Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pcap (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 6 January 2010 (→‎Lin Godzilla: you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Issues of disrupting an article

    Resolved
     – Original complainant blocked for socking. -- Atama頭 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There seem to be a serious problem here all starting with unjustified edits along with racially charged insults by Noopinonada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    He/She also continue to leave me insulting messages after I told him/her to stop personally attackging me please take a look and handle the situation.

    Holdone (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So we don't have to delve through this editor's history, can you provide us with a few examples of what you considered to be the racially changed insults? Also, you state that they are being disruptive - please explain precisely what they are doing. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Holdone has been blocked because he is a notorious sockpupeteer and edit warrior. In my defense, he engaged in unabashed lying to this board and the one that decided to permanently block him for sockpuppeting. As you can see in my discourse with him, no "racially charged insults" occurred, unless accusing someone of sockpuppeting is now a "racially charged insult." The word amoung the Ancient Egpytian race controversy page editors appears to be that he has been a sockpupeteer and shameless POV troll for years. He also seems to revert to accusing others who reverse his POV of "vandalism" or "vandl" as he calls it. I think this case is closed for now, as a plethora of legitimate editors are back at work on this oftentimes contentious page.--Noopinonada (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Worrying post to Ref Desk

    Resolved
     – It appears that consensus does not exist to maintain this block - user unblocked and advised that questions of a subjective nature are best suited for sites such as Yahoo Answers. –xenotalk 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that I should draw the admin community's attention to WP:RD/Miscellaneous#Moral boundary. Although the poster isn't threatening _violence_, she's threatening to engage in potentially illegal harrassment/stalking, and is very probably in need of professional psychiatric help. Per WP:VIOLENCE, I have _not_ informed the user in question of this posting, and will not mention her username in this post. My apologies if this is an over-reaction on my part - however, the general trend seems to be that this sort of issue needs to be reported. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So... are you suggesting that she be blocked?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    indef'd. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, wow. Why did you delete my question? All I did was ask whether the OP wanted her to be blocked. And isn't it a little too soon to be indefinitely blocking this user?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't delete anyone's question; I only blocked the user and deleted the user's userpage. We have someone who is seeking advice, albeit in a sideways manner, about stalking another person in real-life. This is cut and dry. It's an easy block to make. SPA's are pretty ugly in the first place, but when their only purpose is this...? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had posted a question here, but you deleted my question and replaced it with "indef'd". I've inserted my question back. In this case, it's not really an "easy block"; the user's intent is not entirely clear, and she never really mentioned anything illegal.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, what are the benefits of having him/her unblocked? The OP said nothing about whether he himself wanted a block; he was asking what to do in this situation. And to be sure: I don't know the intent or the degree to which illegality is express or implied, either. That's exactly the problem. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry about accidentally deleting your question... there was an edit conflict ^^;[reply]
    I admit our [lack of] "policies" regarding mental health lapses are at very least in need of an overhaul. Wikipedia is not therapy. We don't however, just block people who say something "creepy" and seem to want an actual moral and ethical discussion. I saw no legal issues at face value... *shrugs*. Not seeing any doesn't mean the assumption should be there are, in any way. "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" being questionable logic so if that's the only means I want more talk on an indef. It implies someone can prove a negative to defend oneself. I'm not suggesting it be changed, btw, so I'm sorry this might look grumpy/frustrated, since it's honestly a troublesome area. Far weirder/worse/more dangerous things come up around here, you must admit, without these ends. Not at all justifying that user's odd discussion topic, either. Also also not saying it shouldn't have been reported originally, since I'm of the opinion that such matters are worth watching and getting a pair of admin eyes on for awhile.
    Maybe change the template on the userpage to one with an unblock request area included? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, agreed. I'm always worried about using uw-block3 over indef, since the former seems a bit... off, given the circumstances. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the user should have just been told to keep discussions of her mental health off of Wikipedia? The indef block seems quite harsh, given that the user never mentioned anything illegal.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't see the merits of this block. What harm or disruption is caused to the project by this user? Tell em that this isn't really the venue for these sorts of questions, and move on. Hell, direct em to Yahoo Answers, this would fit right in there. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The block seems a little unneeded, I didn't think we made it a policy to block anyone who has broken the law. Tevildo stating that the blocked user was "threatening to engage in potentially illegal harrassment/stalking" is inaccurate to the extreme, the user was just relating something that they had previously done (which may or may not have been against the law), in fact, they even stated that they were sorry for having done it and that they didn't intend to do it again. SpitfireTally-ho! 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the blocknote. User wants to try an unblock, then they're interested in improving the project. So far, hasn't been that way. I'll defer to another admin who's watching this. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In their position, I wouldn't request to be unblocked, imagine: you've heard about wikipedia, this apparently brilliant project, you want a little bit of an opinion on a moral subject, so you go to an online reference desk on wikipedia and ask your question in a polite and well-mannered way, immediately someone comes and tells you that your question is inappropriate for the ref desk, a little later the same person makes some comments about your mental health, you nonetheless maintain a polite demeanor, and when you later try and update the thread, you get a message telling you that you've been blocked for your comments in the thread. Personally, I'd leave the project, and tell all my friends about what a pigsty it is.
    This isn't the kind of image that we want to encourage, nor are we encouraged to promote it by policy. That the user does not request to be unblocked is not a good enough reason to leave them as such.
    Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on the block or any other admin response to this situation, but I feel I should defend my action. The user was asking for advice on whether or not it would be "moral" to befriend a work colleague of her victim (and I use the word deliberately) in order to, and I quote, "let me into their life". This is a clear statement of intent, IMO, and carrying out the action would constitute a criminal offence in England under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. She was threatening to engage in activity which would be illegal in England, and possibly in other jurisdictions. I therefore feel my wording was justified. Tevildo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Threewords,eightletters... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a single-purpose account. His ID likely refers to "I LOVE YOU". Either a stalker or someone pretending to be. No apparent value to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a marked distinction between a single-purpose account and an account that has yet to be used for more than one purpose. –xenotalk 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh. Firstly, the hamfisted way this has been handled makes me sick. Secondly, nothing that user did deserves a block. "Stalking" is entirely subjective, and the user at no point threatened violence. Simply keeping track of someone and trying to be part of their life isn't illegal anywhere as far as I'm aware. If this block is allowed to stand as it is, regardless of whether the user requests unblock themselves or not, I've entirely lost faith in wikipedias administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said the other place you posted this, the user shows all the early signs of someone who could eventually try to murder someone. The now-zapped user page talked about "obsessive love". No intent to contribute to wikipedia, just using it as a personal web page. In fact, someone should figure out who the user is and notify the police. Think John Hinkley and Jodie Foster, as one example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bullshit argument. The user did NOTHING to deserve a block. Being weird is not a crime. Anyone can turn violent at any point, should we block you because there's an off chance you might turn violent? No, of course not. Innocent until proven guilty. And regardless, blocking them does nothing to prevent violence in the real world, and in fact may very well lead to them becoming violent as they've been denied an outlet when they attempted to reach for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From a thorough reading of the foregoing there appears to be no consensus to maintain the block, so I have already unblocked and left them a note directing them to a more suitable site to discuss relativistic issues such as the ones they raised at the RD. –xenotalk 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The unblock is a good decision, should the user page be restored? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I don't see why not. –xenotalk 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do. Everyone needs to see why he was blocked in the first place. I see his other so-called contribution is in process of being deleted. Since when does wikipedia give sanctuary to stalkers? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for christ's sake Bugs, why are you so insistent on ramping up the drama over this? A persons asks an inappropriate question, is told this isn't the place for it, and life goes on. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's unblocked, so we'll see how things work out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is appropriate to allow an editor like "Baseball Bugs" to answer questions on the reference and help desks? It's widely known that he is both uncivil and sarcastic. It's very likely that these kind of comments will run people away from the project. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike edit warriors? Woogee (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Saturn is a fine one to be lecturing others about their behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Go have some tea and disengage...this is headed in a dangerous direction. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeh, downhill. The guy is unblocked, so dat's dat for the foreseeable future. Let's hope I'm wrong about that guy, and won't have to do the "Told You So Dance" at some point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    William S. Saturn has violated WP:NPA with respect to Baseball Bugs and should retract his comment. Edison (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how stating the obvious is a personal attack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Saturn's comment wasn't a personal attack. It was merely an ignorance-based opinion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's over-dramatic and somewhat out of date with his comments. I was told to improve my work on the ref desks and have stuck to that for the most part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break?

    ... Enough on the sniping, please. It'd be far too depressingly for a topic that started as it did to end up with a WQA or any other sad result. Since iffy NPA seems to be turning into the acronym of the day and has wandered a million miles away from the actual ANI topic, I'll just restate from some opinions above that this is treading into dangerous territory when looking into slight forked angles of the discussion.. There's a reason why mental illness is just as taboo a topic as Terrorism or our other normal locales of angry soapboxing talk pages instead of Wikipedia-related contributions. Such discussions like this tend to happen. There seems to still a desire to talk about future guidelines on matters similar to this, and I'm glad we're over the block proper and are on WP:AGFDPTI territory... being that we should Assume Good Faith During Presumed Temporary Insanity. I'm not thinking many contributors to this discussion truly want to admonish the poster at WP:RD, but can also agree that some safety measures taken up-front were appropriate while it was talked over.

    Actually, the level of discussion has surprised me, and even if it's gotten a tad off-track I think it's still better than mostly sweeping it under the rug. Thoughts on future actions in these kinds of situations, anyone? Past the rare chance of the user being put off by an indef sans logic immediately, the discussion here seemed appropriate (to me) while sorting it and this is something to mark as at least some kind of niche precedent to be loosely interpreted for when an editor just seems... a bit off. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AvengerX

    Personally, I think both of you need to spend another year or so studying English before editing en.wiki anymore. Tan | 39 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly a helpful comment Tan, and WP:CIVIL states not to belittle other users. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Spitfire, it doesn't matter. PS (Tan): I edit here rarely. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a very helpful comment from Tan. The user above does not have sufficient grasp of English to contribute to an English-language encyclopedia. That's a fact. Civility does not call for ignoring the blindingly obvious truth, or for setting aside the need for basic competence. To the IP -- try to edit here less often until your English improves dramatically.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bali, i have not to try to improve my english for an encyclopedia because I don't edit here. My rare edits are too little to be considered as a work on en.wp. My actual knowledge of english language is not for an encyclopedia. I know it perfectly, it is not necessary to repeat it. I've asked for an incident about personal attacks. I'm not interested to do a training course for encyclopedical english. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Its not an appropriate or civil thing to say to a user who has just come to AN/I complaining of a threat from another user. Not really interested in debating the point, just to make my opinion clear. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have to disagree with Bali on two accounts. First, many non-native English speakers contribute much valuable information to the English Wikipedia. If their contributions are in less-than-perfect English, we can address that through simple copy-editing. To tell anyone that their contributions of useful information are unwelcome violates the spirit of the project. Second, the point of this board is to address problems that require administrator intervention. The IP came here because of a perceived threat made against him. Tan's response was not at all helpful toward resolving that issue, and was uncivil to boot. We users expect better of our admins. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've drunk the koolaid to such an extent that you no longer understand what the word "civil" means.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I wrote here only to notify a [personal attack who sounds like a threat. A threat showing my host and some of mine personal datas. It could be simple trolling but, anyway, it is againist the policies of Wikipedia. I don't thing that this i know who you are is "funny". --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not here to be offended by anybody, ok ? My English is not for academy but my politeness in what i wrote is out of disputation. I'm here only to notify personal attacks. I don't want to read some of my personal datas used as a threat by AvengerX. This is the only reason. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The folks thinking I was somehow being insulting are the same knee-jerk civility police editors that are currently plaguing this project. Would you please try to analyze the situation before you start leaving self-important, tsk-tsk messages here and on my talk page? These editors' grasp of English is very poor. This is the crux of the problem. I didn't belittle anyone, or make light of any actual problem, or even remotely insult anyone. I stated a fact that was extremely germane to the problem at hand. I notice that neither of the police here commented on the actual problem or bothered to look into this issue; that shows their priorities here. The patently obvious solution is for either or both editors to improve their English skills - that will a) improve communication and b) improve comprehension to a point where the numerous communication and comprehension errors that make up this issue will be solved. Tan | 39 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If this "jerk" is refered to me, i send to you back. What part of "i don't edit here" or "i've received threats" haven't you understood ? I think both of you (you and Bali) need to spend another year or so studying the basis of politeness and civility before talking to me anymore. Ok !? Go to joke with another jerk ! --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly, a little pragmatism, such as that from Tan, would be rather useful at times. Anyways, on the original topic, it's kind of hard to tell what exactly to make of that comment, but it's obviously nothing good. Something has to be done, but this isn't my specialty here. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tan actually means well by that statement. It's just that for non-native English speakers it can be extremely hard to give a definition for the very very specific window we call things to be versus other disruptions or incident-starting events. Actually, most native English speakers here have no idea we use it a tad differently than the norm. It can just be extremely hard to try to piece together some very specific details of these disputes as the quality of the English changes frequently. For the record, however, the jp.Wikipedia icon for a sock as being a shadowed stuffed bunny is incredibly cute. We can try to find versions from before the string of contented edits started, but without further disruptions, it would be punitive and not preventative to act at much length. Oh, and of note, it's possible for many IP users to have their general location pinpointed via the Geolocate link on the tools menu given at the bottom of contribution pages for IP users. This is not intended to be used as an invasion of privacy in any way since it's information that can be found many places online anyway, but more for basic research toward WP:SPI cases. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ← Yeah. You both need to back away from each other. His "threat" was in response to your "threat" about knowing who he is. You are both in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AvengerX (2)

    AvengerX (talk · contribs) I've still notified this user yesterday for threats. He continues today leaving me an absurd message of threat involving my government. Tell me what have I to think about an user who send me threats reguarding "i know who are you" and "i will inform italian government about you if you don't reflect". --79.27.142.88 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope for the restriction to this IP user. (It is guessed that this IP user is Mr.Pil56). I expect wise measures of all of you. --AvengerX (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck and good hope in another place mr, bye bye. No, it is guessed that i'm not Pil56 of it.wp, if it was your axis to threat me. Greetings from my national goverment --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have left a notification of this discussion on the user's talk page. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Shirik and Closedmouth. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is him blocked or not ? The user continues vandalizing his talk page adding offences and total false accuses of racial prejudice --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, their talkpage is NOT blocked, as they may request unblock. It's often normal to allow some degree of "venting" as long as it's not disruptive. Do not poke the bear, however (in other words, stay away from them). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His edits are distruptive: False accuses of racism, offences to italian people (read edit summary), lots of threats and offences to Pil56 (inscribed here), and admin of it:wp who provided to block him over there. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, he has his right to defence. But he can't continues offending and threating Pil56 (believing that me and him are the same person), that's a regular en.wp user. He can't use edit summary to start offences to him and so offences to italian people. He has done to my people, i'ven't done to japanese people. I admire japaneses, but i don't like trolls, of any nation or culture. I wish you'll delete from the edit summary the offensive references to the user Pil56 --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Stay away from their talkpage - poking is disruptive. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not in and of themself disruptive. He will be suggested to file his proper SPI request once he decides calm down and get himself unblocked. You've done your part, now back away slowly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I request for a check user within myself and Pil56. I want to prove that me and Pil56 are two different people. So, i could stay away when he will stop to use the edit summary to offend him. He is only using the e.s. for this. I don't know who is Pil56, but i know that's a regular member of en.wp, out of this history. I've notified to his it.wp talk page of this usage. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can drop by WP:SPI yourself - they are rarely allowed to be used to "prove innocence" because they never can prove innocence. Leave the current situation alone. A report was made to ANI and the things that can be handled here are being handled. Let the admins deal with AvengerX, and the further away you get, the better. WP:DRAMA is not needed as we already have enough. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Crikey Mr IP .. was this really necessary? "Mr lamer"?!? You were advised to stop poking the bear, and to let admins deal with it. You have spent much of the day escalating this situation beyond necessary, and then wonder about why he retaliates? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    After being advised to stop with racist vio's of NPA, and to refrain from accusing of sockpuppetry unless they are willing to file an SPI once unblocked, the user added this to their talkpage. I have removed it, and left a message explaining why. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note The removed attacks have been re-added and he has now turned his sights to me. It's probably a good thing that I cannot see the youtube video right now. Maybe he needs to have talkpage access removed, and I'm disengaging (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well since it didn't look like it was going anywhere, I revoked his talkpage access and reverted his latest edit. Syrthiss (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    low-grade edit warring and extensive personal attacks by Pyrrhon8

    sorry to send this here, but I no longer know what to do with this person. Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) has just gone off the deep end.

