of the constitution being translated from the English original which was voted on) or engaging in ad hominems against his fellow Wikipedians. He even called "nationalist" users such as DIREKTOR and myself, even though both of us have a pretty strong record of being anti-nationalist (both Croat and Serb, and even Bosnian Muslim) on numerous other issues. Can someone with sysop buttons please warn Historičar to act politely, discuss the things that he doesn't like on the talkpage first, and stop acting as a censor for the information everyone but him is comfortable with? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Historičar for 24 hours for edit-warring, notified Journalist 007 of WP:ARBMAC and warned them about reverting etc, and reminded DIREKTOR of WP:3RR. I've also fully-protected the article for one week to prevent further edit-warring and encourage all editors to engage on the talk-page. If you want to file a sock report, WP:SSP is thataway ;) Sanctions recorded at ARBMAC. EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

New user indiscriminately reverting my edits

New user User:Who killed bambi seems to have set up his account just for the purpose of reverting my edits [14]. I suspect this is User:64.19.148.90 who got angry at me for trying to include a NPOV in the article of his pet organization (see Talk:Oorah (organization). Can anything be done to stop him? Jms2000 (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this report is rather premature. The best solution, when someone reverts an edit of yours, is to use a Talk page to discuss the matter (the talk page of the article, or of the other user), remembering to assume good faith and remain polite. The associated content dispute seems perfectly straightforward. The addition of the phrase "antisemitic hate group" is disputed; the solution is to provide a reliable source. Policy is quite clear that the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "bambi" one of those words frequently used in sock names by a long-time puppeteer? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan 101Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. Although User:HBC NameWatcherBot is programmed to look for "bambi" in usernames for potential association with Bambifan 101, the list of socks doesn't actually include any of that type that I can see. This could be a coincidence. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing MOS archives

Could one of you perhaps be persuaded to put your deletion goggles on and resolve the mystery at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Archives_of_this_page? Vielen Dank,  Skomorokh  15:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Found 66 & 67, they weren't capitalized correctly: Wikipedia talk:Manual of style/Archive 67, Wikipedia talk:Manual of style/Archive 66. --64.85.220.164 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also found Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 0 which isn't linked to in the archive box at all. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (jguk's changes) might be Archive 8 or 9, but so could Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 2, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 4, or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Alpha Archive 5; none of those seem to be archived properly. --64.85.211.233 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Jeneral28

• Jeneral28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 147.188.244.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neptune123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier this week, this user was blocked for 31 hours due to violation of the 3RR (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Jeneral28 reported by Aoi (Result: 31 hours for Jeneral28+ip). Since then, the user has evaded their block several times. A helpful administrator, Amalthea, blocked two IPs that were used to evade the block per WP:DUCK, including 147.188.244.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 147.188.244.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since then, the user has evaded the block at least two more times, under the IP 147.188.244.61 and Neptune123456. In the former case, the IP address is very similar to the IP addresses Amalthea blocked earlier today; in the latter case, the user is editing at all the same articles Jeneral28 frequented, and is putting words into discussions where Jeneral28 frequented. For example, see these two diffs: [15] and [16]. User is also on talk pages simply agreeing with whatever Jeneral28 wrote in the past; see [17], [18], [19], and [20]. Finally, I'm not sure exactly what this is, but this template seems to have been automatically added to the user's talk page: [21] 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Neptune123456 indefblocked per WP:DUCK; block on Jeneral28 reset. You may well be right about the IP, but with only two recent contributions I don't think there's enough there to go on yet. If they resume though, please re-report. EyeSerene^talk 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser on Neptune123456 shows him editing the same IP that Jeneral28 was using, and one other. Fred Talk 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

.61 was autoblocked already anyway.
He isn't disruptive enough yet to rangeblock the whole University of Birmingham, from where he's editing (147.188.0.0/16). However, if he continues with his disruptive behaviour a mail to their network admin might be a first step. Amalthea 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, a rangeblock would be extreme at the moment ;) Incidentally, Neptune123456 has an unblock request up. EyeSerene^talk 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

User:Guido den Broeder has been unbanned by User:Cool Hand Luke nearly a week ago, with a topic ban in place. His edits since then include a first edit denying any problems[22] (also [23]), removing quite normal posts as "personal attacks"[24][25][26], a claim that he won't edit Wikipedia anymore ([27]). He started being disruptive at [Talk:Global cooling]. He has already twice reverted perfectly normal edits as vandalism[28][29]; When called upon this, he removed this per WP:SPADE[30]. Finally, he posted a copyright violation[31], whihc I removed as such.[32]. When I then explained what he had to do to let it stay[33], he replied with the summary "pay attention pls" that since the speech was given in public, it was now in the public domain...[34]

This user has been banned before, but has been allowed to return. Since then, he has attacked the ArbCom member who unbanned him and caused all the above problems, all this in less than a week and less than 100 edits. I suggest that we don't waste a huge amount of time on him again but simply reinstate the ban before this starts all over again. Fram (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to add that CHL has acted brilliantly during this, first in the unblocking and extension of good faith, and then in addressing the concerns of other editors. This should not reflect badly on him, nor on the unblocking of problem editors with defined limits and a watchman such as CHL. Verbal chat 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The block log says that the user was unblocked by the Arbitration Committee so frankly, they should deal with it if there are issues. Perhaps WP:AE would be a better venue for this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, AE is for the enforcement of specific arbitration remedies, which does not seem to be the issue here.  Sandstein  21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:AC/N works just as well...I think you understand my point. Should the community really have a big discussion about this if the Committee will again overturn the outcome of said discussion? I really think that ArbCom should be handling the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a point, while Arbcom blocks can only be undone by the Arbcom, unblocks by the Arbcom aren't "binding" and new behavior can supercede the unblock, if consensus is there. Any new blocks are just blocks. I've never heard of Arbcom "unblocks" having any special weight relative to their blocks. rootology/equality 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true. Above, I just assumed the opposite. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I agree with Rootology's interpretation. See below. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For various and good reasons I have removed the discussion in question from GDBs talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no involvement whatsoever with Guido, other than having initiated the discussion that got him banned. I observed Durova's good-hearted attempt to get him community-unbanned, which appeared to fail in the face of non-full disclosure from the banned party. I've also observed ArbCom's well-meaning trial unban and CHL's exemplary efforts to explain limits on behaviour. My sense of the developments over the last week or so is that GdB is more interested in discussing how many "t"'s you spell limit with than getting on with productive editing. This is a serious concern, to echo WMC's supposed personal attack, "this is all going to end in tears". ArbCom may choose to act, but the community may also choose to override ArbCom and re-instate the ban.

The situation bears watching. GdB seems well-meaning, but doesn't seem to understand the value of not shifting endlessly around every sentence and word. I'd say give it another week or so, in which time to try to more firmly establish that there are limits to behaviour. Franamax (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Right then, which administrator is going to make the tough decision to ban such a blatantly disruptive individual? I mean, there has got be a limit on how much wikipedians can tolerate before we get burdened by such annoying individuals, right? My vote is to ban him for the greater good of wikipedia. Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm or genuine sentiment? It sounds a little like what Stalin or Henry II might have said. The current context is that we're trying to restore a previously banned user to good standing. Patience and attempts at education are warranted. These have their limits though... Franamax (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(after 10+ bwc's) :To clarify: I have no intention to edit WP articles at all at this time. My main interest currently lies in policy development, and occasionally I help out editors with policy questions. I suggest certain users to give me some space, refrain from making accusations related to things that may or may not have happened ages ago, and stop editwarring on my talk page, so that I actually get a fair chance. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think that Guido's current behaviour is well within the norms of Wikipedia or at least it should be. Of course he used some questionable edit summaries, reverted a humorous edit on his talkpage by William and described it as an "rpa" in his edit summary, presumably meaning "personal attack", and pestered CHL, an absolute gentleman and just a messenger from the Arbcom, with inquiries about the topic ban. But his behaviour is not so egregious as to warrant reports at ANI, imo. I would hope that our behavioural norms are wide enough to accomodate Guido's present behaviour, because I'm afraid that if we reduce our tolerance to perfectly behaving people without any faults, this place will become too much of a cookie cutter factory to be of any use. Dr.K. logos 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact I applaud CHL and the Arbcom for their decision to unban Guido. Any action that expands the boundaries of inclusiveness within Wikipedia and extends the reach of WP:AGF is indeed commendable and in the best traditions of this project. Dr.K. logos 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on WT:AC/N - Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Discussion of arbitration decision and enforcement at ANI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K, the issue here is not necessarily with any one single edit, it's with the "arc of the storyline". An editor was banned, then was un-banned. On unbanning, the editor proceeded directly to discuss (some might say argue) the un-ban terms, and to begin editing at another contentious subject (Global cooling). They now protest that they are now only interested in policy development. Experience shows that this kind of interest in Wikipedia often doesn't work out well. In fact, when unbanned editors decide to focus on governance, they often are focussing on why they were right all along, and the whole thing was other people's fault. This seldom ends up well.

