Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Noleander redux

Noleander is back, and continuing his previous disturbing behavior. If you'll recall, in the past he created articles promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, which were eventually deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood

His activities prompted a lengthy AN/I thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:Noleander in which he quite plainly stated "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." While that AN/I thread was in progress, he disappeared for 3 months. Since his return to regular editing two weeks ago, however, he is doing much the same, albeit with more subtlety.

His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance:[1] While this may seem innocuous enough, he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: [2] an eye-winking way of saying "we don't believe this canard that a Jewish cabal controls all this stuff, it's just that there happen to be so many Jews in senior roles here". Prominent in the "Finance & Trading" section were fairly notorious Jews Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Marc Rich. For good measure, he threw in a "Pornography" section. Now, he may claim that he just happened to be adding names that he came across while reading J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power (1996). This, however, is not the case. In fact, he has had to do Google Books searches for specific names, in order to prove they were Jews; a variety of sources including

• Shapiro, Edward (1995). A Time for Healing: American Jewry Since World War II
• Shay, Scott (2007). Getting our groove back
• Harlan, Stephan (2008). Encyclopedia of American Jewish history, Volume 1
• Strober, Deborah (2009). Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, the Man Who Swindled the World
• Abigail Pogrebin. Stars of David (book): Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish
• Amman, Daniel (2009). The King of Oil
• Maisel, Louis (2001). Jews in American politics
• Langley, Monica (2004). Tearing Down the Walls
• Rosenberg, Hilary (2000). The Vulture Investors

etc.

Again, this is not a case of someone coming across a name in a book they were reading, and adding it to the list, but of someone actively searching for proof that specific individuals are Jews, so that they can be added to the List. Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Marc Rich etc. do not appear on this list by chance, but rather as part of a campaign of reversing alleged "censorship" "in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews". It is no accident that it is those specific Jews he searches for to add to the list, rather than, say, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Edgar Bronfman, Andrew Grove, George Kaiser, etc. If they're not controlling world finance or the media/Hollywood, and are not criminals (or are not "pornographers"), then they don't interest Noleander.

His other edits have included edit-warring in a section about "Allegations of control of the world's banking system" in the Rothschild article:[3][4], adding sections to the "Criticism of Judaism" article [5] and proposing more [6] Also relevant are these recent edits: [7][8]

It appears, as was evident in the previous AN/I discussion, that Oleander edits Wikipedia primarily for two reasons; to include negative information about Mormons and Jews. In the past he focused more on Mormons; since the last AN/I discussion however, he has focused more on Jews. Even when the information he provides is arguably relevant, it has to be extensively edited to conform with policy (e.g. [9], [10]). While his pretense is that he is only attempting to debunk antisemitic canards, his actions indicate that he is actually attempting to promote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like one giant bad-faith assumption. I don't see anything wrong with any of these actions, unless one were to put them together and look at it from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. The heart of the original complaints against Noleander's edits were that he created a separate article about an antisemitic canard, rather than contributing to the existing article that lists them. Now you're complaining that he's contributing to existing articles by adding things that properly belong there, merely because you think he's doing it for some devious purpose? This isn't right. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, it's admirable that you leap to Noleander's defense yet again; loyalty is a great thing. However, we're not idiots here. I've described essentially all he's done on Wikipedia since he returned; tried to subtly promote antisemitic conspiracy theories. Why did he go to the trouble of adding Andrew Fastow etc. to the List of Jewish-American businesspeople? Why that list of Jewish "pornographers"? WP:DUCK applies here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm loyal to no persons, only ideals. Are you saying Jewish pornographers are somehow inappropriate for the list of successful businesspeople? For what reason? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pretending this is an issue about a single edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: If you think the list articles have become unbalanced, or something, and there are "better" examples of Jews in big business positions, then add the ones you think are missing. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