    background: the article Dignity was at one point in time a personal essay here before I began working on it. ultimately the article went through and AfD discussion which resulted in a merge (with Human Dignity) and rewrite result. I carried that out. Pyrrhon periodically tried to revive certain portions of the old essay-like construction, which I mostly reverted as against the AfD consensus; he was combative, but not excessive about it. recently, however, I did some cleanup on one section of the article, with the following result:

    In short, he's editing against consensus, engaging in extreme personal attacks, and refusing to engage in discussion about any of it. If it were up to me, I would ask for a short block and a six month article ban from editing dignity, but that might just be because he's starting to irritate me. I would appreciate any action that gets him somewhere back in the vicinity on normal, civil editing practices. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is my goal to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the solar system. It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia. The conflicting goals make it difficult for constructive editors to work with Ludwigs2. I have presented a list of examples here to help anyone who wants to understand why constructive editors find Ludwigs2 disruptive. I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks. I suspect he is going for some sort of record in being blocked. (He has been blocked 5 times.) As far as I am concerned, he has exhausted all the wikilove he deserves. PYRRHON  talk   23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ludwig isn't in the wrong. You were going against consensus. The blocks of Ludwig don't have anything to do with this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ludwig2's edits have improved the article. The original essay read like a Grade 10 school project; it's biased, poorly organized, and awkwardly worded with many weasel words ("some have noted" - who?). Pyrrhon's edits have not improved the article, and his actions give the appearance of article ownership - he's ignoring consensus to preserve a version which is both unsupported by consensus and unencyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the deep end indeed. There was no malicious intent in the edit, it was a simple, regular cleanup. Pyrrhon8 reverted it without any sort of explanation: when Ludwigs2 politely and respectfully asked for one, he replied, "I am not going to play games with you. Go play on Conservapedia!" (emboldening mine.) Pyrrhon8's behavior strikes me as just unacceptable and to an extend ridiculous: In his response above, he says, "It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia... ...I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks."
    If you want it in policy terms, Pyrrhon8 has demonstrated complete disregard for WP:AGF ([1]), WP:NPA ([2]), and honestly, an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors. The talk page discussion pretty much sums it up.
    Pyrrhon, you need to be open to the idea that Ludwigs is not an evil adversary whose sole purpose is to destroy Wikipedia. Try and cooperate with them on this. You can start by talking about what content is objectionable to you, and then try and work towards a mutual solution. Does that help? ALI nom nom 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors are engaged in an edit war (and should be duly warned for it, both of them). That is not constructive. Regardless of content disputes, Pyrrhon8 needs to stop the personal attacks occurring in edit summaries or will be risking a block. That's not acceptable. -- Atama頭 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't think I was engaged in an edit war - I made 4 reverts over a period of 3 days, and that was in an effort to retain the consensus version and get some discussion going. I may have my flaws, but this dispute isn't an example of that. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Side question: can I go ahead and revert Dignity back to the 3O version of the article? I can wait if people prefer, but any subsequent discussion about article changes ought to start from that version. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Response by Pyrrhon
    About red herrings and consensus

    Re Dignity, I am not editing to recreate the article that existed in November 2008. No one is editing to recreate the article that existed in November 2008. The idea is a Red herring (idiom), a rhetorical device that is very popular with disruptive editors.

    On 1 March 2009, Belasted nominated Dignity for deletion. He suggested that Wikipedia make do with a deplorable article called "Human dignity." The article on Human dignity had two sections. One section was Christian dogma. The other section was about the laws of Germany.

    I proposed that Human dignity's section about the laws of Germany be moved to Dignity, and that the article "Human dignity" be deleted. The issue of consensus arose. There was no consensus to delete Dignity so the nomination failed. There was general agreement that the articles should be merged. On 5 March 2009, Ludwigs2 mashed the contents of Human dignity into Dignity. He deleted Human dignity.

    Ludwigs2 moved the section about the laws of Germany to the end of the article. He inserted the dogma as a sentence here, a phrase there. I had no objection to the section on Germany. I did not like the poorly-written mishmash that the remainder of the article had become. (Back in September or October 2008, I had to undo a similar mishmash when Ludwigs2 inserted a different example of dogma into the article.) Despite the disruptive efforts of Ludwigs2, I eliminated all the bad writing. In May or June, Ludwigs2 insisted on having a badly written introduction. I appealed to the Administrators to stop his disruptive editing, but no one was helpful. I gave up on the article. I had other articles that I wanted to write and to improve.

    Now, Ludwigs2 says I am "editing against consensus." A consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus I suppose Ludwigs2's idea of a group is himself and NativeForeigner. They have agreed, it seems, that Ludwigs2's changes to Dignity would make it better.

    Let us consider just one of Ludwigs2's changes. Ludwigs2 wants this line about Mirandola in the article: This oration is commonly seen as one of the central texts of the Renaissance, intimately tied with the growth of humanist philosphies. I do not understand how this assertion is pertinent to what dignity is. I am not told what percent of the population is caught up in "commonly." I am not told who sees the oration as a "central text." I am not told what a "central text" is. I am not told what the central texts have to do with dignity. I am not told what the "humanist philosphies" are. I am not told how it is that they grow. I am not told what it means that texts are "intimately tied" with philosphies. There is no explanation for the assertion. The assertion has no references. Who said this? Is the assertion original research?

    I picked this line from Ludwigs2's writing because it is typical of his style. His style is full of complicated phrases, undefined terms, and weasel-words. He has never added a reference to Dignity. I do not know if he has any use for references. Because he is not familiar with the references, he makes statements that misrepresent what an author said or what an author meant. He deletes sentences that are critical to understanding the concept being discussed.

    It is a tedious and thankless job to turn Ludwigs2's writing into something meaningful and encyclopedic. As I mentioned above, I have had to sort out his messes twice. I do not want him spoiling Dignity again.

    And yet NativeForeigner says that Ludwigs2's writing makes Dignity easier to understand—not impossible to understand, but easier. NellieBly says, "Ludwig2's edits have improved the article." Ali says Ludwigs2 performed a "cleanup." How is nonsense a cleanup? How do weasel-words improve an article? Ludwigs2 says he has consensus to use his style. In effect, he is saying he is improving Dignity by complicated phrases, undefined terms, weasel-words, and original and unreferenced research.

    How do we reconcile the opinions of NativeForeigner, NellieBly, Ali, and Ludwigs2 with articles like these: WP:WEASEL, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and on and on? If Ludwigs2, with his way of doing things, is the constructive editor, and I am the disruptive editor, then it must be that many articles about how to edit on Wikipedia are just plain wrong. Clearly, those articles have their ideas about good editing and bad editing upside down. If bad writing makes an article better-flowing and easier to understand, then we should all take it as our duty to write badly. We should believe, it seems, bad writing is really good writing. Nevertheless, until Wikipedia changes its articles, I will not take the opinions of NativeForeigner, NellieBly, Ali, and Ludwigs2 seriously. I will continue to pay attention to WP:DUTY!

    About personal attacks

    I understand that many people interpret any statement of fact or any display of logic as an affront or as a "personal attack." I am reminded of the case of the Scottish lad, Thomas Aikenhead. He remarked one day that religion was nonsense. The priests had him killed for his "attack" upon religion.

    I do not regard a statement of fact or a display of logic as an "attack." I am pleased to say I have nothing in common mentally with anyone who does. PYRRHON  talk   05:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    for reference, here are the first and second deletion nomination discussions, and their results: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dignity - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dignity_(2nd_nomination). I've gone ahead and restored the article to the most recent consensus version, since there was no commentary on my request above. --Ludwigs2 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    P.s. Pyrrhon, if you're really trying to improve the article and not just reinvent the [august 2008] version, then this would go a lot more smoothly if you discussed the matter with me on the talk page. I have taken a profound dislike to you, but I will deal with it if you get over this and start behaving civilly. --Ludwigs2 08:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let us get back to the issue here. Is it time to ban Ludwigs2? I say YES. Does anybody else say YES? It takes only two to make a consensus (so I am told). PYRRHON  talk   17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    well, he reverted the consensus version again, with another uncivil edit summary here and continues on protracted rants against me. Is someone going to deal with this inveterate troll, or are you all going to wait until it escalates into a full-scale conflict? I will eventually lose my temper. The endless reverts at dignity will not go away until (a) he settles down and talks the issue out or (b) he gets blocked, and the possibility of (a) given his current behavior is so remote that I find it inconceivable. really, I don't fucking mind if he wants to edit the article, BUT GET THIS LITLE PIECE OF @#$% OFF MY BACK! --Ludwigs2 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chipmunk (rapper)

    Resolved
     – Semi-protected. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of trying to claim that this person is dead. Has been reported to WP:RFPP, but not been looked at yet. Would a kindly admin please do the necessary. Thanks. Quantpole (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Give it time. Most requests aren't handled in real-time. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He is likely still alive. A quick Google News search is not turning up anything. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise that, and for most vandalism it's not usually that urgent, but in this case it is serious BLP vandalism that had been happening every couple of minutes from numerous IP addresses. It appears to have stopped since my last revert though, so maybe they've stopped trying now. Quantpole (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Badagnani

    Hi, all. I'm really not sure where to start here. I've been running into trouble with Badagnani pretty much every time I run into him. Edit warring, incivility, AGF problems -- pretty much everything except outright vandalism. A lot of my edits are geared toward removing spam and listcruft, and to that end, I've been working a lot on pages of professional sports teams, and musicians and their instruments.

    Currently, I'm finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid an edit war with a user who seems bent on provoking one. At goblet drum, I deleted an a set of spam links, a list of allegedly notable players (some so notable they were redlinked), and a list of translations of "goblet drum" into other languages. On the last point, I was removing the material because it was unsourced and because it violated WP:WWIN, specifically WP:NOTDIC, which specifies that lists of translations are appropriate for Wiktionary and not Wikipedia.

    I was quickly reverted by Badagnani, who claimed the information was "absolutely essential." He said he wanted to discuss the change at the talk page, but he never posted. In turn, another user reverted him. All was fine for a month, until Badagnani again decided that the edit was "ridiculous" and reverted it, again without discussion.

    Although his edit summaries frequently implore other editors to discuss their changes, Badagnani consistently declines to participate himself. Just the same, I attempted to get a conversation going at the talk page, but was met with dismissive comments, mild insults and no effort to address my concerns. I reiterated my concerns, but after nearly a week, they were still left unaddressed. I therefore left a message at Badagnani's talk page, which he answered only to accuse me of attacking him and being ignorant of Persian translations. I made a final effort to get my questions answered, but to no avail.

    Because he made it clear he was not interested in providing sources or explaining why WP:NOTDIC should be disregarded, I went ahead and removed the material again. Inside of 10 minutes, I was reverted again, this time with a less-than-civil edit summary.

    Badagnani then went on an editing tear, adding references (some germane, so less so) and the like. In hopes of finding a middle ground, I tried to begin tagging different types of goblet drums with the "Goblet-shaped drum" category in hopes that it could serve as a sufficient collection of the different subtypes that Badagnani was trying to assemble. In doing so, I happened upon Badagnani engaging in an edit war with User:Ronz at Glong yao, where he was fighting [3] [4] [5] to pass off a coatracked advertisement as a reliable source. At that talk page, I discovered a discussion nearly identical to the one at Talk:goblet drum: another editor raises concerns, Badagnani (1) dismisses them; (2) makes accusations of bad faith editing; and (3) reverts.

    Additionally, a review of his edits shows that he is removing "unreferenced BLP" tags from articles he's written but failed to source [6] [7]. Of course, restoring them only invites him to revert without discussion [8].

    The most annoying thing about this is that Badagnani really could be a very useful editor. The bulk of his work consists of good-faith, high-quality edits, especially in areas that are typically neglected by most editors or where most editors lack the expertise to work confidently. But like Terrell Owens, he is creating a distraction that prevents other editors from moving forward and that is sure to be a turn-off to newbies.

    I'm hoping someone here has the charm or heft to effect a change. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    On the issue of the unsourced BLP, he may be counting the ELs as sources; did you try explaining that inline cites are better for verification and that we need significant coverage in reliable sources? He should know better than to be obstinate in his editing, so have you thought of filing a WP:RFC/U? I can't see any behaviour that requires admin intervention. Fences&Windows 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, there does seem to be a pattern of low-level incivility and edit-warring, if this block log is anything to go by:[9] Fences&Windows 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This behavior is identical to that which lead up to some of his previous blocks. See his RFCU for more details. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We almost indef blocked him the last time I remember this coming up. We didn't, so it comes up again. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The last ANI on him appears to be Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Badagnani_category_blanking_again.
    1RR was discussed as well as an indef block.--Ronz (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to respectfully disagree that there isn't any behavior that warrants intervention. It appears to me that Badagnani has become adept at gaming the system, pushing his edit wars to the edge of WP:3RR and then coming back when the time is right. If you'll take a look at his record (and it took a while for me to compile this, so I don't blame you for not getting around to it), you'll see that Badagnani's behavior has been marked by the same tendentious patterns, incivility and disregard for consensus-building for several years now.
    Allow me to demonstrate. I am not the first to find that Badagnani is quick to revert constructive edits that he happens to oppose, ask for discussion then refuse to particpate. Nor am I the first to suggest that he is a habitual edit warrior. In fact, his disruptive edits have been brought to the attention of adminstrators numerous times.
    I'll hasten to add that he wasn't found to have been in the wrong every single time someone had a complaint with him, but it's clear from his record that he is either unable or unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia in a manner that will keep the project moving forward. Like I said above: A lot of the work he's done has been fantastic, but at this point, Badagnani has proven himself to be more trouble than he's worth. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, I'll end with a salient quote:
       Please, one can't talk oneself out of 4 reverts. It's just not permitted and the editor has been editing long
   enough that he should be well aware of our policies on this matter.
   Badagnani 3:58 am, 11 May 2007, Friday (2 years, 7 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)
    — Bdb484 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what about that 1RR again? I got turned down last time. And yes, his approval rating among the folks at WP:VIET seems to have steadily gone into the floor YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support imposition of WP:1RR. Badagnani's contributions are valuable enough that we should try anything we can to avoid an indefinite block. At the same time, he needs to understand that the community's patience with his disruptive editing patterns is stretched very, very thin. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1RR for Badagnani. He hasn't indicated yet that he has any idea what the problem is, but maybe this'll work. It would be great if he doesn't have to go, although I'm not optimistic. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1RR for Badagnani. --Kleinzach 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The content at the center of this issue is - the local names of an instrument (Goblet drum#Names specifically).
    -Adding alternative names is in-line with advice at Wikipedia:Lead section#Alternative names, but in conflict with information at WP:NOTDICT.
    -Per examples like Vodka and Sushi, we clearly have to have at least some local names. Per examples like Harry Potter in translation and List of Asterix characters#Getafix it is sometimes very informative to have long lists of translations/local names. But we also clearly don't want 250 translations of the word "spoon" at spoon.
    -This whole issue needs a wider discussion, somewhere appropriate. Badagnani is not at all clearly in the wrong here.
    That said, Badagnani is very uncommunicative, and prone to exaggeration and opaque communication. Having 2 editors hounding him for years isn't helping though. I'd support 1RR for Badagnani, if Ronz and Grayoshi2x could refrain from reverting/harassing/poking Badagnani (eg this kind of provocative behavior is pointy and unhelpful). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "the content at the center of this issue", I'm not sure I agree that it's the name of a musical instrument. I think whatever edit you're talking about is absolutely not why we're talking about Badagnani here at AN/I. The "center of this issue" is precisely that: "Badagnani is very uncommunicative and prone to exaggeration and opaque communication," as you say. That's the only problem. It's not the nature of the one straw that matters; it's the back of the camel.