Our only interest here is that GdB ends up as a productive contributor to the encyclopedic content here. If a focus on policy ends up with policy better supporting production of content, all the better. If we're just looking at more discussions about (paraphrasing) "that depends on what your definition of 'the' is...", we're just causing other good-faith editors to tear their hair out. As I said above, this situation needs csreful attention and patient education. Success is not guaranteed however. Resumption of previous patterns of behaviour is not a good sign. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• And hair is something that is not in abundance for some of us editors here... :/ --Dave1185 (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK; I knew that "pestering" would be part of being an arbitrator when I signed up. Don't worry about any alleged personal attacks toward me.

That said, I'm sure the Committee would be interested in your thoughts; they've retained review over his activity on Wikipedia. I had hoped that by setting some firm conditions, Guido could be steered away from topics that seem to have caused him trouble. I can't say I'm happy with the results so far, but I think the original theory was sound. Incidentally, I have recused myself from further involvement in his case.

I agree with Rootology about the review question. If the community wants to ban someone ArbCom has unblocked, I think they have that authority. The difference is that the community cannot unban someone banned by ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Rootology is entirely correct, the community has that right. Whether they know how to exercise it wisely, is another matter entirely.

It's not specific topics that cause me trouble though. I've had a thorough look at all the topics on my watchlist can honestly say that as things stand, I expect trouble on any one of them, if I were to make an effort to improve their text. This has nothing to do with my editing style, which has always been constructive and will remain so. It has instead everything to do with how Wikipedia is currently functioning, to which someone with my background is more vulnerable than others.

This does not mean that I cannot contribute, just that my efforts will be better directed at other things. I have always had an interest in policy development, also in relation to my experience as an administrator, bureaucrat, project lead, etc. on various other projects, and there are still some kindred spirits here that value my input. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Luke, I didn't see your comments when I was replying to Franamax. I think it may have been an edit conflict. I note your comment about personal attacks. It doesn't surprise me because I expected such an approach from you. It is something that I like and really respect. It is nice meeting you. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree completely with all your points Franamax, including the "arc of the storyline", as you so eloquently put it. I have to agree, it is a rather steep arc. I don't think smoothness is one of its attributes. Also you are right about policy discussions and encyclopaedic content. Hopefully Guido and other editors will cooperate in a sufficiently collegial environment that further drama will be avoided and the project will eventually benefit. I recognise that this a difficult case and some of the portents are not very good. But I wholeheartedly agree with your comment that the situation needs careful attention and patient education. Let's hope that this careful calibration will lead to an agreeable resolution. Finally I understand that success is not guaranteed. But I feel encouraged to see that other Wikipedians, such as you, are so fair minded and willing to give this user a fair chance, despite the not so great optics of the situation. I could ask for no more. Thank you very much for that. It was a great pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. logos 00:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

In lines with Rootology and Cool Hand Luke... Guido and the community, ArbCom may have two options:

1. Leave this case at the hand of the community;
2. Close this thread and let ArbCom and Guido deal with it.

If you have any other options or may prefer one of the above please let ArbCom know at AC/N. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What does #1 entail? What happens if this case is left at the hand of the community? What is there to resolve? Dr.K. logos 01:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is left to resolve is whether Guido has violated his return restrictions or whether some other community based action is warranted. With his unban by a majority of arbcom he is still subject to commnunity restrictions like any user with the addition of his return restrictions. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first, clarification has been asked from and will be provided by the ArbCom itself. This is not uncommon with unban restrictions, and I will abide by their decision. On the second, it is probably a good idea if someone could explain to Fram, who started this thread, that I did not violate any copyright. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite amazed that someone who owns a publishing house, and who plans on discussing policies here, can claim[35] that "It's a speech held this morning in public, so it's in the public domain now." This is a crucial misunderstanding of what public domain is and the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy. Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is entirely correct. One expects administrators to understand at least the basics of the concept. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This interpretation certainly doesn't accord with the decision of the 11th Circuit Court as rendered in 1999 in Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. This particular case concerned registration under the 1901 Copyright Act, but irrespective of the registration issue, the court was clear that public speaking is performance, which is protected speech ("Dr. King's delivery of his "I Have A Dream" speech was a mere performance of that work"; "[t]he rendering of a performance before the microphone does not constitute an abandonment of ownership or a dedication of it to the public at large"; "an audience [viewing a performance] does not thereby gain such dominion over the copy as to warrant the conclusion that the work has been surrendered to the public.") Do you have a verifiable source to suggest that copyright governance of public speech has changed? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, note that the original decision went the opposite way, so it was on the edge. But you are overlooking two essential aspects. King's speech is a creative work, De Meirleir's speech is a news item. It was furthermore distributed as a press release, even with explicit permission to redistribute ahead of time. Fram maintains that it is not allowed to post a press release. If that were true, newspapers would be out of business. Surely, that would defeat the very purpose of such a release. Kind regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "edge"—that is, the earlier court decision—was related to the date of registration. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, which governed King's speech by date, copyright had to be registered at publication. King did not register his speech until after it was performed. The edge had nothing to do with speeches going into public domain. News items are also governed by copyright; the threshold of creativity, as the courts have clearly noted, is slim. Also, I am unaware of any law or court decision indicating that press releases are innately public domain. Many companies place prominent copyright notices on these. While they may be happy to publicize materials, they do not necessarily consent to these being freely reproduced or modified. For a single example, see this recent press release, Copyright (c) 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. The specifics of this case aside, it is misleading to say "It's a speech held this morning in public, so it's in the public domain now." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to take into account the specifics of this case, since that's what initiated this AN/I report. As an apparent expert on copyright, help us out here. Is Fram correct by stating that press releases can't be posted, or not? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't consider myself an "expert", though I am somewhat experienced in some areas related to copyright. I look to reliable sources to confirm my impressions. It is my opinion that Fram is correct that press releases cannot be posted without verification that these are public domain or licensed compatibly to allow modification and liberal reuse, unless they are handled like any other copyrighted text under WP:NFC. WP:C notes that "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." A press release carries an implied (if not explicit) license to reproduce for the outlets to which it is provided, but, again, so far as I am aware US courts have not verified that this implied license conveys to other publishers. Since you asked, I did try to find a definitive answer, but could not at least in the time I had to give it. However, the 2000 Handbook of Public Relations seems to support this, with the note that "...neither one's ideas nor those of a client for a press release or campaign can be copyrighted, but the written notes, photographs, printed verbiage, and/or recordings can" (citations omitted. Heath & Vasquez, p. [253, SAGE.) In the absence of verifiable information otherwise, we must presume that authors of press releases (or, more generally, the agencies that hire them) retain the right to set licensing terms for their use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Personally I think he should be given some breathing space to further adjust before any further action is taken. But that's just my opinion. Thank you very much for the clarification. Dr.K. logos 01:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I personally look at it, since CFS and ME redirect to the same article, both fall under the topic ban; and if you disagree Guido, consider how quickly editing in ME has gotten you into trouble--it took less than a week. It's best if you just walk away to other parts of the encyclopedia to edit productively, otherwise I foresee continued problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a fair appraisal of the situation. I agree. Dr.K. logos 02:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the faulty redirect. I have not been editing in ME either, I just made mention of news on my talk page and had a friendly discussion about it with Mastcell. There is furthermore no relation between the trouble Fram has caused me and the topic. Please, let's try not to make something of this that it is not. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What "trouble" have I caused you? The trouble of posting a "welcome" template on the talk page of an administrator[36]? The trouble of posting and reposting a copyright violation because you don't understand public domain and copyright? It's a bit to easy to blame someone else for your own actions... Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I take full responsibility for my actions, thanks, and perhaps more importantly: for refraining from actions. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some issues I see:

• Claiming an arbitrator, who made two issues to a contentious topic more than a year ago, is in conflict of interest, seems excessive. Claiming other users with valid, source-based disagreements are too biased to judge things like 3RR violations and the like is a common tactic with POV-pushers, which reduces the number of admins who are familiar with a topic sufficient to judge POV-pushing.
• Claiming he didn't realize ME and CFS were the same thing is absurd given the extensive discussions Guido was involved in over this very topic (and I believe was a substantial reason he was banned). See here, here, here, here (especially) and here. So if nothing else, given Hipocrite's comments, it should be clear that CFS/ME should not be discussed anywhere, including on his talk page.
• Claiming "I've had a thorough look at all the topics on my watchlist can honestly say that as things stand, I expect trouble on any one of them" is probably true, but claiming "This has nothing to do with my editing style, which has always been constructive" is either breathtakingly uninsightful or an outright lie. If that's the depth of insight that Guido gained while blocked, then I very much doubt that this is the last post on ANI we will see. Editing without conflict is quite easy to do if you're not giving due weight to what is said in reliable sources.

My opinion is GDB has done nothing but avoid taking responsibility for his actions, but that is just my opinion. Things haven't reached the point of a renewal of the ban, but it is apparent to me that nothing has changed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify for readers who are unfamiliar with the content dispute that has been going on since the start of Wikipedia: Fram and WLU believe that there is no genuine disease ME but that instead patients belong to some generic and (in their view) largely psychosomatic syndrome called CFS, and that ME was just an old name that got replaced. Therefore they equate the two topics, while I do not. It is now up to the ArbCom to decide where to go from here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to second Rlevse, here, and repeat for the record that ME explicitly falls under the CFS topic ban. In fact, given your previous involvement in that very dispute, the very argument about whether they are or not the same also lies under the topic ban. Step away now. — Coren ^(talk) 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on CFS and whether it is psychosomatic or not. I have not included any CFS or ME related edits in my post here (the copyvio is ME related, but the reason I listed it here has nothing to do with the subject). I have not edited any CFS related articles for content reasons, only for dispute resolution, vandalism reverts, page protection... This is a weak attempt to change the subject of this section. I have made 9 edits to Chronic fatigue syndrome, the first one on October 23 2008[37], one vandalism revert in February[38], two more in February to protect it for three months[39][40], and five more, immediately after the protection expired and the disruption started again, between May 25 2009 and May 27 2009[41][42][43][44][45]. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify for readers who are unfamiliar with the content dispute, I believe that ME and CFS are treated as different names for the same condition. I believe this because of a thorough and reapeated reivew of sources that can be found in the archive links in the second bullet of this post. Please note in particular my first !vote regarding a redirect of ME to CFS on October 17th, 2007 in which I am explicitly agnostic on the topic. Painting me as a POV-warrior who came here with an opinion and a decision to inflict it on the innocent readers is completely, utterly wrong. I have no opinion on the psychosomatic versus biological nature of CFS because there is as yet no well-accepted etiology for the condition, though I have edited to include discussions of it's possibly psychosomatic nature in reliable sources. Guido has attempted to defend the difference between the two, in my mind unsuccessfully. I have analyzed the supporting sources for ME and CFS being different here and here (lengthy, perhaps skip to the conclusion). It is particularly aggravating to me that Guido would have the gall to accuse me of arriving on the scene with a preconcieved idea and pushing it in bad faith. This is a confusing condition, with no universally accepted diagnostic test, etiology or treatment, which Guido suffers from, and apparently strongly wants to believe that it is a biological condition. Anyone who takes lengthy time to review the talk page discussions on the topic will see the issues quite clearly. Put bluntly, I think we are wasting time on an drama-generating editor who has repeatedly demonstrated an an inability to work with other members of the community and an inability to understand and adhere to our policies and guidelines on verifiability, neutrality, consensus, soapboxing and probably a couple others. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@Fram: The informed reader will find these diffs very telling. You call any edit that tries to make the article less biased towards the psychosomatic 'disruptive', despite thorough discussion on the talk page, and when you happen to find several anonymous (but clearly knowledgeable) editors on the other side of the argument you semi-protect the article for ridiculously long periods of time. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend any more time on these edits to CFS or any other CFS related topic after this post, but the fact that the edit warring by IPs started again the day after the 3-month protection expired indicates that it was not a "ridiculously long period of time". The IP has been reverted by at least eight editors now (me, Verbal, Crohnie, RobinHood70, Arthur Rubin, Flaming Grunt, OrangeMarlin, Gilliam), and has not discussed this on the talk page ever, despite repeated requests (through edit summaries and on his or her talk pages). The last revert to the IP preferred state, after the page was protected, was done by an editor who had never edited any article before this. I have engaged this editor on its talk page[46], only to get this not very promising response[47]. With your "experience as an administrator, bureaucrat, project lead, etc. on various other projects", it seems amazing that you would think that these IPs indicate "several anonymous editors" when, apart from the obvious evidence, you have even participated in a discussion that showed that they were checkusered and indeed were one and the same (Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Guido-s Revenge. Considering that this IP used your name to cause disruption (as Guido-s Revenge), and also uses Angela Kennedy's name to do the same (as Destroying Angela), I wonder what you hope to achieve by defending such an editor. Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not, I am defending the good-faith anons that were reverted and insulted by you personally. The occasional vandal can simply be blocked, without the need to prevent others from contributing. Your actions on the article are in direct violation of the very essence of Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop making things up? You were wrong about the copyright thing (above), about the B-Class vs. C-Class (below), and aboutmy edits on this page and the IP's involved. You have provided splendid evidence of my initial post: you are a complete waste of time in many discussions you are involved in, since you keep on discussing long after the obvious and correct answer has been explained to you. I have reverted one good-faith anon on this page[48], and I have not insulted him or her. I have reverted one IP who replaced the infobox with question marks[49], again without insults. The other ones I reverted are 87.114.4.66 and 87.114.132.57, who fall clearly in the range of the previous disruptive editing by IP 87.112.34.51, IP 87.115.17.124, IP 87.115.17.165, considering that their edits were quasi-identical. So, which good-faith IP editors have I insulted? The others were not occasional vandals who can simply be blocked, they were single-minded IP-hoppers where page protection is the normal solution. All links to see this for yourself were added in my previous post...Fram (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that WLU is now hijacking this thread to once again spread misinformation on the topics in question seems equally telling to me. Please understand, that users Fram and WLU are not users that I work with. They are users that keep bothering me. I have instead worked happily and constructively with a great many other users, including on these topics. Note that the CFS article was rated B after we had worked on it, and has been downgraded to C (i.e. substantial info is missing) since WLU started editing there. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is B-Class now, was B-Class in April, March, February, January, ... The article was judged B-Class in December 2007[50], and I can't find any period when it was C-class (I obviously haven't checked all 1000+ edits individually). Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it was another CFS article that received C status. The main article needs re-evaluation, as the text has nothing in common with the dec 2007 version. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were banned from this topic? Verbal chat 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

72.231.253.33 / 74.78.20.70

• 74.78.20.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) began to vandalise articles like Guns N' Roses in March, mostly by changing dates. They got blocked two times for doing so.
• 72.231.253.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) followed in April, making the very same type of edits and got blocked four times since. They continue to vandalise articles like Tracii Guns and Iron Maiden up to this day. They do not talk and do not make any edit summaries. Any ideas? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Serious IP vandalism.

I think this is the right place for it. A month ago, both Middle Power and Great Power were semi-protected who tried to remove any traces that UK and France are sometimes considered Middle Powers. He even removed France and UK from the list of middle powers. The middle power page was protected for a month. Today, it was unprotected, and the IP changed it's tactics. A new map was added since protection that explained that countries such as UK, France, Germany, and Japan were sometimes considered great powers. However, he is now changing it to often considered great powers, and I told him in the edit summaries that countries often considered great powers wouldn't appear on the middle power page. However, he refuses to stop. I have warned him once today, and he has removed the warning and continued. I have stopped editing the middle power page so I would not break 3RR. I have talked to 2 other users who are familiar with this IP to talk, and he has removed the message I left them as well. IP: [51] warning 1 I gave him: [52]

warning 1 he erased: [53]

Warning 2 I gave him: [54]

Warning 2 he erased: [55]

Warning 3 he was given by another editor: [56] Warning he erased: [57]

Block message he erased: [58]

Phoenix's talk page he erased (both): [59], and [60].

Viewfinder's talk page: [61], [62].

Also, here are the stuff from the past reports.

This was the second report with all the IPs including the one above listed. This was on the incidents board. "

We have an ip editor that has been constantly removing content the user finds objectionable in the Great power and Middle power. The user will not communicate and has caused the pages to be constantly ip protected.

Middle power

1. 13:53, 21 March 2009
2. 13:01, 29 March 2009
3. 14:07, 29 March 2009
4. 06:24, 30 March 2009
5. 16:49, 30 March 2009
6. 09:15, 31 March 2009
7. 13:03, 31 March 2009

   13:21, 31 March 2009 - 1 week IP protection

8. 14:06, 11 April 2009
9. 17:42, 11 April 2009
10. 20:29, 11 April 2009
11. 20:31, 11 April 2009
12. 20:43, 11 April 2009
13. 20:44, 11 April 2009
14. 20:46, 11 April 2009
15. 20:49, 11 April 2009
16. 20:54, 11 April 2009
17. 20:55, 11 April 2009
18. 20:56, 11 April 2009
19. 20:59, 11 April 2009

    21:01, 11 April 2009 - 2 week IP protection

20. 10:34, 26 April 2009
21. 18:42, 26 April 2009
22. 15:16, 27 April 2009

    18:08, 27 April 2009 - 4 week IP protection

Great power

1. 15:43, 22 April 2009
2. 07:49, 23 April 2009
3. 10:25, 23 April 2009
4. 15:37, 24 April 2009

   19:31, 24 April 2009 - 1 week IP protection

5. 14:07, 3 May 2009
6. 18:13, 3 May 2009
7. 18:27, 3 May 2009
8. 07:50, 4 May 2009
9. 19:04, 4 May 2009
10. 20:36, 4 May 2009
11. 12:30, 5 May 2009
12. 13:58, 5 May 2009
13. 15:10, 5 May 2009
14. 17:36, 5 May 2009
15. 05:42, 6 May 2009
16. 06:37, 6 May 2009
17. 06:44, 6 May 2009
18. 07:09, 6 May 2009
19. 07:24, 6 May 2009

    09:19, 6 May 2009 - 4 week IP protection

" Previous IP report available here on this difference, [63].

Please do something about this IP. Deavenger (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I just did an IP trace and tagged the offender's talkpage, hope this helps. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I think it might. Hopefully, the vandalism will end soon. As this has been going on for 2 months with lots of protection in between, and it has not been working. Deavenger (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• No problem! IF the particular anon IP keeps editing in such a disruptive manner following his/her unban (from the stipulated 48hrs ban just handed out to him/her), the administrator will have that piece of information ready at hand to implement something more drastic since it would have proved beyond any doubt that the IP isn't a dynamic one. Maybe a hard-block, who knows? Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. And the anon just removed the tag you placed [64] and [65]. I just reverted his latest remove. But he removed that too. Deavenger (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem is dave, the current IP the user is using is blocked. I don't think it can get any worse then that. Deavenger (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• OR so it would seem... he has been stripped of his right to edit his own discussion page now and banned from editing for the next 48hrs. He does that again and the block gets doubled to 96hrs, and so on and so forth. Cheap thrills gets you nowhere, that I can assure you. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. But if the user's past history is of any clue, he'll be on a different IP tommorow. The only real solution besides a range block is semi-protecting the page. Deavenger (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on history, I doubt that blocking will do any good here. I've semi-protected Middle power for three months. Any admin may modify this as they think best. Note that this guy reverted Middle power *12 times* on April 11. He returns like clockwork each time protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Further proof that the offender is using a static IP address, so it is easy to ban! Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No: several different IP addresses have been used over the course of time. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for June 6th since (s)he is going to remove content at Great power the moment that block is going to be lifted... Are you willing to increase the block time for that page also? -- Phoenix (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I request that both pages be semiprotected until august (middle power is already now). 1, three months will be longer then all the previous blocks, so if he still comes back, then way more serious action is going to have to be taken. 2, both pages can be blocked for the same period of time and be unlocked until the same day (plus, Great power is going through a GA review right now, and might be continuing till June 6th). Also, during the months of June and July, I'm will not be able to try to work against the vandalism as much as I will be in other countries touring or visiting family, and my access to the internet will be short and very sparse until August. Deavenger (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct on Human Rights in the US talk page

I am concerned about an editor implying that I am a "fascist" or "fascist friend" on the Talk:Human rights in the United States page. Here is the diff. Pexise (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure if the user is calling other users as "fascists", but, looking at the user contribs, there is definitely some axe-grinding and soapboxing going on. MuZemike 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Related note, that page is monstrously huge

I left a note on the talk that for technical reasons something has to be done. It seriously is huge--approximately 30 printed pages. rootology/equality 22:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to trade in that IBM AT 286 it would seem. --WebHamster 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, when my dual-core P4s 3.00GHz and 3GB of RAM visibly chug a little on loading a page, and all I've got running is Outlook, Trillian, and one instance of Firefox with only a couple of tabs... like I said, I feel bad for everyone else. That page is too big. rootology/equality 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, strange. It loaded and rendered in less than 4 secs for me in FF3. --WebHamster 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had no problems loading it in FF3 even on my slightly aged laptop. That said, I'm sure if I were to access it on my awful IE7 PC at work it would die a screaming death at the prospect... the page certainly is inadvisably large. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• And the latest IE8 isn't helping either... --Dave1185 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

IE never helps. That's not what it's designed for. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:62.6.250.109

Resolved

 – blocked for one month. Next time use AIV for simple cases like this--Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

62.6.250.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has recently been released from a block for repeated vandalism of both Ashes to Ashes (TV series) and List of Ashes to Ashes episodes, however the user has immediately returned to vandalising said pages with unsourced information and fake episode titles despite previous warnings. magnius (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

AIV again. They'll block him again, but longer the next time. MuZemike 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mariah Carey mess

We've got a real problem over on the Mariah Carey articles dealing with dueling sockpuppeteers. Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901/Archive) and JuStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JuStar/Archive are both blocked (essentially banned) editors that primarily edit Mariah Carey articles. I keep a close eye on all edits related to Mariah Carey albums and all edits related to Mariah Carey songs, and it's a completely unproductive area: Petergriffin9901 and JuStar reverting all changes to their preferred versions, having their socks reverted, reverting each other. We've had JustarR24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was Petergriffin9901 pretending to be JuStar, for reasons that I simply cannot fathom. We've had ChristopherMix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JornalistaLusitano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who were JuStar socks blocked for being Petergriffin9901 socks. So far as I can tell, there haven't been more than half a dozen productive edits to the entire group of articles in the last two months. There was a brief wave of deciding that Mariah Carey wasn't a pop artist that 93.149.194.206 tried to pull off, but Charmed36 would have none of that, so that pair of edits to each article canceled each other out. Max24 has been fighting hard to clean things up, but the people he has been cleaning up after are Petergriffin9901 and JuStar

What I would like to get consensus for is to take a somewhat drastic action: six week semi protection on every article in the two categories, and full protection on the ones that are hardest hit:

• E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Music Box (album)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Ballads (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rainbow (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charmbracelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

plus semi-protection Circus (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because it's a JuStar favorite.