    If Ronz and Grayoshi2x agree to give him a mile's berth, his communication style will simply create more Ronzes and Grayoshi2xes. Do we have to issue restraining orders, one by one, to everyone that Badagnani unintentionally treats like shit? I don't agree with the way Ronz in handling the situation, and I've let him know that, but if Ronz were to go on extended vacation to Mars tomorrow, Badagnani would still be causing problems here. That will remain true until he somehow grasps that the way he's dealing with other people is crap, and needs to change if he's going to work on this project. We're doing a terrible job of sending him that message so far, because it's been this long with virtually no progress.

    Can anyone even get him to recognize what he's doing that upsets so many people? I tried to tell him for weeks, and then I gave up, and I'm not welcome on his talk page anymore. Can anyone tell me how they see this resolving, realistically in this universe? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I find your approach and attitude very disturbing GTB. Badagnani edits in good faith and he does an ENORMOUS amount of content work. Like other editors who are prolific, he sometimes comes into conflict. That Ronz and Grayoshi have been allowed to pursue conflicts with this editor for this long is outrageous and your involvement has encouraged these highly destructive behaviors. There are lots of areas of the encyclopedia and they don't need to seek out his work. As Quiddity points out, there are good reasons and policies for his editing. He's not easy to work with, but many many many many many editors do okay with it. So the obvious solution is for those who can't work with him to avoid him. Putting him on a 1RR while allowing stalkers to continue harassing him is outrageous. You have a long history of conflict with him, and it's unfortunate that you've returned to trying to box him in instead of working with him and helping him in a collegial manner. Why don't you follow dispute resolution on the drum naming issue and whatever other CONTENT ISSUES there are, and cease trying to block anyone who doesn't toe the line you think they should. Alternatively, enforce an interaction ban with those causing problems. Thanks.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your suggestions, ChildofMidnight; I'll think about what you said. At present, I disagree with almost all of it, but I'll inevitably think about it, and possibly modify my behavior accordingly. I'm glad that you recognize my extreme frustration that stemmed from attempting to help this editor in the past. I don't trust your judgment six inches, though, and I'm extremely glad that you're not in any position of power here. I find your "approach and attitude" at least as disturbing as you find mine. Jolly. You really burned your bridge with me; good work.

    Also, I like how you assume wrong shit about what I believe, and what I support. Bye now; I hope not to hear from you again. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would support a 1RR restriction and/or another RFC/U. I have also seen Badagnani revert very constructive cleanup efforts and subsequently refuse to engage in discussion over the reverts. I feel this behaviour is very disruptive to the quality of the project. ThemFromSpace 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose GTBacchus has been well aware that I'm no fan of Badagnani at all. Granted, I actually gave up long ago that he would listen to my repeated pleas not to insert annoying hidden questions or original research and urge me to find materials or expand articles for satisfying his curiosity. Just like some editor said last May, if we want to peacefully cooperate with him, we should use special conversation skills for him (yeah, that may sound too lenient). Though I bite the bullet since his general contribution is very helpful to improve Wikipedia especially articles with a small viewership. I also highly doubt that "informal" WP:Mentorship would work for him since as he's promoted himself, he has a high pride as a "long-term productive editor". In his view, mentors should revert for him or block his opponents from engaging in disruptive blanking campaign no matter what they complain. Due to the outright misunderstanding on purposes of mentorship, GTBacchus's efforts got no gain.
    • However, I think the aforementioned one-sided IRR would be not effective but rather increase high chances for his "current" opponents such as User:Ronz and User:GraYoshi2x to take advantage of it to block him. For example, Grayoshi2x's had been poking on Badagnani for quite a while by intentionally removing Wiktionary links from Chinese characters within articles" against the formed consensus on WT:CHINA in May. After both were recently reported to WP:AN3 and admonished by admins, User:Rjanag and User:EdJohnston, the consensus that Grayoshi2x solely objected was reconfirmed at WT:CHINA#Wiktionary_redux. Neither did bother to open a discussion on the issue. After the incident, Grayoshi2x has now introduced a new way of "provoking Badagnani" by removing "names of subjects" from many articles including Napa cabbage[10][11][12], Longan, Hoa Kỳ, List of pasta, Ron Kovic, Kai-lan, Daikon, Lychee, Lettuce and others. Unlike Grayoshi2x's edit summaries, he also has not bothered himself to open a discussion at the pertinent talk page. I was just close to report the both to here due to their another set of endless WP:LAME edit-wars. I'm sure if I had informed of their warring to the mentioned admins, they both would've had at least one-week vacation together. So if Grayoshi2x, Ronz, and Badagnani or others who may conflict with him over content disputes are not equally judged by the same ground, I won't support the 1RR patrol only applying to Badagnani. Either enforce 1RR to the three or WP:ARBCOM.--Caspian blue 05:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be comfortable with a group 1RR. I think it's stupid how long we've let this situation fester. If it makes people less unhappy to do it via ArbCom, then do it via ArbCom. I wouldn't use the word "judge" for any of it, but whatever. We don't need to talk philosophy. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm interested though... if Ronz and Grayoshi2x dropped off the planet, how many other editors have been driven to frustration and anger by Badagnani's... style? Conversely, if Badagnani magically weren't here, how many other editors have Ronz and Grayoshi2x been having issues with? Do they "stalk" a lot of people, thus justifying the label used above by ChildofMidnight, or are they just reacting badly to a particularly difficult editor who refuses to listen to anyone?

          This knowledge would inform any decision about which preventative measures would be most effective. I don't know the answers to those questions, but if we're trying to solve whatever problem we're talking about, these questions seem to matter, perhaps. Again, I don't oppose 1RR all around. Hell, I think it oughtta be site policy for everyone. Second reverts are silly; how many times do you try a locked door to decide if it's locked? Once is enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • User:Ronz seems to have been reported to WQA quite many times for his incivility and harassment of editors beside Badagnani's matter. As for User:GraYoshi2x, he has not been that much active, but his contribution for the past 9 months are largely edit-warring with Badagnani. One of which even chased down Badagnani to Commons by using WP:SOCK ips. That definitely an "immediately blockable offense" (perhaps, up to an indefinite block). However, Badagnani was also poor at defending himself against such unacceptable behaviors. Therefore, it is unfair to say that Badagnani is the only guilty party. Given this circumstance, if Badagnani is the one getting the IRR sanction, sadly, he would've been likely baited and blocked. Then, he will leave Wikipedia for good which is not beneficial to Wikipedia in a long-term perspective. If any sanction must take place, I can support the idea of the group 1RR, mutual interaction ban. Or strong mentorship program in which his mentors can guide or block him if he refuses to abide by policies could be an option. However, my idea would sound unpleasant to the mentioned people, so that's why I suggest WP:ARBCOM to equally judge the involved party's conducts.--Caspian blue 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely and totally irrelevant. When's the last time I've been reported to WQA? (Hint: Long ago) What was the outcomes of all the WQAs I've been involved? (Hint: I was being harassed by others).--Ronz (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence which Bdb484 provides is troubling. Caspian blue makes some good but not as convincing points too though. I agree with Caspain blue, please escalate this to arbcom. I am extremely leary of ANI imposed sanctions. Therefore I strongly oppose sanctioning the editor here. Ikip 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not just initiate an interaction ban? I don't understand why this feuding has been allowed to spread to new articles. If there is a general issue, like these concerns over including names or translations, they can be discussed on the project page until consensus is reached. But the individual editors who don't get along should just work on separate projects. There's no reason for anyone to pursue Badagnani to incite conflict and those doing so should be blocked post haste. The conflict is damaging and the attacks on an extraordinary content contributor are disturbing. Let's resolve whatever the underlying content conflicts are and seperate the disputants once and for all. Badagnani has been editing the Goblet drum article since 2005 with no apparent problem. So Ronz shouldn't be coming in and looking for trouble. Changes should be done with consensus and using ANI to win conflict disputes and to go after people with different opinions is wholly unconstructive and an odious practice. If anyone is out of patience then go work on something else. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is also a fine suggestion, although I think it postpones the inevitable. I wouldn't oppose it; it's another road. Let's go there, and then see. Sure. Good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since CoM seems not to be responding to the RfC on his conduct on Project pages, now might be the right time to point out that here yet again he is making intemperate comments on disputes in which he is not involved. He has been criticized for this in the RfC and most recently by members of the new ArbCom.
    Ikip and Caspian blue should remember that community sanctions are normally enacted here and are usually considered a step in WP:DR that precedes escalation to RfAr. Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "intemperate" i.e. unrestrained comments? COM made a suggestion which GTBacchus agrees to, which I think is a good idea. I appreciate his assitance in this matter.
    COM's non-response to his RFC is irrelevant to the issue here.
    Community sanctions are sometimes inacted without escalation to arbcom. That is what I would like to avoid.
    Although I support WP:Equality the reality is there is preferential treatment given to veteran editors. Few editors are more veteran than Badagnani. Badagnani has been here 4 years. With 138,234 edits and 1,344 articles created. #28 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest Ikip 16:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both CoM and Badagnani are members of WP:FOOD and have worked together for some articles. In fact, Mathsci, your business here seems to be only related to your relationship with CoM. I don't support community sanction since people calling out "burn the witch" are either largely filled with "angry people" or "angry people's friends", or ANI regulars who do not know well about the past history. The latter tend to pile on a majority's view by adding "per whose comment" without checking the whole issue. Though, I can support "group 1RR" or "mutual interaction ban" that would be fair for everyone.--Caspian blue 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Badagnani has been behaving exactly as this ANI report describes (baseless accusations, insistence on doing things his way while refusing to discuss his objections or provide any kind of supporting information, ignoring all attempts to try to find a compromise) for years, and been brought to ANI over and over for it, as Bdb484's list of links indicates. And he almost always escapes punishment here, despite refusing to even acknowledge the situation or speak to his own defense at all, because he has some friends who always stick up for him and other people who will agree that when he's not in a dispute, he makes a lot of good contributions. Which doesn't excuse his absolutely horrendous behavior when he does get into a dispute.
    He's going to keep doing the same stuff, over and over, because he very rarely suffers consequences (and apparently even the 30-day block didn't help). Yes, there are some specific people he has run-ins with over and over again, because those are people who work on the same topic areas and will try to improve his articles and who have the knowledge and motivation to bring the issue to another venue when he refuses to allow changes he doesn't like. The situation is not that those are the only people he has conflicts with and if he doesn't talk to them, he'll get along just peachy. (Has Bdb484 been accused of chasing Badagnani down and provoking him into a dispute?) The other unproductive "solution" that I've seen bandied about is that every single person who ever disagrees with Badagnani should have learn some special set of rules for communicating with him in a way that might possibly potentially convince him to discuss an issue productively, and it's that person's fault if they just try to speak to him like a rational human being and he won't respond like one. That's obviously ridiculous. As always, my opinion on Badagnani is he should be sitebanned until he shows a real willingness to acknowledge his poor behavior and improve it. (Of course, he hasn't acknowledged this ANI. If he avoids ANI discussions because he thinks they're unfair, as some of his friends have suggested, I don't see how that's an excuse; if I get an unfair parking ticket, I don't get it thrown out by simply failing to acknowledge it.) Propaniac (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The worrying file uploads of User:Persia2099

    Persia2099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Check out their log. An image they recently uploaded, File:Parthian cataphracts.svg, was deleted not that long ago, as an obvious copyright violation. What is concerning about this is not so much the copyright violation(although that is a pretty big concern), but several key factors, mainly with the point that this user is lying about what they are doing.

    The key factors(in no particular order):

    1. Images uploaded to file types do not match their file types. Examples: (File:Sassanid coast of arm.svg(gif), File:Parthian cataphracts.svg(gif), File:Achaemenid Infantry.svg(I'm assuming this was a gif as well))
    2. Images uploaded give false information, such as the above File:Parthian cataphracts.svg was uploaded with the information of being a picture taken by a camera, when it quite obviously was not. Other examples where the meta-data doesn't match the summary: (File:Dead wolf.jpg(Summary: Canon Sure Shot Z135 camera, Meta-data: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-410) .. there are more, but I don't think listing them is necessary.
    3. User has violated copyright several times with the first 3 listed images.

    Concerning these points, the behavior of their uploads is worrying. Sure, the images can't really be found using TinyEye or the like, but that doesn't mean that the user didn't upload them. Not all images that people take are uploaded elsewhere.Notified.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave a standard copyright warning message to the user based off the evidence from the deletion logs. I also added a note about OTRS just in case the user does in fact have permission but doesn't know the proper avenue in which to get it uploaded. This is basically a 4im-level warning at this point, in my opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While false information is certainly an issue (which can easily be fixed), this post just reeks of copyright paranoia. Seriously. Why are people so ridiculously OCD about this? It's just ridiculous. No site has ever gotten into trouble for fair use images. For some reason, Wikipedia editors feel the need to have a 500-page legal document below every image, or else it gets deleted.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is entirely unuseful. Copyright is an important issue, and if not controlled, could lead to willy-nilly copyright violation by anybody who wants to upload anything, and then what leg does Wikipedia have to stand on? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopedia Dramatica seems to be doing just fine...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    /Encyclopedia_Dramatica:General_Disclaimer#Fair_Use_and_Copyrighted_Materials You seem to have absolutely no idea of what you speak. They follow copyright just like we do, because they know that if they don't, they might be sued.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, using ED as an example that Wikipedia should follow? Woogee (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the fair use rules are just about getting sued perhaps you misunderstand the "free" part of free encyclopedia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't misunderstand the free part, do not assume things about me that you don't know, I was simply citing an example that the wiki cited follows the rules we follow here as well, and I listed a possible reason.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvios

    This list will increase as more are discovered.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked at random at this user's edits to Darius I of Persia. This unreferenced diff [13] was copied and pasted from a posting on a blog from 2006 here. I am also wondering whether there is a possible link with the indef blocked editor Ariobarza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also edited articles on Ancient Persian history. Mathsci (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cremepuff222

    Hi all,

    I'm sure most of the regulars here are familiar with the recent Cremepuff222 debacle. I recently proposed a provisional unblock on User talk:Cremepuff222 which allows the editor to create or rewrite an article while blocked in a subsection of his talk page; and if the result is satisfactory, we unblock one week later barring any further issues. There have been some objections to this proposal, but also a few endorsements, so I'd like to hear some more opinions before going forward. Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 14:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse {{2nd chance}} approach. –xenotalk 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (though, before anyone calls me on it, I know this is their 3rd chance (or something) - it will also be their last)[reply]
    Here's an opinion: Don't feed the trolls. Friday (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's the troll? I only see a long-term user and admin who got bored one day and, after being blocked a couple times, turned himself around. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things, one - Whats to stop him getting bored again?, and two - I seem to recall he "turned himself around" after he got blocked the first time--Jac16888Talk 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. As much as it is your time to waste reading whatever Cremepuff wants to put up, I don't put any real faith in his protestations that 'OK, NOW I'M SERIOUS AND WILL NO LONGER BE AN ASS DESPITE ME SAYING THAT LAST TIME AND THEN BEING AN ASS'. Syrthiss (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All you need to really read is the 'No' part then. I've been an admin for far longer than cremepuff, from far fewer supports (since that is one of your arguments on his talkpage), and I've never had a day of being a tosser on wiki because there was nothing good on the vid. Is that more helpful? Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (EC)I strongly believe cremepuff should remain blocked, his block has nothing to do with his content editing, its down to his behaviour. He had his last chance and he blew it less than a week later, now he comes back saying the same crap he did then, even openly admitting that his actions were because he found the reaction funny. Add to this his sockpuppets, vandalism etc, I can't see how we can trust this user ever again. And as a final note, take at look at cremepuffs own opinion on a situation very similar to this, taken from his rfa.