I know this probably seems extreme, but I don't know another solution. Vigilance and reversion isn't working well, and semi-protection of small numbers of articles isn't doing enough. This isn't an earthshakingly important area: if the information that Carey entered some obscure chart has to wait six weeks to be entered, so be it.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator who routinely deals with this ever growing issue, I would support trying semi protection for a period of five to six weeks. Blocking these users socks has little to no effect, and CheckUser has proven to provide little help. These kind of socks are ones that need to be treated with WP:RBI and WP:DENY, something that protection would help accomplish here. Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago I decided to work on Mariah Carey articles as they were a real mess. I've started fixing links, formats, peak positions, and certifications, according to reliable sources. I don't know now if the previous peaks/certifications were put there by mistake or was it on purpose, but they were completly fake. And when I started fixind them, all my changes got reverted by Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JuStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socks. Every day comes another sock and reverts the changes. The most vandalised article is Mariah Carey discography, and all her albums articles. I keep on reporting socks on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page, but just when they got blocked, another sock comes out. This doesn't seem to have an end. Max24 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that if these two are determined to fight it out on the pages, then semi-protect is not going to help; they are simply going to age their socks sufficiently to get autoconfirmed and start over. Perhaps full protection with admins editing per consensus on the talkpage? If we make it really hard for them to effect the viewed page then we may discourage them from logging on... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much my reason for requesting full protection on the most troublesome articles. I don't think it's necessary for all 30 of them.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Maude Storey

Hi. I would like to request the restoration of an article that was deleted (see below):

02:39, 19 April 2007 Alison (talk | contribs) deleted "Maude Storey" ‎(WP:CSD#G5 - Article created by banned user while banned).

Now that I am qualified again to edit (have been since February), I would like to request that the 1st version of that page (as above) be restored or userfied for me as I would like to update and improve it so it will be wiki-worthy. Rather than start from scratch and create a fourth version of the same page, I felt this is the most expeditious way. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Contact one or more admins on the Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles page. Exxolon (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've just informed the administrator who fulfiled this request, Graeme Bartlett, that xe has just undeleted a copyright violation (as was noted in the deletion log), with a suggestion that xe undo that restoration right away. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Don't restore as all versions are copyright violations of the obituary. I deleted the thing I restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Shawnee

An ip user User:66.41.56.19 is blanking sections [66] and adding unsourced material [67]. I've kindly asked them to stop their behavior, but they aren't responding to their talk page. I've reverted them several times, and don't wish to get in a war over this. Can an admin take a look see for me? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User was warned and seems to have stopped. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they stopped about the time I brought this here. Not sure if they got fed up with my reverting them or because I brought it here. Thanks for the look see tho, appreciate it, hopefully they behave from now on. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech

Yesterday, DougsTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his opinions known on my user talk page about the recent arbitration case results. I unfortunately responded in the way he wanted. Here's the series of diffs on my user talk of his repeated additions and the reverts by myself (and Versageek):

• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]

Here is how he responded to various other users and administrators on his user talk page:

• One down
• Your recent edits
• Edit warring

Now, sometime after I had removed the message from my user talk for the third time he had placed it and before he began the "One down" thread on his own user talk, DougsTech felt the need to clarify why he opposes every single RFA with this addendum. I am tired of his gloating about the ArbCom ruling.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech's attitude and behavior is beginning to eclipse disruptive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And the above diffs exemplify why his oppose votes are preachy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just plain trolling on DougsTech's account. Support 24h block topic ban from RFA for trolling. MC10 | Sign here! 04:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point, it might look like it's punitive (although I can't really tell the difference anymore). I'd bring back the age old suggestion that he be topic banned from RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's completely unacceptable. Gloating like that at what clearly has to be a hard time for another user isn't okay. 24 hours seems a little light to me... and that's to prevent future trolling from this user. AniMate^draw 04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion, for edit warring, trolling, and just making useless oppose votes in WP:RFA. Support increasing times of block if he tries to ignore his topic ban on RFA. Yes, 24 hrs. is too light; I hadn't seen DougsTech's block log til now. MC10 | Sign here! 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

←I agree that his behavior is very disrupt and serves no other purpose than to harass Ryulong. And honestly, this seems to be Doug's MO. Long term disruption at RFA + personal attacks + edit warring = site ban. Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to seeing a 24 hour block. However, the bottom line here is that DT is manifesting a very clear enmity towards administrators (evidenced above), and as such, he shouldn't be permitted to use RfA as a venue to make his point. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he should be able to continue to vote however he likes at RfA. He makes a simple statement that is not really disruptive if people just ignore it. The beaureaucrats are not stupid, and they weigh his votes appropriately. However, the other behavior, such as his repeated posts today, is not acceptable. LadyofShalott 04:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This isn't a matter of DT voicing an innocuous opinion. Compounded with what I see above, he is using RFA as a platform for disruption and soapboxing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing? As far as i can tell he has no influence at RfA. Everyone just ignores his one statement, right? Or does he preach there too? David D. (Talk) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is clout and influence a requirement for soapboxing and preaching? One doesn't need to pontificate to make a point. They can be subtle. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Because if everyone is ignoring him and he is not engaging people it is not disruptive. The gloating on the talk page is another issue though. Don't get distracted by the RfA contributions. David D. (Talk) 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It may appear a little off topic - but they are quite interrelated. His behavior above verifies that he has a warped and very negative view of administrators. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we care? His actions, baiting and such are another thing though. David D. (Talk) 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for you, but people can see this as a reoccurring pattern may care. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that he dislikes administrators as a group, but so what? As long as he follows WP policies, he can edit here, no matter what his opinions are. (Of course, things like incivility violate policy, and can not be tolerated. I do not see his RfA votes in that category, however.) LadyofShalott 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he doesn't edit. He just uses Huggle for rollbacks in the article space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a matter of letting him have his opinions. I don't care what they are. Things aren't evaluated individually, but rather as a whole. That's how a community judges the generalized effects of a given behavior. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that the crats do not give any additional weight to DT's oppose votes at RfAs, but I still find his votes useless, as well as unhelpful and demoralizing -- unhelpful because the comments are not directed towards the candidates behavior at all, and demoralizing because it makes the candidates feel like they shouldn't be running for adminship at all. To me, this borders on incivility. While I agree with everyone else that this, on its own, should not be a reason to ban or block him, when you add in his comments on Ryulong's talk page, as well as his edits in his own userspace, it becomes clear to me that this is his goal -- to be generally unhelpful and demoralizing to admins and admin candidates. While I support an site ban/indef block, at the same time I fear the consequences of what he may do after we have made it clear that we do not want him on Wikipedia...but, this is probably going to be inevitable. Matt (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite block

• I saw the comments and edit warring on Ryulong's talk page. Had I not been previously involved with this user, I would have blocked. I had hoped that after the last incident, he might tone it down a little and actually focus on making constructive edits. Instead, he huggled for a while, and then went back to doing what got him twice banned from huggle for a month and six months at a time [75], namely acting as a welcome bot [76] [77] (13 edits per minute exceeds the rate allowed even to flagged bots). Topic ban from RFA is inappropriate no matter who it is. Persistent harassment of admins in general? We put up with that. However, he has crossed the line into persistent harassment of specific users, including a cocktail party at his talk page [78] to celebrate an ArbCom ruling. I once again support an indefinite block. –xeno^talk 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite block. He's obviously crossed a rather wide line here. If he can't be topic banned from RfA given his behavior in totality, then he should be indefinitely blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Basically, if we cant silence him one way, lets silence him another. Right?DougsTech (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Given your embarrassing remarks and edit warring on Ryulong's talk page, and your behavior at RfA, I think it's about time you found something better to do. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yep. The editor has been disruptive at RFA for far too long. This user's use of RFA to state his/her opinion is out of line, and can not be tolerated. I will not stand for that. If this block doesn't happen, I will start an RFC about the disruptive RfA participation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • With that said, I support this block. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my reasons above. Matt (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. Until It Sleeps 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, not that I need to elaborate. I am tired of his constant gloating, which includes these most recent edits to his user talk [79].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my talk page. Still not satisfied, eh? DougsTech (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - From the RfA mess to these new disruptive comments to and about Ryulong, it is apparent that DougsTech is here just for disruption and not to do anything really encyclopedic. Time to shut him down. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Time to shut him down" - That is a good way to put it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Plus with this bit to egg Ryulong into an agruement or whatever, that is complete and total disruptive behavior (which is why I removed it). DT needs to be gone and fast. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support. At the last RFC on the RFA talk page I opposed, because I do not see harmless crankery as something to worry about. It does seem now that he has crossed a line. With that said, though, I have rarely seen a single user subjected to the level of abuse which Dougstech has endured, and I think that this type of mobbing shows the absolute worst side of wikipedia. Little niggles from a thousand editors can be worse than stalking by a single foe. AKAF (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Trolling RFA was bad enough, but if he's going to be such an ass to other contributors, we don't need him.--chaser (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I had originally opposed and instead favoured a 24-hour block for edit warring, but his continued incivility after my !vote has caused me to reconsider. I now feel that an indef block and/or a community ban is needed. His comments at RfA were disruptive but not unmanageable, but this is clearly crossing the line. His refusal to apologize for his incivility, as well as his starting a section here to try and have Ryulong banned (which was blanked), suggests that he's not interested in disengaging, and thus the block/ban would be preventative. Firestorm ^Talk 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Whilst the Trolling at RFA would be tolerable if Dougstech was willing to explain what his "high standards" were and discuss them, or was otherwise a useful editor; IMHO he has now proven a net negative in three different areas of the Pedia in which he has operated (RFA, Huggling and now the personal attacks on Ryulong). Whether he is a clever troll deliberating testing the limits of our tolerance or a well intentioned but counter-productive editor, the pedia is better off without him. ϢereSpielChequers 06:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. He's not here to contribute, he's here to play games, and the trolling below ought to be the final straw. Let him play his games else-where. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Although I did agree with the ArbCom decision to desysop, the behavior by DougsTech was atrocious, and edit warring to keep that in is pure trolling. Wikipedia should not spend any more time on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. With his behaviour so far and refusal to get a clue he's either 1) a troll or 2) the most disruptive good faith user known to man. Either way, why do we want him here? What does a user who can't even be trusted to use huggle without cocking up bring to Wikipedia? Ironholds (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Ironholds and WereSpiel, really. He's not doing anything very useful, and (intentionally or otherwise) causing a lot of trouble. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 06:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support He's gone past the point of being an ignorable irritation. Whether or not he is intentionally being a troll is irrelevant, he is causing disruption virtually everywhere he participates.--Dycedarg ж 07:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It has been a long time since he made any kind of useful contribution. He has done little more than cause drama for some time, and it is about time we put a stop to it. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. The Truth^TM indeed. MER-C 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support How much hand holding do we need to do here? He's proven his point and I'm sure he can find a venue to gloat about how corrupt all Wikipedia administrators are on another site. Now let's get back to editing. AniMate^draw 09:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is simply disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Slamming a custom "To many admins" template on each and every RFA and simply assuming bad faith on every editor is not the way we are supposed to work together here. The argument he made that he has "Strict Admin Criteria" is void trough nominating a canidate that was opposed by a landslide of votes. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Time’s Up — Tiptoety said it best. transwiki to WR, block any soks 2 ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support For the same reasons Excirial just stated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• DT has exhausted community patience with edits like this. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 09:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ridiculous it's lasted this long. I'm aware what he's doing is his opinion yada yada but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for his own free speech. I think he'd be a lot better of at WR or Yahoo Answers where slagging off Wikipedia(ns) is common nature. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban/indef block Nothing other than trolling from this account, no useful contributions and a refusal to get it. Templated opposes on RFA's was annoying and mildly disruptive, but this baiting and trolling of a desysopped admin is clear demonstration that DT is by far a net negative on the project. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. The edit warring on Ryulong's was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef ban. Should have happened months ago. He is a net negative to our project. Majorly talk 14:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• This should have been done earlier. He recently said that it was a personal goal of his for Ryulong to be desysopped, and that he should be banned. Trolling Ryulong was unacceptable, whatever you think about him. Acalamari 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose indefinite block

• Oppose I have seen no evidence so far that merits not allowing this user to continue here. LadyofShalott 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't think enough other things have been tried. We should first try to institute a topic ban and civility parole with some teeth first. I would support a full ban from all RFA-related discussions and escalating blocks on civility parole, however I don't think an indef is merited quite yet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. I suggest a strict civility parole enacted immediately, with any uninvolved admin able to block if incivility like that shown above - blatantly taunting Ryulong, which is very, very much not on - continues. His RFA comments are ill-advised, but not much worth worrying about. If he doesn't get the message soon, though, then longer blocks will become necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• 24 hours - an indefinite block is not appropriate, but a 24 hour block for gaming 3RR would certainly be appropriate. Had I come across this at AN3 or whatever it is now, I would have certainly blocked him for 24 hours. --B (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

24 hour block for edit warring, plus an RFC/U on his disruptive conduct. Firestorm ^Talk 05:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Moving to Support due to DT's comments made after I !voted. Firestorm ^Talk 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose a block unless if it has been ongoing since I left the following caution on his talk page: User_talk:DougsTech#Edit_warring. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Does this answer your question?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As you can see in my comment on his talk page, I did not think his edits to and regarding you were appropriate. At the same time, responding to him with "Eat shit and die," is a bit over the top as well and I do not see how such comments help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • DougsTech was explicitly baiting me, and I unfortunately took the bait with that edit summary. I have not been in contact with him at all, and he shows up to edit war and gloat on my user page in an already stressful situation. He's no better than TAway with his gloating (after I undid his removal of a userbox from my userpage) and the random IP that showed up to say something of the same sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Don't take the bait. Today someone called me a "fool," not even an edit summary, but rather than insult back, I replied politely, so as if anything let that user look like the incivil one. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It was inappropriate, but human. AN, you of all people know what it's like to be kicked when you're down.--chaser (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, true, switching to "weak" oppose and I have cautioned Doug again on his talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose-His RfA conduct is tolerable as he is entitled to hold his opinion. Incivility and edit warring are bad but indef block is not justified for that, though a short block is, as in case or any other editor who violates 3RR or is incivil after warning. --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  This is the user who brought the wine to Doug's talk page party celebrating the desysopping of Ryulong –xeno^talk 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose only because there isn't an option to support another kind of block. He should be blocked for his attacks and edit warring but not indefinitely. If someone proposes a week or two block, I'll support that. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Very minor incident, and not one-sided either. People have emotions, live with it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just wondering: Did you read he entire post, or just the initial ANI report? There is more to it then some mud slinging between editors. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Check the title of this page. If there is more, use other tools. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Administrator's noticeboard/incidents? There are incidents, just more than one. I don't think there's any prohibition against bringing multiple problems here, and in my experience this is the only place where community bans/blocks are discussed - if you know of another, please enlighten me. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, i would say that the reason behind this report is "Editor Conduct", which means it involves all edits the editor made. I believe its customary that any issue involving complex vandalism is reported to Ani - and it is only natural man takes the editors entire conduct into account before making a decision on whatever proposal is made. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose with enforced probation and/or topic ban - We do not need a block of him. So what if Doug wants to do some mudslinging. We are too unhealthy with bans. I would prefer the easier way, and put him on an enforced, maybe 1-2 year probation and/or topic ban from the administrator related Wikipedia mainspace. (This does not include content parts of the mainspace or the Manual of Style). If he is to violate this, I would switch my position, but I will stay firm now that he should be not blocked and has a chance to be a fair contributor.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 11:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mudslinging" is not when you repeatedly tell someone they got fired and with terminology such as "One down" or "malicious".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. Indefinite is a long time, I concord with Durova that some kind of dispute resolution would perhaps be worth a try. I agree with this block though and then perhaps a last chance saloon, please see comments at the bottom of thread. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC))
• Oppose indefinite block for a little edit warring on a talk page. Nothing he has done on the rfa page is disruptive. David D. (Talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry? We're talking personal comments, goading and taunting users, throwing a "party" to celebrate the desyop of an admin, trolling, a tiny amount of mainspace editing so useless that he's even had huggle access taken away, all without the absence of any useful mainspace contributions. Oh, and a "little edit warring on a talkpage". Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinite block, the one week block is fitting. I do think his RfA comments are a bit pointy and would support a topic ban from RfA project pages. This said, if he carries on with this kind of behaviour, he shouldn't be startled if an indef block comes his way sooner rather than later. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Conduct RfC