    :9. Let's say this happened: You came across a user who had done serious damage, then got unblocked and did even more damage. He says he really won't do any more damage, and please unblock him. He says that at the slightest bad thing from him, please block him. What would you do?

    A: One thing IRC has taught me is that people who say this often will continue doing disruptive things. This can be applied to Wikipedia as well. The user would likely continue vandalizing if unblocked, and if not, he or she can create a new account and start over again.

    --Jac16888Talk 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • No thanks. Blocked for being disruptive and wasting time. Comes back after a week, and is blocked again for being disruptive and wasting time. Comes back after another week and requests unblock knowing that doing so after such a short time would be disruptive and would waste time. I'd assume we'd only have to wait a week after another unblock before that wasn't enough and he started being disruptive and wasting time again and got blocked again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked liar, vandal and a waste of time who already had his "last" chance. Let him work constructively on some other wiki for six months and then come back, maybe.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsure He was given a second chance already, and was reblocked. No doubt that he can be useful, and I believe in second chances, but thirds so quickly? It sets a bad precedent. JC, let me ask this: are you honestly willing to risk your personal reputation on Wikipedia by being linked to this situation? Hypothetically, would you put for example your adminship on the line for this kid, based in his actions since mid-December? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. I'm willing to take full responsibility if I unblock him and he resumes being disruptive. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked per my notes on his talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preserve the status quo. Got another chance, and blew it. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked. I found it disappointing how long it took us to deal with him last time, and don't think we need to make it worse by unblocking. Here we have a user who has clearly abused the admin tools, created sock puppets, and used them for vandalism, among other disruptive actions. They've been given a second chance already, and I see no good reason to give another. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are we wasting time on this user? Tan | 39 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked. Has long since squandered the good faith of the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked, at least for 1-year. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked. I don’t go along with the proposer’s benevolent approach. CP himself has suggested 3 months; I’d just about go along with that. I simply don’t get this “develop an article on a talkpage” idea. Obviously he’s going to keep his nose clean for a week so what would it prove? I’m also unimpressed by another Admin’s idea of getting him to “agree” that any further disruption will lead to a swift re-block. Agree? Why does he need to agree to potential sanctions? As the same Admin. goes on to say, “we just need to ensure that the problematic behavior will stop.” Well it has stopped, so take up the editor on his own 3 months block suggestion. Leaky Caldron 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Blocked: see longer note on Cremepuff's talkpage. Maybe in six months Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go for it We have nothing to lose and something to gain. Either he helps us make the encyclopedia or we just block him again. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, this user did? Some vandalism is far worse than others. If he got bored, wrote "LOLDONGS" on a page, and then apologized, I think it's safe to unblock him. If he posted a user's address and threatened to kill him... no. And how many times did he do this? EXPLAIN, dammit!--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you? why aren't ya signed in? GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pssst... don't tell anyone, but I'm Jesus Christ. I'm not signed in because I don't want God to know what I'm doing with my spare time...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He posted a few silly messages on talk pages and created some mostly harmless sock accounts. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget the spamming of editors using the "e-mail this user" link, played a bunch of silly games, ran around saying "Oh, I did nothing at all wrong", etc, etc, ... should we link the two recent ANI threads here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deleting an article for fun was not a good idea, but that's why he's no longer an admin. I still can't see any cases where he actually vandalized an article. Could you please provide diffs? This all seems extremely putative. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Firstly, as I keep saying to you, he doesn't need to have vandalised in order to be disruptive. However, this is him vandalising while logged out, for one. His vandal-sockpuppets also vandalised multiple articles. As Bwilkins points out, I received multiple spammy emails from him after his indef-block. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds to me like the user is just bored, jittery, and a bit immature. Sure, he definitely shouldn't be an admin... but an indefinite block seems a bit harsh for such a silly thing.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep him blocked. Sorry, but the links above are quite convincing. Julian, if you can provide some sort of rebuttal, I might reconsider my opinion. HJMitchell You rang? 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Ta We have enough drama without inciting more. had a second chance, blew it. Fool us once... Spartaz Humbug! 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked - Messed around, said sorry, messed around again, got blocked, said sorry, unblocked, messed around again, blocked again, rinse repeat. Once was a forgiveable offence, shame on them. Twice was shame on us. Several more times? We shouldn't waste any more time on this. Canterbury Tail talk 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked per Redvers, just one too many chances blown I'm afraid to say. I fully understand Julian's commendable good faith, but feel the communities continued extensions of good will have now been exhausted. Pedro :  Chat  16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)x2 Not yet - I have no problem with a 2nd chance, but a test edit to an article on his talk page? It was a behavior block, not an ability to create/edit content. Having said that, it's too soon to even consider it. Try again in a couple of months if they're still interested in coming back. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the people who are suggesting that Cremepuff be unblocked really think that harrassing another editor is not significant? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked At the risk of WP:BEANS, I can almost guarantee that if left blocked, Creampuff will disappear for a short time, refresh his DHCP and get a new IP address, create a new account, and go off to edit articles he has never, ever touched before in order to evade his block. He will abandon the Creampuff account completely, and come back as either a total prick, or as a totally fantastic article editor. God forbid, however, that he *ahem* applies for adminship under that new account - we've suffered through that one enough already. I am all in favour of WP:AGF, but as I say here, I am not willing to ride the AGF toboggan into the trees below. The maturity level simply is not there to ensure consistency in his editing at this point - someday, he may prove me wrong, but today is not that day. Although Juliancolton may wish to continue riding the AGF toboggan, and hats off for that, I simply cannot (I was also one who recieved silly e-mails from Cremepuff). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bwilkins, you !voted unsure above, care to strike this? Ikip 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying it's better to drive the editor underground - and into further socking - rather than cautiously unblocking them so they can be monitored in place? –xenotalk 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (to xeno) we should never use the threat of possible future socking as a reason to unblock. If we keep him blocked and he comes back as a disruptive sock then we'll also block that sock when discovered. Syrthiss (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, threat of further socking is a good reason to keep the user blocked. Unblocking does not prevent socking anyways, ie good hand/bad hand. I am assuming though that his sock drawer is closed for now, but either way sock puppetry is no argument for unblocking. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't... I was responding to BWilkin's statement, which doesn't make much sense to me. I think the editor should be invited to complete the {{2nd chance}} process and be unblocked given their assurances the tomfoolery of the holiday is behind them. Though I understand the opposition per "fool me once...". –xenotalk 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    xeno, I see this situation as significantly different than say ... the WGB situation at the top of the page. We're already past the fool me twice point, and the consistant "I've never done anything wrong, others just seem to think so *shrug*" attitude across his talkpage shows that he does not have the maturity to accept his "change". I almost encourage him to start afresh and keep his nose clean forever and prove me wrong, but I cannot - based on the reading - he's taking goodwill for granted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked Although I was originally in favor of unblocking him, the spamming and deletions are concerning. Hopefully he leaves and comes back better than ever though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked, stop feeding, and move on. We expect admins to know what is acceptable. Jonathunder (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're right. Nobody should ever question authority...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr IP, will you ever post anything actually useful on this board? Just askin' (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, who cares? He's a random IP; his opinion automatically has no value. HalfShadow 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's the fact that he's contributing to a discussion he's not involved in about another editor's behavior while wearing a mask. And that's not typically helpful, especially if the IP is being provocative. Auntie E. 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's less anonymous than you are, and he has a right to his own opinion, which is just as valuable as yours. Prodego talk 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a wikiface, over 5000 edits, my record here is open to perusal, every conflict, every screwup, it's all there. If you want to call that "anonymous", go for it. Auntie E. 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I've been here longer than you have. And yes, contrary to popular belief, IP addresses are indeed living, breathing human beings.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please continue this separate discussion in a separate section, if at all, to help keep the threading clear. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I just got really pissed off with the "you're an IP, so you don't exist" bullcrap. I am trying really hard to refrain from personal attacks, but some people just make it really, really, really hard. And I'm on a medication that's making me jittery and agitation. I apologize if I've caused any disruptions.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm all for forgiveness and second chances, but this user has already had theirs. We all know the saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... CP already made us the fool by reneging on his "first second chance". Lets not make the fool of ourselves this time around. Shereth 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine if the community wants him to stay gone for now, but the wasting time argument is flawed—the only person wasting time would be me and any other admin who volunteers to monitor CP222 while unblocked... –Juliancolton | Talk 17:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I’m not convinced that your persistent lobbying on his behalf isn't actually doing him more harm than good, not that I’m bothered about that. You’ve had an idea, it has not received universal support, yet you persist in chiming in with your counter-arguments. There IS more at stake than your time being wasted – it’s called credibility. Why not show a bit of wisdom and let it rest awhile because to me your stance is beginning to look OTT. Leaky Caldron 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the verdict here is pretty clear, and anyone following Cremepuff's talk page already knows this, but since we're here now I also feel he should remain blocked. Why don't we call it WP:OFFER and be done with it for a while? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OFFER sounds good...almost willing to reduce the time myself. Didn't CP suggest 3 months anyway, or did I read wrong? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    he suggested 3 months on his talk page. Leaky Caldron 17:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I see no consensus to specify an end-time, and absolutely no agreement on what it should be. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not quibble over the exact details. How about we just say "don't ask to be unblocked or engage in sock puppetry for several months" and leave it to CP to decide when it's been long enough. That puts the ball n his court, and how long he waits will be a factor in the next discussion of his unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong unblock I find it ironic that most of the editors who are screaming no second chances here have screamed for lienency in other forums.
      Creampuffs crimes that I am aware of were incredibly minor and trivial. Treasury tag's smoking gun
      "abused his admin tools by deleting pages for fun and blocking himself" sounds bad on its face, but are obviously harmless when editors actually click these links. There was no disruption at all.
      In the spirit of WP:EQUALITY, compare this to editors blocking other editors they are in a dispute with dozens of times over several years and protecting pages they are in edit wars with, this infraction is a complete joke.
      From the edits differences I have investigated thus far, Creampuffs two real crimes are #1 acting immature, #2 not building a network of powerful editors to support him.
      User:Jehochman was talking about civility and NPA, but I personally feel this can be applied here:
      The problem is that our enforcement...has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them.[14] Ikip 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number 2 looks silly and irrelevant, but your number 1 is a great reason to leave him blocked. Wikipedia only benefits from editors who are able to behave like reasonable adults. Friday (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is treasury's number 2. For those of you not familar with this crime:
    02:19, 24 June 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) restored "Giggle" ‎ (132 revisions restored: oops)
    02:17, 24 June 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Giggle" ‎ (:D)
    02:30, 5 February 2008 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) restored "Giggle" ‎ (78 revisions restored: Just for giggles)
    02:30, 5 February 2008 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Giggle" ‎ (Just for giggles)
    A grand total of 2 minutes the Giggle page was deleted, in the space of 15 months, and then restored by cream, and editors are calling for an indefinite block. Was this during an edit war? Not to my knowledge. Was any other editors editing priveledges blocked? No.
    Beeblebrox brings up the giggle deletions for the first time ever (to my knowledge) on 09:55, 17 December 2009 here at ANI, 6 months after the 2 minute 24 June 2009 deletion.[15] There has never been any conversation about the deletion before that, including on the Giggle page itself.[16]
    I weigh this against other editors repeated disruption which is sanctioned by the community and there is truly no comparison. Ikip 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ikip and belated Happy New Year to you. I agree your point that objective standards should be used, otherwise there's a risk of what you called "selective enforcement". Are you talking about situations where repeated disruptions similar to Cremepuff222's were apparently sanctioned by the community, or do you mean disruptions that aren't similar but are arguably just as significant? BTW, I'm not going to !vote here, so this question is just about the wider wiki-jurisprudential issue(s). We can discuss elsewhere on-wiki if you prefer. - Pointillist (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I shy away from casual discussions with editors. I have seen how those casual philosophical conversations can sometimes come back and bite. Thank you for the generous offer though. :) I refer you to the essay WP:EQUALITY. Creampuffs behavior was stupid and immature, I have said this repeatedly. Thanks. Ikip 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying so quickly. My question wasn't casual: I was specifically asking you for examples from historical cases that would help identify general principles for future situations. Of course there's a risk such principles would "come back and bite", but that goes with using "objective standards" as you proposed. It doesn't seem reasonable that you can argue points about other situations without identifying them (apart from this). I've always seen you as being on the side of greater transparency and straightforwardness, so I hope this is just a little misunderstanding. - Pointillist (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RE:

    I sampled 135 of the 1698 current admins.

    These user included all admins with bureaucrat and checkuser rights, in addition to the first 87 admins (alphabetically) with edit filter manager rights:

    • 23 admins (17%) had tested their accounts by blocking themselves.
      • of these, 6 admins had blocked themselves for fun.
      • of these, 2 admins had blocked themselves then unblocked themselves later.

    All 1698 admin self-block links can be found at User:Ikip/test57.

    Rules about editors requesting to be blocked by admins:

    Ikip 08:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, thanks for going to all that trouble, but it proves nothing. I expect that a high proportion of people living in London have committed insurance fraud, say; while it's widespread, it doesn't become any more acceptable.
    Cremepuff's messing about with the admin tools in terms of blocking himself was symptomatic of his general abuse (such as the deletion-and-undeletion) as well as non-admin-related nonsense. The fact that some other, respected, contributors have done this occasionally in a non-disruptive way doesn't reflect well on them, but it certainly doesn't exonerate Cremepuff. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked, why do we need a "bored, jittery, and a bit immature" editor around? Stop feeding him. –blurpeace (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked. Enough disruption. Pcap ping 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked but... not an indef block. I think it should be until the end of January, and then if JulianColton (and any other admins) want to monitor CremePuff222, then they can do so. Alternatively, is it possible for specific editing restrictions to be set in place as a condition of unblocking? I think that there would be enough people who would notice his actions that a listing at WP:RESTRICT could be policed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock or reduce block length - someone who was trusted enough to be granted the bit can be productive again. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? The fact that he had the bit and still did all this makes him far less trustworthy as far as I'm concerned--Jac16888Talk 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it means that he was once trusted and productive but then got sidetracked and bored. I think that he can come back and make a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Actually, I feel that the potential benefits outweigh the negatives by such a large margin that I am willing to propose this. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ed is absolutely correct. I don't know of any troll who's willing to spend years being productive, mature, and well-behaved—sufficient to pass RfA, one of Wikipedia's most strict forums for criticism—just to make a few silly edits at the end. Maybe your trolls are more advanced than mine, though. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a bit of a disconnect here, with regards to reducing the block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. That is what we always say, and how this block should be applied. If CP does not have community support for unblocking at this time (it seems clear he does not, although a minority do support his return) then the block should simply be left on until such time as the community will sanction his return. If he doesn't engage in socking and doesn't keep requesting unblock once a week he wold most likely be unblocked in a few months, but even then yet another discussion of the matter will probably be warranted. When he feels enough time has elapsed, he can request unblock again, and if he hasn't jumped the gun or evaded the block, the block will most likely be rescinded at that time. Giving him a specific length of time where all he has to do is wait it out and then he's automatically let back in seems unwise in the case of a user who block is upheld by consensus. But consensus can, and in these types of cases almost always does, change over time. "Indefinite" does not mean "forever," it simply means that the length is not defined. Rather than prolonging this debate with a discussion of block length, I really feel we should just leave it lie for now. CP wants one more chance to prove himself, seeing if he can just sit there and not edit and not ask ask to be unblocked for a few months is that chance. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduce block length, long probation Having interacted with Cremepuff on his talk page, he seems to be contrite and aware of what he did wrong. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. We must weigh the potential damage to the project against the potential gain. We have in Cremepuff a long-term productive editor who made a few silly edits then renegged on his promise not to. He never really damaged the project, just annoyed a bunch of people. Let him think about things for a month or so, then let him back on probation. I can think of several editors whose behaviour has been far worse that have never received more than a 2 week block. Cremepuff is correct in saying that the reaction to his behaviour is overblown. His block is well-deserved, just as his eventual unblock will be. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Message from Cremepuff222

    I am reproducing the below message from Cremepuff222 that was just posted to their talk page [18]. –xenotalk 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad that the community is providing input on the situation, but I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far. As I am not able to post there, I will instead post them here. If someone could bring up at ANI that I have said these things on my talk page, I would much appreciate it.

    First of all, it seems that everyone is under the impression that I want to be outright unblocked. I have said a few times that I feel the block length is unfair, and that is what I wanted to be discussed. I did post the {{unblock}} template on my userpage, but only did so in order to bring editors to my talk page to discuss the matter. My apologies if I didn't make myself clear, but that is why I brought this up in the first place. I didn't do it to cause more disruption.

    I have been accused of being a liar, a vandal, and a troll, among other things ("jittery", "immature", ...). I have been very upfront about my doings, and throughout the whole ordeal I have been very cool, I haven't made any personal attacks, and I haven't responded to anything "immaturely" (in my eyes at least), and I have certainly not engaged in any trolling. My actions were certainly not called for, but I find the responses to them rather harsh.

    Much of this debate is related to my allegedly harassing another user. Are edits like [19][20][21][22] really that big of a deal? Would it not have been easier to discuss the edits directly with my rather than going off to the administrator noticeboard? I have also been accused of abusing Special:EmailUser. I do not deny that I used them for non-constructive purposes. However, I never went on a massive email spam rampage like it sounds like at ANI. I sent one to User:Anonymous Dissident thanking him for this edit, and one to User:Bwilkins regarding this comment. I sent User:TreasuryTag three, all asking him to discuss the issue with me, rather than bringing more people into the drama. I don't see that any of these are abusive, and if the receivers thought they were trolling, they should have asked.

    I agree and acknowledge that my actions have caused much disruption and waste of time, but I still find the actions themselves not very disruptive in themselves. I still see users bringing up certain admin actions that I am not proud of. Sure they look bad, but what harm actually came from them? I doubt anybody would have even noticed if I hadn't engaged in my recent edits.

    If the community feels that I am not ready for an unblock right now, I still feel that the block should not be indefinite. Anywhere from a month to a year seems reasonable to me. I think the community should move away from this "guilty/not guilty" phase and decide on an expiration time for the block.

    Much appreciation to everyone for discussing this matter. --cremepuff222 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why the bar should be set at "very disruptive". Why not just refrain from being disruptive at all? I've been here for more than five years, and have never made a single edit "for the lulz". If you think dicking around a little bit is ok, I think you should go away until you don't think that anymore. This isn't romper room; it's an encyclopedia. Play silly buggers offline, and when you're here, play it straight. Thousands manage to do this; CP222 should be able to do it as well. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said sir. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points, really. Firstly, despite what is claimed above, I did try to discuss the harrassy-talkpage-edits with Cremepuff first; he ignored this, so obviously I came to ANI next. What else did he expect me to do?
    Secondly, his multiple emails to me were not "all asking [me] to discuss the issue" – the first said, "Sup. :P Gonna post this on ANI as more evidence that I should be burnt at the stake? Okay. :) Sounds like great fun!" (very constructive!), the second simply, "How predictable. :) Thanks for your help!" (not really how Cremepuff described it above!), and the third was vaguely threatening in tone: "You make me giggle, you silly goose you. :) Making it sound like I'm spamming you hundreds of emails? Okay. How about instead of going off and complaining to the big old administrators you talk to me yourself for once?"
    So, even now, he lied about me going straight to ANI rather than coming to him first; he lied about the contents of his spammy emails... and it's so blatant, too :( ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He also appears to have forgotten the email he sent me, so his account is slightly short of being comprehensive. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This certainly is disturbing. Could you specify the dates that those emails were sent, so we can see how they stack against CP's recent statements? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I received mine (the only email contact I've ever had with him) at 12:03pm, 12:09pm and 12:15pm – UK time – on December 24th. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption elsewhere

    Per a template I have been developing, I ran across something on test-wiki. To that effect, I have asked 222 this question. I realize that test wiki is not wikipedia, but this should still count for something.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Collectonian, and SchmuckyTheCat...

    I'm here to report these two users for uncivility, violating Wikipedia guidelines, and personal attacks. BTW, I'm User:OBrasilo, I just forgot to log in.

    1. User SchmuckyTheCat keeps redirecting the Windows Neptune and Windows Odyssey articles against consensus. We have tried providing him reliable sources, but he rejects all of them, for no reason. Another member, and I, have tried talking to him already, but he refuses to listen.

    2. User Collectonian is being utterly un-civil here: Talk:Tokyo_Mew_Mew . I tried to re-start the discussion on the non-English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew there, and she first deleted the section, even though that's against Wikipedia guidelines, and when I reverted her edit, she resorted to blatant personal attacks.

    The personal attacks consisted in:

    1. Accusation of letter fakery. I posted a letter from one of the authors of Tokyo Mew Mew, on her talk page a while ago. She claims the letter is fake, based on no evidence, whatsoever. This is therefore a blatant personal attack.

    2. Accusation of harassment. I did not harass her. I did not post on her talk page ever after she told me I shouldn't. And the only reason why I mentioned her in the talk page post, was to warn her (but others as well, really) not to delete messages, because it would be against Wikipedia guidelines, since I knew she would delete the section. This is not harassment, this is an attempt to demand respect for the Wikipedia guidelines.

    Also, I was being completely civil in my discussion this time, so her actions are NOT in the least understandable.

    3. Accusation of sock-puppetry. This accusation is completely fault, as I made it clear, who I were (I mean, I even clearly wrote, that *I* posted the letter from one of the Tokyo Mew Mew authors, LOL), so how is this sock-puppetry, I do not know.

    I'd like action to be taken against her, and possibly, against SchmuckyTheCat as well. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They both need warnings. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually look at the situation before responding? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First, this IP is User:OBrasilo, who also filed another ANI against anyone and everyone he had a complaint with, archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Eik Corell, Rehevkor, Collectonian, and judgement based on no knowledge on the subject..., and threw in some more complaints in defense of his friend OutofTimer during the same time period. During those discussions, it was shown he was engaging in off-site canvassing[23] Eventually he "apologized" for his behavior ], even promising "I also formally apologize to user Collectonian for my bad behavior until now. I promise I'll stop harassing her with my crap, and to stay back from the Tokyo Mew Mew articles. Rather, I'll create my personal website about Tokyo Mew Mew, and copy onto it the now-deleted informations from those articles about the various non-English adaptations." but he has now gone back on that and is one again trying to push in appropriate content into articles, and edit warring with people he disagrees with. Further, it is not uncivil to point out that his claimed letter from a famous manga-ka was never shown to be valid. Anyone can write anything and claim it was from someone famous. No proof - its not real. Also, note he didn't bother giving me notice of this ANI, and repeatedly made threats against both myself and SchmuckyTheCat. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional note, per his last message on Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew[24] , his defense fo the claimed letter is "Also, I can easily prove that it's real. It was sent to my close friend, Nakamura Hiroshi, from Tokyo (but used to live in Kyoto before), Japan (who has been proven to exist by a mention on a reputable Kyoto academic site), who then kindly forwarded it to me. As for the other half of the proof (proof that it really came from who he claims it came from), ask him. His e-mail address is email redacted — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC) , feel free to e-mail him about it." The rest of the seems to speak the complete lack of sincerity is in early apology and seem to indicate it was made only to deflect admin attention from his actions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on a sec ... this "letter" from an author, that sounds awfully fishy, and is obviously not verifable as a reliable source. Also, if it's direct to you, does that not make it original research? Being accused of faking a letter is not necessarily a personal attack. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly Mr Rutherford didn't bother looking carefully. In the first case, OBrasilo's claim that the articles are being redirected against consensus is untrue; the only one objecting to it is him (see here) along with a few IPs on the other talkpage which are geographically similar. I haven't followed the second case but it appears to be that Collectonian is reverting persistent attempts to add large amounts of trivia into a featured article. Probably not the best idea to remove the talkpage section but frankly the IP which is OBrasilio (who strangely appears to forget to log in a lot - how difficult can it be?) is just reposting arguments which have been discussed and rejected. 86.148.109.82 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    the articles ARE being redirected against consensus, obrasilo posted the consensus on the talk page of windows odysses article, please read it.
    And I myself was now warned by Collectonian about disruption of these two articles even though i was just keeping consensus (which was clearly posted on the windows odyssey talk page).
    As for what happened in the other article mentioned here, i read that too and i dont think obrasilo is bullshitting about the letter, i dont knwo why but he sounds convincing to me.
    and no im not a sock puppet of obrasilo, i dont even know who that guy is and i welcome any admin of this site to IP check me to prove that.
    Lin Godzilla (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet...you, a "new" editor pop in to defend him despite your having no knowledge of this discussion through visible Wikipedia communnications, and somehow he came to your defense on articles in which you have a clear COI with as an employee of MS (or former employee, depending on the day it seems).[25]. Both you, Obraislo, and his IPs have all been the only reverters of those articles as well. He also stated that "we" have provided sources - which would seem to indicate some possible meatpuppetry or socking. I think an SPI wouldn't be unwarranted in this issue. As for the issues with the Windows articles between OBrasilo, Lin, and Schmucky, it should be noted that most of this occurred in November and December. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Collectonian, I didn't notice you, because you explicitly told me not to post on your talk page, which I respect, so that's why I didn't notify you there. And I did notify you on the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page, though, so please.
    And you warned Lin Godzilla for disruption? Read the consensus of those articles he edited, LOL. He was the one keeping the consensus, and SchmuckyTheCat went against consensus. Six out of eight people are for keeping those two articles as is, this means 75% consensus. This is a huge consensus, and SchmuckyTheCat keeps going against it, rejecting the articles as "speculation", just because he refuses to acknowledge that information.
    Also, please notice, that the guy isn't un-related, he admitted to have worked on both Neptune, and Odyssey projects, which means, he COULD be trying to push a MS Marketing POV by redirecting those two articles.
    As for the stuff with Collectonian, I admit my apology there. However, she should have simply reminded me of that, and ended it there, instead of throwing accusations at me, that's all I wanted to say. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The 76.x.x.x IP's are NOT me, Collectonian, they go to Dallas, USA, whereas I'm in Slovenia, Central Europe. And they aren't proxy IP's, so you just slipped up big time here. How nice of you to accuse everyone who dares agree with me of being a sock-puppet of mine. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    those ips arent me either. my ip starts with 70, not 76, and im from florida, not dallas which is in texas.
    and collectonian here seems to be bending facts to prove that obrasilo is a bad user, so i have a question for here - dear collectonian, have you maybe thought that the guy simply forgot the content of his apology and then did his action in forgetfulness? because thats the first thing someone assuming good faith would assume, but i think youre clearly assuming bad faith here.
    Lin Godzilla (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The contiual concerted efforts of these two to deliberately try to escape 3RR on the Windows articles in question seems to speak for itself, as does Lin's assertion that he is "from Florida" while also claiming he is from Seattle Washington[26] Will wait for admin responses. IPs are not the only info used to determine socks, nor as their being in different ranges really relevant. They can be spoofed or proxied. Behavioral evidence can also indicate either sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and as OBrasilo has already shown he will engage in off-site meatpuppet recruiting, assuming that much good faith would be beyond naive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So because they agree with Lin, and me, they must be sock-puppets? Come on, get real. And you just violated 3RR yourself in the Windows Odyssey article.
    Please, do some research. I'm the founder of three Beta forums, and sorry, but a lot of members there agree with me about those articles, and yes, I can give you access there, so you can see for yourself, that I haven't been involved in any meat-puppet recruiting there.
    Yes, I tried to recruit meat-puppets on the Magic-ball forum for the LBA versions stuff, but only there, and I also acknowledged it's wrong, and stopped with it. Now you're trying to use what I did just one time in all my period of Wikipedia membership, to prove that that's how I am.
    You're just trying to bend the facts to support your view, that is, that anyone agreeing with me, is a sock-puppet, or meat-puppet. This is lame, at the least. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    collectonian, i was born in seattle, WA and now live in tampa bay, FL
    also you violated 3RR in the odyssey article, why are you even editing it? you dont WP:OWN it. and the consensus youre defending is non existant - the only three people agree with with the redirect are schmuckythecat and two others, but the only one actively pushing the redirects is schmucky. had he never started his redirect war in the first place, we wouldnt be here right now.
    Lin Godzilla (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The December AfD clearly shows that consensus was to merge or delete. You "two" are the only ones who feel otherwise and are the ones acting against consensus. You don't WP:OWN it either, though through the obvious back and forth, the "pair" of you continue to try to act as if you do. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Collectonian, about the message you left me in the talk page - I have provided reliable sources, namely, the site by Paul Thurrott, and the Microsoft Anti-Trust law-suit. It's just, that SchmuckyTheCat keeps rejecting these two sources as un-reliable, based on personal dislike about Paul Thurrott, and on no reason as for the law-suit.
    Also, again, I'm a founder of three Beta forums, it's obvious that people recognize me, and that my friends, and other members of my forums, will support my views. No meat-puppetry involved here, since my friends supprot my views without me having to tel them anything. It's their decision. It's obvious they're going to be against redirecting those articles, I don't need to resort to sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, sorry.
    So, please, you're rejecting our consensus based on no reason here. As Lin Godzilla said above, were it not for SchmuckyTheCat, no-one would be redirecting those articles, as of now. He started it, and refused to discuss it, even resorting to snippy comments. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Collectonian, what? The AfD ended in no consensus, as for deletion. And the merge vs. stay as is dispute, was to be resolved on the article's talk page, which I attempted to do, by starting a new section there, and the only person to express the support for the merge was SchmuckyTheCat.
    There are four people against the merge. One is me. The second is Lin Godzilla. The third is 142.47.132.6, which is user Marcello from my OSBetaGroup forum. And another is 76.x.x.x which is another member of my OSBetaGroup forum. And I can easily give you access there, to prove, that no meat-puppetry is involved there.
    So, if anything, it's 4 out of 7 people against the merge. And this is majority. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for admitting the Meatpuppetry.[27] You recruited friends from your forum, again, to try to help you in an edit dispute. I politely request that an administrator take over at this point. This is not the first time this has occurred, and per WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK, blocking would seem to be appropriate. Please advise if a formal SPI is needed since he has now admitted it.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not admit any meat-puppetry about the Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey articles, so please stop bending my words to fit your own POV. I simply stated most of the editors come from my forum, but I also stated I did NOT ask them to come here, and edit the articles. They did so of their own accord, which means there's no meat-puppetry involved, whatsoever. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (
    So, several editors from your forum just "happened" to all decide to come those articles that you were involved in an edit dispute on, despite having not edited here before or since? Hmmm....-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Several? Only one, 142.47.132.6, which is Marcello. Only him, and I, among the editors, are from my own forum, and I didn't even know he was editing these articles, until he stated so himself in my forum's chat box. Lin Godzilla I met for the first time here in Wikipedia, and I don't have direct contact with him even here on Wikipedia, let alone off-site contact, which I don't have with him at all.
    And the 76.x.x.x guy is Lad Hattiur, whom I only met on IRC, once, and he even insulted me then. So he even hates me, and he's not a member of any forum. Hardly someone I could ask to help me. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Collectonian removing someone's post on the talk page[28] is totally inappropriate. She states in the edit summary "nothing more to discuss - its been discussed and its not going to chan)". She decides something shouldn't be done, and then dismisses the opinions of others, trying to shut out any discussion about it. So the complaint about her being uncivil, I believe is quite valid. Recently, in the article for Characters and wildlife in Avatar she insisted the article had no reason to exist, kept trying to replace it with a redirect despite protest, even during active conversation on the talk page about this(please read the responses of others to her actions [29]), others agreeing with those complaining here.) And yet, during the AFD that followed, the overwhelming majority of people said Keep, and the AFD was closed as Keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Characters_and_wildlife_in_Avatar Just mentioning that as another example of her mentality. Wikipedia is decided on consensus, not the opinions of someone who decides something shouldn't be there, and tries to eliminate it. Dream Focus 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As you are about as far from neutral as possible in anything related to me - I'd request you stay out of it. You are not an admin and randomly throwing out AfDs that have nothing to do with this topic is irrelevant. The complain about any incivility with be dealt with people who do not have an ax to grind with me and love to accuse me of stalking while doing s0 himself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with me commenting on your removal of someone's talk page message, nor me mentioning a previous case where I find similar, to demonstrate your are, as the accusser claims, uncivil towards other editors. In both cases you reinsert a contested redirect into an article, and argue on the talk page in what I would say is clearly an uncivil manner. Dream Focus 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect contested by a single person (which meatpuppets are considered) against the AfD consensus is neither uncivil nor inapproriate. And as long as your maintain your lengthy attack piece, I'd suggest you not attempt to lecture anyone on incivility. It only makes you look hypocritical. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you may not remove or re-factor another users talk page comment without good reason. It is against policy and it is disruptive. It sounds to me like you are trying to silence those who disagree with you. Jeni (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the entire history before making such a claim. It is not against "policy" nor is it disruptive to respond to a disruptive editor. Whether it was an appropriate response does not make it an incivility issue nor an administrative issue. The sock/meat puppetry, claims to be speaking for a famous, living person (WP:BLP), and OBrasilo's continued ANI filings against anyone who disagrees with him are far bigger issues. He has now basically asked for action to be taken against, what, five/six other editors? Who is the one being disruptive and acting against policy here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The key words being "without good reason". WP:TALK and WP:UP entirely allow refactoring of disruption. Orderinchaos 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no good reason, just disruption by the person doing the removal. Jeni (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, I felt there was. When he restored it, I then left it there to allow someone else to review it instead. What is disruptive about it? Editors are not perfect, and I presume you have never had any minor misjudgement (which is all the removal was). It would be useful if the real disruption issues could be focused on instead of a single thing, which had already been addressed between us and was obviously not an admin nor disruption issue. Disruption would have been to continue to remove it rather than attempting to address the issue despite the past history. Further, the other claims made are false. No personal attacks were made, they were a summary of the previous ANI filed by the same user that resulted in no one believing his "letter", his never doing anything to actually validate said letter, his "forgetting" his apology where he himself stated "I promise I'll stop harassing her with my crap", and the obvious shadiness of the coordination of edits by himself and others, which he has already admitted were done by "friends" from his message board. Stating facts is not incivil. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Collectonian, I don't claim to speak for the author of Tokyo Mew Mew, I copy+pasted her own words here. Accusing me of fakery is a deliberate personal attack, targetd at circumventing and nulling any, and all, opinions, that disagree with you.
    And stop with you meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry accusations, un-less you can provide hard evidence for it. Because subjective obviousness is NOT evidence for anything, which you do not understand. So please, cut it off with you accusations.
    Me never doing something to validate said letter? Of course, maybe because the letter wasn't sent to me directly? I don't even know, what e-mail address my friend (mr. Nakamura Hiroshi) received it from, I told you to ask him, and even gave you his e-mail address, he'd be glad to help you validate the e-mail address. But of course, you never did that. You keep asking me for validation, whereas rejecting the one means to validate it, which I provided you.
    And yes, I admitted were done by members of my own OSBetaGroup forum, but not because I recruited them to do so. And first of all, only two of us who edit the article are from my forum - mr. 142.x.x.x who is user Marcello, and me obviously. Andrew Lin is NOT from any forum of mine, I have no off-site contact with him, and the 76.x.x.x guy is Lad Hattiur, who even hates me (but just so happens to agree with me on Neptune, and Odyssey), so hardly a viable meat-puppet. Mr. Marcello edited just a single talk page of Windows Neptune, to add an innocent comment, and didn't even tell me about that. I didn't even know the IP was him, until I asked him on IRC, and he told me it was him.
    After Lin Godzilla, and Lad Hattiur (76.x.x.x), I don't have any contacts with them out-side of Wikipedia, with the exception of Lad Hattiur, whom I met on IRC, once, and only once, and got even insulted by him then.
    So, apart from me, the only one from my forum editing those two articles, was mr. Marcello (142.x.x.x), who did it of his own accord, so where do you see meat-puppetry here?
    And Collectonian, the stuff you attempted to remove from the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page, and the last thing you removed from your own talk page, was not disruptive stuff. It was, in the first case, me attempting a civil discussion, and in the second case, my apology, complete with the author's letter. Nothing disrupting in either case. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you did claim to be posting a letter for the author, which is claiming to speak for them. You have never proven that the email was from them (obviously because you can't). It isn't my job to validate your claim, it must actually be validated BY the author. Claiming it came from this person who got it from this person isn't proof at all. Further, if she has something to say, I'm sure she is more than capable of actually doing it herself without having to daisy chain some email between multiple people (and funny how you originally claimed she sent it directly to you, and now it supposedly came from other folks). You continue to admit the people reverting for you were from YOUR forums and NONE have edited at Wikipedia before or since except to revert for you. That is meat puppetry. And, FYI, I can remove anything I want from my talk page and yes it was disruptive. You agreed to stop harrassing (your own words) over the issue and that you were wrong, yet you started right back at it again. That is disruptive and just provides further proof that you seem to be less than honest and straight foward in your dealings here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just what the heck are you on about? Obviously I never claimed the letter was sent to me directly. I always clearly stated it was sent to me through my contact, also because the author of Tokyo Mew Mew doesn't speak English well, so it would be use-less for her to send me the letter directly. She sent it to my contact, who is the one who knows her, and who translated the letter to English before sending it to me.
    As for validating BY the author - again, she does NOT speak English well, or she would have registered here herself. Use some damn logic. Also, I told you to e-mail my contact, so he can validate the letter, but you refused that. I can't prove squat myself, I'm not the one who got the letter from her directly, I don't know from what e-mail address it came, nor anything else. My contact knows, and he's not a member of the Wikipedia. Sorry, but if you want to validate it, you MUST contact him, since he's the only one who can help you here. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the letter is WP:OR, and is not likely usable as a reference. Do not try to use it until it's been approved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lin Godzilla