The normal thing we do is try dispute resolution. If anyone starts a conduct RfC I would certify it. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting an RfC should a block not happen. The editor has been disruptive throughout RfA for quite some time now, and I will not tolerate it. If an RfC doesn't help, I might request an arbitration case and see if they can deal with it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support an RFC/U, per my comment in the Oppose section above. Firestorm ^Talk 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've left a note for DougsTech. Have proposed to shake cyberhands if he removes Ryulong's name from the subpage linked from DT's signature, and if DougsTech promises not to act this way after another desysopping. Durova^Charge! 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, he's taking Ryulong's name out of the subpage. It's the end of my evening so will be several hours before checking in again. If DougsTech modifies his tone a bit then will withdraw the certification offer. Durova^Charge! 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Looking at the edit summary on the removal I'm not convinced it's him "shaking cyberhands", more trying to avoid immediate problems. Ironholds (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly support Durova's original suggestion While I did strongly oppose any blocks or bans in regards to Doug in the past, I believe that recent events have dispelled much of the AGF considerations that I once held. The idea or concept that admins must be held to a high standard is indeed a reasonable viewpoint to oppose a candidate; however, it is also reasonable to expect the same high standards of the person requiring those standards. Simply put, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and I believe that with the posts made to Ryulong's talk page (apologizes for any mis-spellings), and the subsequent edit waring reverts, Doug has shattered the glass house in which he once lived. I believe that it's time to take this little story to its natural conclusion, and put to bed any further disruption to our community. — Ched :  ?  07:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Will an RfC do anything for someone who's on a crusade and seems far more interested in winning his crusade than actually editing the encyclopedia? I mean, his only edits seem to be reverts using Huggle, and I'm fairly certain I remember he was all but forced to start editing in article space when his antics at RfA proved to be too much and were his sole edits. Also, haven't there been issues with his use of Huggle? Is he really a net positive? AniMate^draw 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

After the painfully boring process of looking through DT's contributions, I have to say I oppose an RfC. He isn't a contributor, he's an automated script user. That's it. He got angry with Ryulong back in August of last year, when Ry removed his Huggle access and deleted his monobook's automated scripts. He then moved on to Twinkle and AWB. After a failed attempt at obtaining rollback, he started using Huggle again. If we were talking about someone who created content or even edited, I'd say an RfC would be appropriate. However, I challenge any user to find a main space contribution that isn't an automated edit. AniMate^draw 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support RfC iff there is no consensus for an indef block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

R. Baley's block

R. Baley has blocked DougsTech for 1 week. This is DougsTech's response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to want people to know he is blocked and is continuing his harrassment with edit summaries like "now go template ryulong because he was desysoped?". I think a talk page block is in order during his week long block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on notifying this board, but my computer is a little slow this evening. I have no objection to any admin extending the block to indefinite. But these attacks are going to stop. Will appreciate any other admin watching the talk page in order to protect in case it continues there. Getting late, R. Baley (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I bring this to everyone's attention. It is essentially a veiled attack on Ryu and R. Baley. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Our standards after a block - disengage and deescalate

Step away from his talk page if he's trying to dig himself deeper in the hole. People vent after being blocked. Don't egg him on or encourage him, or fight with him on his talk page. If he continues this behavior when the block expires he'll be indeffed in short order by any uninvolved admin who becomes aware of the situation. Don't get into another fight or extend this one now that he's blocked. Unless he starts posting threats of violence on his talk page, step away and leave him be. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let DT calm down. If he continues his crusade after his block, we can cross that bridge then. AniMate^draw 08:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So we are supposed to stop discussing whether or not the individual should be banned from the project because he has been blocked? That doesn't make sense to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is not to engage him on his talk page. Discuss here all you want. AniMate^draw 08:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That does make sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong: I do think ignoring DT for the remainder of his block, would be more effective than rehashing it here. He's just enjoying every bit of attention he gets. He's been a disruptive user from the start and my opinion is that the project won't miss him once he's gone, but we are just enabling him by responding to his trolling. -- Luk ^talk 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone who cares enough might want to look back through DT's history and see if he started out this way, or if it developed over time, or if there was some defining incident. I have normally found admins to be helpful, even the ones I've clashed with. There aren't that many admins that I would consider to be out of control. Quite the contrary: If anything, too often admins appear to be overly lenient, and get played for suckers by users promising to do better if they're unblocked (as with a section farther up this page). A user with a vendetta against admins is not likely to be helpful to wikipedia in the short run, the long run, or any old kind of a run. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a bit of a look at DT's edit history.

Dougtech turned up about 14 months ago and immediately started vandal fighting with tools ( I would say he had had some previous experiance of wiki as he straight away was using tools and making hundreds of edits) and after a bit also started welcoming people and then in August Doughtech and Ryulong met when Rhylong switched off or disabled Dougtech's Huggle for a month, here [[80]] Here [[81]] in the discussion about this he talks about 'giving this account a rest' and 'silly admin' . The encounter with Rhylong upset him and he seems to consider it a personal attack, as is shown by his addition to his userpage here [[82]].. Then on the 6 august, rhylong deleted dougtech's huggle for a month to stop him using it poorly/badly and that was the start of it all. Then he goes off using the AWB for a while and in jan he asked for rollback priv and was refused. This set him off and he starts again adding welcome template and ading speedy delete templates, then on 19 march he starts with the oppose too many admins and here we are today. DT seemed to dislike any form of control and set off like an out of control bot with his editing thinking he was doing great work, vandal fighting and welcoming and a bit of sockpuppet accusing and automatic editing...some of which were unwanted and uncalled for. There was no article work. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

DougsTech has never created or manually improved an article, ever. Someone who starts off their wiki-life fighting vandalism simply looks like a sock, at least to me. Majorly talk 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

*cough* :p Nakon 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Nakon is saying there that he started out way back in 2005 doing some vandal fighting and that majorly's sweeping statement is not all encompassingly correct. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Doesn't disagree with Majorly's statement. Majorly isn't saying "a user who starts fighting vandalism is a sock", more "looks like a sock to me". His viewpoint can be expressed without being contradicted by Nakon's contributions. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I was accused of being a sockpuppet because I dared to use edit summaries and proper formatting in my first few edits. I even uploaded an image (now on commons) as my third edit/action. Clearly I should have been banned as an obvious sock... It's easy to find a reason for an account to "look like a sock" but without actual evidence, it's counterproductive to pursue the issue. --auburnpilot talk 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had had experience of wikis prior to my first edit too. Had great knowledge of wikicode and such. However, coming to Wikipedia and instantly jumping onto Huggle is, at least to me, a sign of previous experience, be it here, or elsewhere. Majorly talk 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Timing

There's something that needs to be pointed out: during the thirteen minutes leading up to his block DougsTech was becoming cooperative. I had asked him to remove Ryulong's name from his RfA oppose subpage and to give assurance that he wouldn't act like this after future desysoppings. Note his actions:

• 05:40, 29 May 2009: A victory for the community has been reached with the ryulong desysoping, so I will go ahead and remove him from the subpage, if thats what the community wants.[83]
• 05:42, 29 May 2009: DougsTech removes mention of Ryulong from User:DougsTech/RFAreason.[84]
• 05:50, 29 May 2009: I probably wont celebrate like this for future desysopings, but this one was long overdue.[85]
• 05:53, 29 May 2009: DougsTech blocked for one week by R. Baley[86]

DougsTech was already deescalating, so a one week block over the Ryulong incident is not preventative. He has satisfied my request so I will not be endorsing a conduct RfC. Other Wikipedians may wish to take other actions on the basis of remaining issues. Durova^Charge! 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd point you towards the edit summary here, though - I don't see that as cooperation or any regret for his actions, I see that as back-pedalling (and ineffective back-pedalling at that) to avoid sanctions. "remove, for now" can't really be interpreted in many ways except as the wiki equivalent of hiding from the law until the heat is off. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Europe