    There is something shady going on here. I suspect that the WP:SPA User:Lin Godzilla probably isn't who he claims he is on his user page because of this edit. More likely he is related to the Slovenia IPs mentioned above than a real former MS employee by the name Andrew Lin as his user page claims. The concerted use of multiple accounts, be they sock- or meat-puppets, used to circumvent WP:V at the two AfD'd articles by edit warring in a team to evade 3RR is very troubling. Pcap ping 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. The question is what to do about it? Orderinchaos 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've trimmed the Windows Odyssey article down to the verifiable part. I hope some admin has the gall to block the POV pushers that insert unverified info in that article. These are far more detrimental to Wikipedia than the silly drama in Cremepuff thread above, but somehow almost nobody pays attention to stuff like this. Pcap ping 12:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also wondering what, if anything is going to be done about the pretty obvious meat puppetry, at best, going on here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Lin Godzilla also relies on the (dubious) assertion of his employment to push his POV: where do you see speculation? im a ms employee and agree, enough?, Do we need another Essjay-level drama here before some admin intervenes? Pcap ping 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Lin Godzilla is not my sock-puppet, nor a meat-puppet. Please stop with your base-less accusations. Prove I have off-site contact with Lin Godzilla, and/or that my IP's match his, or stop. I'm tired of your continuous denigration of me, and anyone who dares agree with me. See, this is exactly the problem of Wikipedia. A few select editors decide to keep some articles one way, and whoever doesn't agree, is automatically grouped together under the meat-puppet pretense. Please provide hard evidence for your claims, before pushing them further. Subjective obviousness is not hard evidence.
    As for the user editing the CHWDP article - maybe he has Polish relatives, or maybe he travels to Eastern Europe often, and so knows about the subject? Again, you're trying to judge based on circumstantial evidence. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me guess: a Chinese American (by name) working at Microsoft cares enough about an utterly obscure Eastern European topic that's not even remotely IT related to tag spam the article in his first few edits on Wikipedia? An knows how to link to some Polish organization in it? An that's his only edit beyond revert warring on the Odyssey/Neptune articles? WP:DUCK. Pcap ping 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of evidence has already been given and I am not the only one who strongly suspects your going on. A few "select" editors who do no edits except to support the two of you, and which you have admitted multiple times are people you know and magically just happened to only have an interest in supporting your view of those articles? That is meat puppetry whether you want to admit to it or not. Nor are the accusations "base-less", as noted by others above, and by your own past history. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For any admin reading all this, another 76.x IP has popped up and is reverting those who are actually attempting to salvage Windows Odyssey to see if should be merged for deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption from IP socks has begun again: [30] [31]. They restore an unsourced version of the article full of speculation, and mark their reverts as "reverting vandalism". Pcap ping 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What evidence has been given? You're only given subjective interpretation. There is NO meat-puppetry involved, and you do NOT have hard proof for it. You only have subjective interpretation of events, and facts, which is NOT hard proof in the least. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, the 76.x.x.x IP's are NOT MINE, so stop saying they're my sock-puppets. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said the latest edit warring IP was your sock. Why are you so defensive? It is obviously a reincarnation of someone previously involved in that article though. I don't expect some random IP to begin editing Wikipedia by reverting some article to many versions ago. The IP hopping guy is obviously disruptive and may need admin intervention if he doesn't stop of its own accord. Not every ANI post is directed at you. In fact, I haven't directed any insofar, but I find it strange that you jumped to the defese of Lin Godzilla inventing various excuses for him, even though you claim you've got nothing to do with him. Pcap ping 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's end it here

    OK, I'm going to stop here, since it's obviously use-less to argue. Feel free to believe, whatever you want, you won't see a single contribution from me on Wikipedia, except on the CHWDP article. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Watchover - need an independent admin review

    Can someone please look at User talk:Watchover? The user was blocked two days ago after an SPI. All admins there (there aren't many) are in some way involved at this point, I think (from the end of the penultimate bullet point) it is proceeding to a resolution where this person can be unblocked, but I'd much rather an independent admin can view the relevant evidence and make the call on whether to unblock or not.

    I'll try and provide a background:

    • Watchover is an editor dealing mainly with WikiProject Australian politics articles, and is well known to those who edit there (not a high number of users). Watchover is a member of the conservative Liberal Party of Australia and, while their editing is often unproblematic, a sizable chunk of it is tied up in POV editing, or in engaging in syntax disagreements with editors over list articles, titles (as in Sir), etc. I have personally had one such dispute with this editor back in November, although at other times (as can be seen on their talk page) we have engaged fruitfully.
    • Kapitalist88 is an editor who was recently indef-blocked by User:Nick-D for lying about an image rationale - according to the blocking admin, they are a serial offender. One look at the user page and talk page and some contribs, including a "fuck u queer" edit summary and their response on being asked a simple question about this, suggest that they were probably not a very good fit for Wikipedia anyway.
    • Someone alerted me at the weekend to sockish behaviour and tag-team editing going on at an article, so I filed an SPI naming the two editors involved (W. and Cantwejustbefriends) as well as a very recently indef-blocked editor (Kapitalist88). I included this user as the sock had started editing within hours of the block on Kapitalist being enacted by Nick-D, and thought that if it was not a sock of Watchover, it could be a sock of Kapitalist. Hence it was intended to establish what was going on with this new account; however, when I came to write the report, I noticed some interesting edit patterns over time - my rationale can be read at the SPI.
    • The result came back as expected for the accounts on the article ("Confirmed") but, surprisingly, linked as "Likely" Kapitalist88 with Watchover. A subjective look at the edits suggests two entirely different individuals in my opinion - not just language use but also ideology is quite separate (Watchover is a mainstream conservative, Kapitalist is most definitely non-mainstream.)
    • Watchover was not blocked at the time but was caught three hours after I blocked Cantwejustbefriends in an autoblock per the SPI result. The account was subsequently indefinitely blocked by Sarah after an attempt to resolve at the talk page, but Sarah indicated at the time that this was pending resolution and was not intended to be infinite (more that we did not know when it would be resolved).
    • Watchover has admitted meatpuppetry with their spouse, and has agreed not to do this again, but has contested any link to Kapitalist88 (and has indicated some distaste for Kapitalist's expressed views). The interaction between Watchover and a good faith admin (User:Sarah) trying to resolve the situation on Watchover's talk page at one point became fairly heated and laden with bad faith accusations towards Sarah.
    • In the last few hours, some progress appears to have been made, but the issue of any link with the Kapitalist account has not been resolved. I'm not sure if it actually needs to be - I'll leave that to whoever opts to review this.