Resolved

 – TheThankful has been blocked for 3RR breach by Rootology. Initial review of block has been completed and declined. Sockpuppet (Meat?) has been commented on and should continue to be watched.--VS ^talk 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started edit warring on the lede of Europe. He has been bullying two other users (one of them me) to include his own sysnthesis and original research in the lede. His content does not reflect what is in the main article and is unsourced (even on the talk page). He has broken the three revert rule in adding his own synthesis to the lede, in particular removing a carefully sourced statement that I produced from one of the main references. He is editing tendentiously without sources and in addition, when he appears to be the cntributor that is edit warring without secondary sources, is issuing warnings as if he is in the right. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is completely untrue. 3 or more days ago, I began a discussion on the talk page about correcting a factual error in the Europe article. One person agreed with me, none disagreed so i made the edit. I have provided a reference/source. It is not original thought at all, but accepted historical/anthropological fact. And I was in fact the one "bullied" with the threat of being blocked etc. posted on my talk page by Mathsci who himself broke the 3RR before I did.--TheThankful (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What TheThankful writes here is inaccurate. I made 2 edits on the May 25 adding an image of a megalithic temple on Malta to the prehistory section in response to the second request in the last six months from a Maltese editor; I made 2 edits on the 27th to clear up confusion about Central Europe in the lede; and two edits today, the 29th, the second a new carefully worded compromise sentence, based on the precise statement in the academic literature that "Ancient Greece is often considered (but by no means always) as the birthplace of Western culture". TheThankful does not seem to understand wikipedia editing policy. TheThankful seemed to be using the talk page as a forum to discuss eurocentrism, without sources. He was not proposing changes to the main article, but was making a WP:POINT about the statement above. Mathsci (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

His changes have now been reverted by a third editor and he has reverted the edit yet again. Please block him. Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked him 24 hours for shooting past 4RR 15 minutes after being notified of this discussion. rootology/equality 05:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request now

He's now asking for an unblock. Need some review, thanks. rootology/equality 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile a fourth editor has reverted his last edit. Trying to insert material in the lede of the article about eurocentrism with nothing further in the main article is WP:UNDUE. Equally adding a link to an advertisement for a book to justify a self-concocted sentence is not helpful editing. He seems to be ignoring consensus to make a WP:POINT. The article is not about the cradle of civilization, something quite different. Contrary to what he has suggested, no editor so far has agreed with the sentence he has tried to insert, initally with no source at all. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing for only eleven days on this account. His other use of sourcing (personal communications from church officials in Singapore) is rather bizarre. Here is a list of his namespace edits. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[OD] Unblock request considered at length - declined at this time and note left at editors page.--VS ^talk 08:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is truth measured by verifiable fact or how bizzarre peoples subject interests are? I was directed to this page by Mathsci by the way. --LemborLembor (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion?

LemborLembor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This recently created account which supported TheThankful's edits to Europe and Western culture looks like a sockpuppet of TheThankful. In fact, from the timing, this appears to be block evasion. Mathsci (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will add that as a part of my review of the unblock request I considered this editors contributions. Mathsci may be right but I don't believe I have quite enough quack to act just at this time.--VS ^talk 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But it might be worth a WP:SSP investigation - the timing of account creation is interesting--Cailil ^talk 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:TDTH

I am raising an incident against this user. He/she first of all created a complete fancruft page called Brown Eyes (Lady Gaga Song). Next the user started adding that page and its information to other Lady Gaga related pages like The Fame (album) and Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song). Naturally other editors reverted such changes including me. However this user has since then continuously reverted our changes to introduce his fancruft. Not only that he/she is using a sockpuppet to revert our changes. I went ahead and requested protection for those pages which I was successful. Since then the user used his profile to revert. Then I gave a warning to the user and nominated that fancrufty page for deletion. It was then that the user started abusing me at my talk page. Please admins take a look at this incident and please do something as soon as possible. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now blocked him for a day for repeated harassment after a final warning. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request is up which seems like a personal attack to me (just a guess). Probably justifies a longer block but that is up to teh adminz. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I declined the unblock (obviously). I'm inclined to reblock indef as I can see no useful contributions from the account. Anyone got any reasons why not? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

\(^_^)/ ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Delicate issue

I'm not really sure how to go about this without outing a user.. there's a particular user going around changing a source link on many articles from a dead link (as he says in the edit summary - most of them are dead but I have found a couple that really weren't) to another related link. Via WHOIS information for the new link that's being put in, I've found that this web site is most likely owned by the user that is doing this. So far, he's hit about 175 articles and still going. So, what's the best way of identifying this user and WHOIS information to admin(s) without saying the name and outting? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that showing Special:Contributions/Mikevegas40 is outing, but I ain't delicate. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the WHOIS information is tied to him by name, yeah, that's outting. But since you did it, that at least leaves me off of the hook. At any rate, the site he's been adding is most likely owned by him according to the WHOIS. He had the right idea.. 99% of those links are dead so they do need replacing. But they need replacing with a reliable/notable source, not his own web site that could eventually be covered in god knows what. I only caught this when he changed the link at Jackson, Mississippi which uses a weather.com source and which wasn't a dead link. If anything, all of those dead links he's been replacing with his own site, should be replaced with the weather.com source. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion but going by his edit history, it looked to have been done with the best of intentions.. Perhaps a gentle reminder on WP:RS is what the doctor ordered? That Thing There (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, he had the right idea that the dead links needed replacing.. just not with his own web site. I guess the next issue is.. will someone revert those 175 estimated edits back to the dead link, or let them stand? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If no other more reliable source can be found (Which is unlikely), then I'd say let them stay. Otherwise, a more notable link is appropriate, at least to me. Don't we have like a gajillion bots that can replace them if the need be? :P That Thing There (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I also said above, weather.com is a more reliable source and should be used.. especially in light of the fact that I just looked at his web site in Internet Explorer (ie: not in FireFox with Adblock plugin running) and see Google ads all over the page. No doubt he's using this site as part of the Google pay-per-click advertising scheme. So, they should all be reverted. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the site, it appears to be mainly observations, be they original research or a collection of other notable sources, but nothing is cited. It's not a question of malicious intent, but reliability and verification. I'm torn, because the content looks to be factual, but for all I know it could be balmy and 90 today at the Arctic Circle. :) If he's pimping his personal site for ad revenue then by all means, replace with links that aren't placed for profit. That Thing There (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the original source at ustravelweather.com has reorganized their website ... the data is still there, but at a different URL. For example, the Marquette, Michigan article orginally had the source http://www.ustravelweather.com/weather-michigan/marquette-weather.asp ... this data is now at http://www.ustravelweather.com/michigan/marquette/ ... but the user in question is instead changing the source to be http://www.weatherbyday.com/michigan/marquette/

So, I think the real question is if it's more appropriate to let whoever updates the link first to use whichever site they choose ... or if it's more appropriate to update the link to the original source using the current URL for the data. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An observation here.. the "dead link" he is replacing, at the root looks just like the site he is replacing it with. Look at the "dead link" at http://www.ustravelweather.com/ and look at his site at http://www.weatherbyday.com. I say the links should be replaced with the weather.com link. weather.com, owned by The Weather Channel, is no doubt reliable. Just use this link: http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/39211 and just change the zip code on the end of it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The appearance is very similar - except the ustravelweather.com doesn't appear to use Google ads when I switch to IE, while his site does have them. My guess is that he designed his site to have a similar format, then added Google ads for revenue. Interrestingly ... of the three, ustravelweather.com, weatherbyday.com, and weather.com ... the only one of the three to not appear to have any ads is ustravelweather.com. Yet, I agree that weather.com would be a more reliable source, so should likely be used before either of the other two mentioned sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am MikeVegas40. I am the person who put up the original weather charts and linked them to USTravelweather.com, and then corrected them to weatherbyday.com. I used to own USTravelweather and now own weatherbyday, I lost USTravelweather by not renewing my domain registration. If you think I am spamming then please take the links off, but shouldn't you also take the tables down as well? Or if you think they have a value then keep them up with proper attribution? Giving credit to weather.com makes no sense. As has been noted, the links pass no value, and the traffic won't generate a dollar a day in adsense revenue, but isn't it proper to give credit? Again, if they have no value then take the tables off, but if they do then a source would seem proper.--Mikevegas40 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)