    Beyond the user's own contribs, the SPI and the talk page you're unlikely to need much by way of information. If you do, I'll do what I can to help. Orderinchaos 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything that inspires me to assume good faith in this case. When you had opened the SPI report, you noted, "Watchover's and Kapitalist's edits are almost mutually exclusive to a scary degree - one edits for a few days, then stops, and the other one edits in the interval." That sounds very much like a good hand/bad hand tactic which is very common for sockpuppet masters (see WP:ILLEGIT). This, combined with unwarranted attacks on people at the talk page just screams out "sock" to me. Checkusers aren't perfect and I've seen a couple of times when data was misinterpreted but it's very rare and my gut tells me that this editor is pulling our leg. I would decline a further unblock. -- Atama頭 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I clerked the SPI case and have followed the discussion on the talkpage; my opinion on any unblock changed over time, as things with Sarah progressed, and I agree with Atama that an unblock doesn't seem called for at this point. Maybe point them to WP:OFFER. Nathan T 02:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Orderinchaos for notifying me of this discussion. Just to clarify my involvement, I blocked the account after responding to her unblock template. She was caught in the autoblock of Orderinchaos's block of the sock. When I responded, I was initially leaning towards unblocking but was not entirely satisfied so blocked the account directly pending a resolution. At this point and having looked a little more closely at the accounts, I'm really not in favour of unblocking at this time. There's something about this situation that strikes me as rather odd. Looking at the Wikistalk tool, KAPITALIST88 and Watchover both have a limited number of edits (Watchover 718 and KAPITLAIST88 329) yet have both edited some relatively special interest articles including, Higgins by-election, 2009, Kristina Keneally, Electoral district of Auburn, Bradfield by-election, 2009, Premiers of New South Wales, Tony Abbott, Liberal Party of Australia, Next Australian federal election. Another shared subject area, although with no direct crossing of edits is the military, with Watchover editing USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) and HMAS Newcastle (FFG 06), and KAPITALIST88 editing Royal Australian Air Force‎, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Royal Australian Air Force, RAAF Base Richmond, and OH-58 Kiowa, among others. I'm just having a hard time accepting two unrelated people, sharing some technical connections, would come to Wikipedia and both not only be focusing nearly exclusively on the same subject area but also editing articles like these, most of which really aren't high traffic articles. There's also similarities in their edit summaries. For example, both have used edit summaries referring to "truth" when reverting other users - Watchover -"‎(Undid revision 303685086 by Mattinbgn (talk)--- true circumstances)" KAP88 -"(Undid revision 333473980 by Theworld2 (talk) Stop removing facts, it is true". I just feel that something is not right and on top of her bizarre attacks on me for responding to her unblock template, basically accusing me of being out to get her and trying to set her up, I'm just not satisfied and am no longer in favour of unblocking, at least for now. Sarah 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah makes good points in the above. Something is very amiss with this whole situation - I am starting to wonder if we've been taken for fools by this editor. Orderinchaos 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting that the KAPITALIST88 account's evasive answers when asked about the copyvio (they repeatedly claimed that they had taken the photo, but changed the details of why it didn't look like a photo from a personal camera and lacked metadata) and rude comments after being blocked is similar to that of the Watchover account following their block, albeit to a much greater extent. They have not provided any explanation of why the KAPITALIST88 account could have been mistaken for their account and have rapidly become rude and trollish. As Sarah notes, aside from the technological evidence found in the checkuser inquiry, the crossover in editing patterns provides strong evidence that the various accounts have the same owner. As a result, I think that this is a case of good hand/bad hand editing and that the block should remain in place. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats by User:Lceliku

    Resolved
     – user blocked

    A few days ago, this user was blocked for a week for this comment [32]. Two days later, he evaded his block through an IP and re-posted his original threat [33], followed by another threat [34]. Since this appears to be a disruption-only account, can someone indef him so we can be done with this? --Athenean (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done also blocked the ip for six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Athenean (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry to interrupt, because I'm probably missing the mark, so I apologize in advance, but aren't all three comments coming from the same date, i.e. BEFORE the user was banned? sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, he is blocked, not banned. He can still request an unblock via his talk page. Also, the two ip edits were in fact made after the initial block. But none of that really matters in my opinion, we simply can't have users threatening to track down other users and beat them with baseball bats. Anyone who can't work within even that minimum standard of civilized behavior is not welcome. Lceliku needs to take a chill pill if he wants to come back. If you have a dispute with another user, you pursue dispute resolution, as opposed to threatening to hunt them down and beat them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats of outing by User:Binarygal

    In this edit Binarygal (talk · contribs) makes the statement "some have actually worked out why you changed your name, and a lot more", this appears to be a threat about my professional details and name. I consider this a personal attack on the basis of threats of outing. Considering several previous contributions have alleged the existence of a cartel (see example diff), I am concerned that no company is named or any implication that any organization I am professionally involved with may be part of a cartel.

    In the recent previous ANI for Binarygal, the ANI was closed on the basis that Binarygal was leaving Wikipedia. As this has evidently not happened I am requesting more positive action to ensure an end to this long history of accusations against other editors, claims of an active cartel supporting ITIL interests (presumably in breach of competition law) and threats of outing editors.—Ash (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone reading this should be informed of the repeatedly hyperbolic nature of the comments by Ash directed toward BinaryGal. The failure of Ash to stick to level phraseology in regards to BinaryGal's claims of a conspiracy may be indicative of something deeper, and it may only be reckless speech. At any rate, I feel that it is harmful. I am absolutely, and will remain indefinitely, only interested in the parties both being civil, as I am not in the position of being able to investigate the alleged conspiracy's truthvalue. I will also point out that I am not intent on replicating everything said back and forth over time, and can only report that what has been said recently by Ash, that BinaryGal expresses negative thoughts against the rest of the world, is blatantly false.Julzes (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Simply see the full portion, including Ash's words, from the example given by him- or herself. It's more complete and accurate.Julzes (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand your point about hyperbole or "truth value". Are you suggesting that to counter unsubstantiated accusations of a conspiracy I have to professionally out myself? Apart from stating that there is no conspiracy either within or outside Wikipedia and that I have no direct interest or potential benefit from whether the link to http://www.itlibrary.org is in the article or not, I'm not sure what you are expecting (or how much clearer and with much less hyperbole you expect such a statement to be). You appear to be accusing me of failing to prove my innocence for something that I have not actually been clearly accused of and for which no evidence has been produced or will ever be produced (because it is not there to be found) while at the same time stating that you are not interested in the truth of the matter. Your opinion as stated seems overly Kafkaesque and in no way a rationale for Binarygal's threats.—Ash (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really only posting in regards to civility over the short period that I've examined. Anyone else is welcome to look at the detailed history of the matter. This is the second time you have responded to me. I haven't spoken to you before. Keep a level head in your own use of words, please. What I appear to be doing according to you is in your own head.Julzes (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident raised here is not an issue of civility, your comments are off-topic.—Ash (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in the truth value of the subject; I don't ask you to reveal any details about your professional affiliations; and my comments are not entirely off-topic because of your own choice of words. Where a conspiracy is alleged by someone with seeming verisimilitude who displays no personal vested interest, and where hyperbolic remarks about that person's words are used, the possibility exists that there may be an attempt to silence someone. Try to choose your own words more carefully, and perhaps there won't be an issue. That much said, anyone reading this should be informed that I am ignorant of the subject matter and the long-haul of the dispute. I just don't have time to fully engage.Julzes (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I can not accept an argument that I share any responsibility for Binarygal's threat of outing. If you have nothing to add to the unsubstantiated claims then you appear to be side-tracking this ANI for no reason. You will note that you introduced the word "conspiracy", the ANI I raised referenced Binarygal's claims of a "cartel" which is a different issue. The term cartel in this context falls under the guidance of no legal threats as if any evidence were published on Wikipedia this has immediate legal implications for the companies involved.—Ash (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stopped editing because of what has gone on with that article. It is abuse of the worst kind, quite sickening, and nobody is listening or taking it seriously.
    I didn't ask to spot what was going on there, but I did. I then had the choice of watching the article being abused, or kicking up a fuss and trying stop it. I did what was right.
    I was then confronted with abuse and hostility. Easy words to say, but the truth. Please, please read ALL the talk pages and all the pages he has created about me. I have been accused of being some sort of conspiracy fruitcase, through to being tedious, boorish, and so much more. You will see that I have been rather restrained in the circumstances.
    I am just a simple topic editor, and know little about Wikipedia protocols. This guy has therefore used them as a stick to bully me with, over many months. He has used them to take some sort of perverse high ground, rallying others who know the protocols, to avoid the core issues and place focus on ME instead of the where it should be.
    He hasn't just abused the article, but has abused the Wikipedia protocols as well. He has been allowed to.
    I have been screaming since day 1 for someone to help, for some really senior Wikipedia person to fully investigate the abuse of this article, and everyone involved. This is a matter of record. Go through all the material and see for yourselves.
    The core issue is actually pretty obvious if you examine it in sufficient depth with a basic understanding of the market it pertains to. There is a cartel like structure in place within the ITIL domain, revolving around licenses, all driven by money of course. Free ITIL and Open ITIL are aggressively marginized out there, but both are significant and vibrant. Attempts to subvert the Wikipedia article were always going to happen, something which was obvious.
    From this reality, look at the talk pages from the start. Look at the insidious methods used to slowly remove all references to open entities. Look at the ruthlessness, the aggression, the very clear campaign. This isn't in my head.
    For example, why would someone embark on such a lengthy determined drive, taking so much time and so many words just to remove a simple link... if that link wasn't central to what I have said? They wouldn't, especially as there were other links there to hopeless lightweight websites.
    As others have said, if this WASN'T about marginalizing the open movement that much effort and determination would be insane, over a trival link which is in any case is to a half decent site.
    He has used a variety of methods to hide this, including branding me a conspiratorialist and more, using words and Wikipedia procedures to pander to the prejudices of others, simultaneously discouraging them from taking this seriously and embraking upon the investigation which I have begged for.
    In the end I got sick of it. I stated clearly that Wikipedia would end up with the article it deserved, and wouldn't edit again. The article is left as a sales pitch for ITIL rather than a description of it, and is a wholly inaccurate description of the landscape.
    Did they stop abusing me though? No. Again, look for yourself.
    He continued to abuse me on the talk page, backed up by has newly acquired friend. It was over, the article was hopeless, and I had walked away... but they STILL kept at it.
    I responded, stating that I had every right to defend myself, and asked them to stop. Did they stop? No. They continued, as though it was some sick little game.
    This passed the point of being acceptable some time ago, but nobody has stepped in. Editors who tried to help here and there were quickly rounded upon too, and disappeared.
    The situation now is that I have lost all confidence in Wikipedia and won't edit again. I will respond though if they continue to abuse me.
    I have not outed anyone (despite vested interests), and have only ever responded to abuse, never initiating anything unpleasant. This ANI, or whatever it is, is the latest stick being used against someone who is walking away, still having childish names thrown at them. It is pathetic, but typical of what has happened.
    If there is anyone who actually takes the principles of Wikipedia seriously here, and will finally undertake the investigation I have requested so many times: you will discover a subverted article and multiple vested interests. You will discover that I am just a person who tried to improve Wikipedia, spotted abuse, and ended up being chased away for resisting it.
    Or you can continue to believe that a large number of edits and knowledge of Wikipedia protocols equates to integrity, and pass me off an an unhinged conspiracy nutcase.
    It no longer matters to me. All I will do is respond to any further abuse I am subjected to here. BinaryGal (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the above, you appear to be stating that your core issue is that my interests are as an advocate of a cartel with vested interests in protecting ITIL for profit. Is that a fair summary?—Ash (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer it if this whole thread stopped completely. Far too much Wikidrama. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To stop the wikidrama, I have archived Talk:ITIL. No real conversation was going on about ITIL, and as the page has degenerated into personal attacks there was no point any of the conversations continuing. I am also archiving this thread. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not convinced that user:Tbsdy lives as a previously involved editor is sufficiently independent to mark this ANI as resolved when there is case of WP:NLT being breached due to repeated allegations of a cartel in operation. This is not only a case of personal attack as in Tbsdy's summary but a direct allegation of companies and contributors to the ITIL article and talk page involved in a breach of UK competition law.—Ash (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is far too much wikidrama around this article. It's a bit of a long bow to stretch that they are making legal threats. ITIL is meant to be incredibly boring. This is far too exciting here! :-) There is no evidence that the editor has any information on Ash, and Binarygal seems to have said it in the heat of the moment. Certainly they should not have said it, but they have since been warned by another admin. Let's stop all this drama now? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have re-opened after discussion on my talk page (See User_talk:Ash#Binarygal) as Tbsdy lives has been heavily involved in the discussion on the ITIL talk page and has also been subject to accusations by Binarygal. Consequently although motivated by good intentions, he/she is not a suitably independent person or currently an admin in order to credibly investigate or close this incident notice.—Ash (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As an uninvolved (& perhaps senior) Admin, I took a quick look at this matter, since Binarygal's allegations that conflict of interest are harming Wikipedia are serious concerns. However, from what I can see, this contention is about adding a couple of external links at the end, which one editor has argued violate Wikipedia's guidelines. Instead of directly responding to the reasoning for their removal -- I found her initial response to their removal a passionate expression of disagreement, not an example of persuasion -- or pursuing the option of incorporating the links into the body of the article, Binarygal has been on a crusade to restore them as External links. Which, IMHO, is an example of tendentious editting. At the moment, this is still a content dispute. Barely. As another uninvolved party commented about 8 months ago: "If ILL toolkit becomes notable someday, someone who has no conflict of interest will come around and write an unbiased, neutral article about it." My advice to Binarygal is to drop the club and back slowly away from the dead horse. Continue in this vein, & you will be shown the door. (This is not a threat or warning, just an explanation of how Wikipedia works.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As a PS directed to Ash, I don't consider Binarygal's comments to be a threat of outting (as defined in our rules), but I can see that this matter has gotten under your skin. I strongly suggest that you leave this article alone for a long while, say 1 to 3 months. The worse that will happen during your absence is that Binarygal (or someone else) adds those External links back -- & what will harm will this cause? If Binarygal does it, she'll be blocked for disruption. If someone else does it, they can't help but be more amenable to persuasion. (And after all this, there is that slim chance that she just might be right & these websites should be linked to this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When WP:MEAT clashes with WP:OUTING

    You'll doubtless be delighted to know this involves climate change! A comment left in a blog post at "Watts Up With That?" by "emerson cardoso" seems to be a pretty blatant violation of WP:MEAT:

    I would invite all readers to help improving the climategate article on wikipedia, which has been hijacked by alarmists that have a troop of sleepless zealots that work in conjunction with the aim to keep the page as useless as possible. Please bear in mind the use of reliable sources and read and add your views in the discussion page before changing the main article. We need more people to counter W. Connolley and his troop of alarmists:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
    talk page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

    This matter was raised here by William M. Connolley. I'm fairly certain I know the identity of this "recruiter", themselves a prolific Wikipedia editor in the topic of climate change. Obviously I cannot name them per WP:OUTING, but it concerns me that this significant attempt to recruit meat puppets should be addressed. I would appreciate advice on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You can email me at Prodego@gmail.com with your concerns, if you would like. Prodego talk 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I will do just that. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should also be emailed to the Arbitration Committee. Orderinchaos 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed: this ought to go to the Arbitration Committee, along with any evidence. Durova391 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right you are. I'll send the mailing list a copy of the email with expanded detail momentarily. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah - "Post by non-member to a members-only list" - someone will have to approve, or I'll feel forever scorned! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well okay, I guess we'll let it through ;) And thank you for the note. Shell babelfish 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome. I feel like someone who was received by Her Majesty. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive me, I'm not totally familiar with all the policies on this side of things, but is the article currently stable-ish? Could it be feasible to semi-protect it until all this blows over? I have a feeling that protecting because something *might* happen is frowned upon, but to me in this situation it seems like a sensible action? Of course, if I'm wrong, just ignore my whittering! Jeni (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is indeed relatively stable, thanks partly to it being on article probation now; however, the conduct of the user in question is still a matter of concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer it not be protected at the moment, if possible. Prodego talk 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There is no evidence (yet) that this attempt to recruit has been successful. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption to Canwest

    Resolved
     – Blocked - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Haida chieftain (talk · contribs) has been on a crusade to expose The Truth (TM) about this organisation by adding his own original research on Canwest[35][36][37] coupled with considerable talkpage soapboxing [38][39] for which he was eventually blocked for 31 hrs. He has now taken to making the same edits while logged out [40][41]. Could he be further encouraged not to do this - he has repeatedly had it explained to use proper sources and that Wikipedia is not the place to pursue a one-person campaign against this company. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Farah writes an article about Wikipedia - but how did he find the screenshot?

    Resolved
     – No admin action needed.
    The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    In this article, Joseph Farah found a current revision (one without the archiving header) of a vandalistic edit to WorldNetDaily - specifically, this revision, reverted in 8 minutes. I wonder who the IP who made that edit was. Does anyone reading this know of a problem user located in Lincoln Park, MI, who could be offered up to Mr. Farah? Hipocrite (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Who cares about him. Prodego talk 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Farah seems to think that every change made to Wikipedia is done by "Wikipedia" - eg some official of the website. He doesn't quite get the concept of "vandalism." I'd say someone probably made that edit, then took a screenshot and sent it off to him to stir up the pot, since he's decided that Wikipedia is part of the Great Liberal Anti-God Pro-Socialism Conspiracy, and I doubt he'll be dissuaded from that stance, judging from other viewpoints on his site. Not much to do about it, really, unless we just lock down every article related to WND. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if we could source the ID of the vandal. Perhaps a willing checkuser could put some minutes in. Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't surprise me if it was him. Seems to convenient that he happened to look at the article in that 8 min window! Jeni (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They could have just photoshopped the picture to show what it looked like for those 8 minutes? Its a shame he didn't mention the quick reversion in his editorial, I am shocked that WND is not more balanced in its reporting.--Milowent (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <--Yikes, this should probably stop now. Seems like some are giddy for a possible OUTing, and others veering close to the BLP line. Arkon (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. This thread is going insane places. Orderinchaos 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


    Mass nomination at AfD

    Resolved
     – AfD speedy closed as keep by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs).

    Can someone please look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All untagged deadend pages. I would ordinarily be bold and NAC a nomination like this but I would like some admin eyes on it. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as keep. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminds me of the proposal to delete all unreferenced pages. it is however true that about half of the articles there probably should be deleted, and the other half will need considerable work. The work will be the hard part, as usual. That, and making sure they are not deleted before the work can be done. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I'm rather sorry I've only caught this AfD when it was already closed. If I had seen it when it was still open, I'd have !voted "strongest possible delete all"... Ah well, it's too late now. Though I must say that "half... should be deleted, and the other half will need considerable work" is a very, very generous conclusion... (I'd estimate at least 97.75% needs deleting straightaway -- probably more!) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I think the idea was half-baked, but not malicious. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiples of Quack

    Resolved
     – Blocked - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another multiple of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs) is haunting Talk:Barack Obama. The new sock is TomasGerbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who like Bamao (talk · contribs) and Róbert Gida (talk · contribs) is pretending to be foreign with a somewhat limited command of English. I am requesting a block of TomasGerbs per WP:QUACK, but also I would like to ask if anything else can be done to prevent this new-sock-every-week problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quacking mole wacked. Toddst1 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL Quack-a-mole. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.143.121.127

    Resolved
     – Range-blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs).

    User:86.143.121.127 is fraudulently changing votes in AfDs right now. These are AfDs near closing. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well done for catching that IP. You've got a lot more work to do though... 86.143.123.252 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ..cos it only takes a minute (or 2) baby, to drop that DHCP... 86.143.125.100 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    All edits by this person to afd's have been reverted I believe, I've checked all changes on every open afd, if someone could keep an eye on them that would be great, and perhaps a rangeblock too--Jac16888Talk 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "86.143.120.0/21" has been blocked (2048 addresses). Toddst1 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiscriminate accusations of 'Vandalism'

    Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, since about October 2009, been going around WP indiscriminately accusing other editors of vandalism in his apparently automatically generated edit summaries. His talk page is littered with complaints, polite messages to desist such behaviour which is regarded by fellow wikipedians as uncivil, lacking in good faith and intimidatory to new users in particular. His habitual defense is that the edits in question violate policy in some way, or that the user in question has previously been reverted, but he sidesteps responding to the "why is this edit vandalism?" question. Many have made the point that it is important not to mislabel edit summaries, but he appears obstinate. I also tried to explain it to him, although I believe he should know better because he is an admin, but he never addressed the points I made. He did, however make some remark on his talk page asking about possibly reconfiguring Twinkle which I thought was another half-hearted attempt at shifting the blame and finding a solution.

    Rubin has been warned at least once a month after which he seems to back off, and then it resumes three or four weeks later. He was most recently warned on 14 December by User:Tony1. However, some edits this month [42] [43] [44] [45] [46], continue to be labelled 'Vandalism', although I am at a loss as how they meet the definition of vandalism. As there does not seem to be any progress or improvement of his problematic editing behaviour, I reluctantly ask for intervention here. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems he's doing it through twinkle, probably hitting the "revert (vandalism)" button because it's easier (no need for an edit summary). And this is an admin? He's been warned enough; as a starting point, I'd suggest deleting and salting his monobook until he indicates that he's willing to talk; at the end of the day, such an action will end the "vandalism" summaries once and for all. Ironholds (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisted: [47]. Extraordinary amount of warnings to stop first. ViridaeTalk 04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Perhaps send a message to him to confirm he's been blacklisted, and we're done here. Ironholds (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. ViridaeTalk 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse this resolution. There simply is no excuse for such behavior. —David Levy 04:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can work out its no longer added to the monobook because its a gadget. ViridaeTalk 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't he just do the same with the normal rollback feature? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, but if he does he's in some deep shitake mushrooms. Abuse of rollback by an admin? That'll turn out.. interestingly. Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that obviously Twinkle and rollback are considered separate (despite performing the same function), but he was abusing the "rollback (vandal)" button specifically. Yes, Twinkle is slower, but shouldn't that be regarded as virtually identical to abusing rollback? Or is there something I've missed somewhere explaining why Twinkle and rollback are always considered apart from one another? (goes to check policy pages for both) --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 05:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well by those arguments not only he abused rollback, but he also gamed the system... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threat on user page

    Resolved
     – User indefinitely blocked, only contribution oversighted. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 05:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Made by Stalkerman345 (talk · contribs) on his userpage. Diff here. I wouldn't like to comment as to the credibility of this but I feel it best to leave it undeleted (I have blanked it) for now and report it here. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to have been oversighted, diff no longer visible to a lowly user such as I. Frmatt (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Such as me. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again

    • Moving to WP:AN whihc has a longer archive cycle. This is not an "incident" as such so that's probably the right place. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Indefinite block against User:MisterWiki (applied for sockpuppeting & indef evasion)

    I am writing this after being made aware of the above sanction against the user mentioned. I have had contact with MisterWiki both on and off site (via IRC) and i am quite concerned over this block.

    MisterWiki has admitted to ban evasion and creating doppelganger accounts, but since his new username, almost 2 years ago, he has been a consistently hardworking editor who has tried his best to mend what was past for him. I appreciate that a block is in order, i don't contest that, but in the circumstances and taking into account his current 2 year period of good behaviour, i'd suggest that an indefinite block is harsh.

    I know i'm not an admin, and there is no limitation on how long after an event action can be taken, but i'd ask that another look be taken at the block length, maybe with a view to reduction, upon admission and tagging of all known sockpuppets of this user, in circumstances, i can't suggest how long but i feel a reduction would warrant based on his recent good work.

    Thanks for listening. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I suggest a reduced block; maybe 6 months? On the plus side, MisterWiki has been a far better editor under this account. On the minus, not only did he break the rules for a long period of time he did so knowingly, and until recently has edited under two different accounts excluding his old one. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An indef does seem a bit harsh and he seems quite sincere in his latest unblock request. I'm not going to admit to being the world's biggest fan of MisterWiki (his welcoming templates, attitude and recent misguided use of rollback al concern me greatly) however, he is a good editor and edits, for the most part, in good faith. I think a block is in order for recent conduct, but, as I say, an indef is slightly over the top. Maybe a month (assuming he doesn't sock in the meantime) would be enough time for him to learn his lesson? We have very little to lose by unblocking after a suitable period of time and, in the form of content editing, a lot to gain. HJMitchell You rang? 04:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah no. We don't reward people for block evasion and sockpuppetry. Jtrainor (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Point; I was unaware of that. Keep the block as it is. Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given ASaW's diffs, I would suggest a 6 month block is the minimum that can be expected. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the block as is and if he behaves himself and doesn't continue socking, he can appeal in six months (or whatever). I had a look through his contribs, though, and I have to say that I really don't think he's been a great editor. His writing skills are poor and it seems to result in him having communication problems and then offending people and ending up in silly disputes. He was also recently stripped of rollback for misusing it after having been warned twice before for misusing it. I'm not saying these are reasons not to let him edit or anything, just that I'm not convinced that he's really been that great an editor. Regardless, the ban evasion is enough reason for him to be blocked. If he really cares about this project as much as he claims, he can show us by abiding by our policies and not creating socks to evade the block. If he wants to contribute to a project in the meanwhile, he can show us what a great editor he can be by contributing honestly to one of the other WMF projects or the es, pt or one of the other language editions of Wikipedia which he can read and write. Sarah 12:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose long block: MisterWiki is very young, and was really very young two years ago. I'm sure a lot of people did really daft things in Lower School that they have rather grown out of by the time they are ready to sit their first set of public exam, and also I submit that young persons are often naively confident that earlier bad behaviours are gone and forgotten. I understand the desire to impose some kind of penalty, but would encourage probation and mentorship by a more experienced editor rather than a lengthy block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to socking and hoaxing, he's abused rollback, edit warred, left bizarre warnings, hounded new users and very nearly driven several away. Or at least, if this user is unblocked, it should be under a strict civility and anti-hounding parole, given that he's driving away, or been very close to driving away several new users with very aggressive behavior. For example, see this afd where he made a total of very aggressive 18 edits where he accused a new user of spamming, being the subject and improperly struck other people's comments simply because he disagreed with them. [48] [49]). He nominated this casual user's all images for deletion, repeatedly rollbacked non-vandalism ([50], [51], [52], [53]) and finally caused the user to say in frustration "right now am pretty much prepared to give up on Wikipedia completely" [54] (It seems he did too, he's only edited once since). And this is just two specific incidents in the last few weeks, goodness knows how much more we'd find if we went digging. His intentions may not be malicious, and he is a kid, but competence matters. We can't have people driving away new users left and right. henrik•talk 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is also a very interesting page to say the least. Sarah 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated attacks on Jews by User:Tholzel

    Please could some deal with the anti-Semitism and being spouted at Talk:David Irving#Hints of religious bias haunting this page and Tholzel's tebdebtious arguing.

    The way he keeps on referring to "religious" editing despite being challenged on it makes it quite evident that he is referring to Jews. He has been given multiple references to how both the English High Court and the Austrian criminal courts have described Irving as a "Holocaust denier", the latter jailing him for it, the former rejecting a libel case he brought on this very point. Yet Tholzel persists in prolonging this thread in order to push the claim that unnamed "religious zealots" have distorted the article by calling poor innocent little David Irving an "anti-Semite" and "Holocaust denier" using only reputable Historians, judges and mainstream newspapers for reference. This has got far beyond the stage that WP:AGF applies and needs firm action to prevent further right wing propaganda from being added.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You're required to notify editors when you bring them up here. I've done that now. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit leery to wade into these waters again, but here goes: Tholzel's comments, to me, do not represent antisemitism or an attack on Jews. His claims that a Jewish cabal attempts to push its POV may be disruptive and paranoid, but it is not racist. If I were to claim that a group of asian editors were attempting to push a particular POV on Tiananmen Square, that would not be racist either. Tholzel has demonstrated poor editting behaviour, and that may be worthy of a block, but let's not go labelling things as anti-semitic when they may not be. The overapplication of that label dillutes its meaning and reduces its impact. If Tholzel feels that the article on Irving violates BLP, then he is more than welcome to attempt to improve it. The mere claim that editors belonging to one group or another are conspiring to see their POV is accepted is not racist. In fact, such claims are made all the time by various editors against various groups of various nationalities. Let's not overplay the race card. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been involved with this article, and so am not totally uninvolved so I won't action this report, but I agree with Peter's comment's completely; it is clear that this editor is claiming that the article is a Jewish conspiracy against Irving and their language is extreme (eg, "there isn't actually that much historical evidence to support a lot of historical opinion" on Hitler, "Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries, so calling Irving one—without having to say what that means—is a terrorist act" and "But there is no warning that certain sites like this one are off-limits to contributors, and which is watched over by a secret priesthood that has taken over complete control of the entire article. Not kosher!"). As a result, this is clearly POV-pushing by a member of the far right and a block is in order to stop it. Throwaway85; several courts have found that Irving is a Holocaust denier, and as a result It is a fringe view to regard him as anything but. The editor's repeated references to religion make it completely clear that he believes that this article is part of a Jewish campaign against Irving, which is the standard defence of him by far right wing figures. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not debating whether Irving is or isn't, I'm merely stating that no article is so sacrosanct on Wikipedia that an editor cannot challenge it. If they can provide good sources to back up their claims, those claims get included. If not, they don't. No article gets special consideration in this regard. Similarly, claims of conspiracy do not equate to racism. It may well be a standard defense amongst fringe and even racist groups, but that does not make the claim itself racist. I fully agree that much of Thozel's other language is wholly inappropriate, and administrative intervention may be required. I simply disagree with the "antisemitic" label being applied in this case. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I didn't even know the article existed (well, coulda guessed to find it in 3million...), but reading through the entire thread (link above), I can't help getting away with a similar impression. Nick's quotes ("priesthood", "kosher") are just snippets. If I was editing an article on, say, apartheid, and somebody consistently threw rants about "those low pigmentation folks" at me, I'd know they'd mean "white-asses"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not been involved and after reading the exchange and brushing up on the latest Irving propaganda, this looks very familiar. To make the claim that Irving no longer denies the Holocaust is disingenuous at best, and part of the many word games "Holocaust deniers" use to confuse the issues. For instince, the user User:Tholzel claims that Irving's sentencing plea in 1991 absolves him of being referred to as a 'Holocaust denier', but Irving went on to detail his belief the Holocaust never happened in that same plea. Even later, in 1993, Irving made the claim that only 100,000 Jews died in the war, and the causes of those deaths were 'epidemics'. So these words games fit right into theAntisemitism displayed by Irving and his followers, which makes the insinuation that there is some Jewish Cabal all the more antisemitic. DD2K (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, there is nothing antisemitic about what Tholzel posted. Labelling him an Irving "follower" is disingenuous and baseless. It is fully possible to challenge what an article says about someone without being a "follower" of theirs. An accusation of collusion is not ever racist, unless it is accompanied by specifically derogatory language. Furthermore, if Irving did in fact recant, then revisiting the issue is absolutely required in accordance with BLP. His later comments may make changes to the article unnecessary, but it is never wrong to question the status quo in such an instance. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through the talk page I see Tholzel (talk · contribs) having a pretty strong POV and trying to get that captured in the article. Since exceptional claims require exceptional sources it appears that our system is working in that way. I haven't found any "attacks on Jews" that would be characterized as WP:NPA or even WP:CIVIL violations. If you disagree, please provide diffs. If this editor's WP:TE is more widespread, I think we have more to discuss (please provide diffs if you think this is the case) but this edit seems to indicate the editor is done with this article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Brazilian

    There's an article called Black Brazilian that is filled with personal opinions and views in the first half and most of the second half such as "the American-style term 'African-Brazilian' is not used," even though the peson who wrote it did not provide proof. The second half contains accurate data, but it has opinions, too I think an article that is full personal opinions like this should not be here. It should be redirected to Afro-Brazilian or deleted. B-Machine (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This article can be re-written, or a mass deletion of the first half could occur. I would prefer the former as it is less damaging. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the article should be re-written, but it's not all that concerning at first glance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't really the right place for discussion of NPOV issues in articles.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential legal threat by User:Crackofdawn

    During a hotly contested AFD regarding the John Rosatti article, User:Crackofdawn stated that "these stories are all fabricated lies which has caused me to contact johns attorney . If these sources are used as reliable sources then wikipedian editors are supporting slander and defamation of character without proper research." [55]. Much of the AFD and related BLPN discussion centers on the extent to which published accounts of the subject's criminal history (there seems to be no dispute that he's a convicted felon, or that court documents describe him as associated with organized crime) are reliably sourced.
    This may not be an explicit legal threat, but I believe it comes close enough to the sort of comment intended to intimidate editors in the same way as explicit threats do that I'd like some comments and, if appropriate, action, per Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats and WP:NPLT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentioning that you have contacted an attourney is not a legal threat, this is more reflective of seeking legal advice, Crackdown has only sixty odd edits rather that drag him here it would have been better to have mentioned to him the policy and asked him to have a read of it. Did you give him a warning or direct him to the policy? Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Saying that you hve brought the matter to the attention of someone else's attorney is not "reflective of seeking legal advice," and other editors have been blocked for similar comments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see this as a legal threat but more of a polite, coherent complaint regarding what Crackofdawn sees as an attack, I have left him a note on his talkpage informing him of our position here as regards legal threats and directed him to the policy page and requested him to read it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=336240947"