As is obvious, the issue isn't with specific article edits, though some of them are obviously problematic, but with a pattern of behavior. Please don't try to sidetrack. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this pattern. If there are things missing from articles that have been omitted because people find them unpleasant, then I think it's a good thing they're being added. Articles shouldn't artificially lean towards the positive, even for sensitive subjects like Judaism. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop deflecting. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with articles "artificially leaning towards the positive". You see nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of either promoting negative information about members of an ethnic group, or promoting information intended to support conspiracy theories about that ethnic group? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's fine. The "conspiracy theory" aspect id your guess, not exactly apparent. He's inserting the omitted "bad" stuff. The reason he's doing it is a matter of interpretation. You can say "aww come on, it's obvious he's promoting conspiracy theories" all you want, but that's again a bad-fait assumption. I'm not deflecting, I've answered your concern by explaining to you why I think this "pattern" you've identified is not a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion, we know you think "it's fine". You also thought the two deleted articles were "fine"; more than fine. And you think it's fine to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of denigrating a specific ethnic group. Gotcha. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this to be at ANI. There's no immediate pressing concern for admin action. Surely WP:DR or similar? Black Kite 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have been the only thing Noleander has focused on recently, which does make it worrying. You might say, "but all that matters is the content," but the content can't be trusted if it's being added by an editor who seems to be overly focused on one POV about one group of people. That means someone has to be constantly checking and balancing it, which isn't fair to other editors. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty fair. Part of editing the encyclopedia is balancing out each others' POV's. That's part of how articles become NPOV. The fact that a sensitive subject like Judaism is involved is the only reason this issue is at ANI. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:02, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a single article, however, such as Judaism. It's about multiple articles, with one editing goal. Or do you, too, share Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But what would you say, Equazcion, of an editor who went around adding the names of terrorists to List of Muslim businessmen, because some terrorists are Muslim and some of those were also businessmen. And when we looked at his contribs, we found that was the only thing he did, and that there was never anything positive added, only the negative. There are BLP implications, there are racism/antisemitism implications, there are SPA implications, not to mention NPOV and NOR. It's just not good editing, however you look at it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not noleander, nor am I in a cult with him, so stop trying to lump your enemies together with pigeonholes. It's irrelevant that it's not about a single article. There are editors at all these articles who can see if there's a problem with their balance, and respond to it. Maybe you could simply watch them and help balance them out. I'm not sure why we would even make the assumption, though, that this will turn into a problem. If the user is inserting material previously omitted due to it being somehow unpleasant, in order to balance them out, why are we assuming he'll go too far in the other direction? Has he already unfairly slanted any article towards the negative? Which ones? If he hasn't, should we be assuming he will? That would not seem like an assumption of good faith to me. SlimVirgin: All those implications can be dealt with per-incident, if there are any. Right now you're basically only assuming such incidents will occur. I don't think that's what we generally are supposed to do here. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the lists of Jewish people (although adding a "pornography" section is really out of line), but it's ridiculous that he added this and this. I'm going to block indefinitely, this seems like a very clear case of a disruptive editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what exactly is wrong with those edits that warrants a block, Tbsdy? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Adding Jewish conspiracy theories to Sept 11th articles is not the right way of editing this encyclopedia. I've reviewed the previous discussion and seen enough contributions to see that we have a disruptive editor on our hands. I would normally be hesitant about this sort of block, but in this case I believe it to be warranted. They clearly know what the norms and policies are of Wikipedia, so I think that ignoring them as they have done is totally out of line and shows to me that they aren't willing to abide by them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have added "Several analysts documented that a motiviation for the attackes was the support of Israel by the United States". Is that a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure it's well documented that that was indeed a possible motivation, and he added credible citations. It doesn't even seem offensive. What's the problem? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:24, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that it's giving undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories. There are thousands of conspiracy theories about September 11th, we don't include them in the article. There is already an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories with a whole section, and in fact another article also has a whole section on this also. He knows this, so he should be editing there, but he isn't so he's being quite disruptive. There are other worrying signs he's got a POV to push, which is OK so long as it isn't disruptive, but in this case it is so therefore I've blocked him indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The motivation involving the US support of Israel is not a conspiracy theory, fringe or otherwise. It's a well-documented possible motivation for the terrorist act. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:33, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh brother, do I have egg on my face. I didn't read carefully enough. I'm unblocking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 02:36, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editor is unblocked with my apologies. I will refrain from any further blocks based on this thread, though I reserve the right to comment on his actions on WP:AN/I and to block in future (obviously with a bit more care than this time). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he should be blocked, but there's a very clear pattern of edits. And it isn't pretty. The Jewish pornographers seems to be the most blatant. Many of these edits by themselves look innocuous but the overall pattern seems like he is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think none of us agree with "Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? ' We therefore should wish to make certain that we never do anything of the kind. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia blacklisted some sites because they are critical to Wikipedia. I hope you are not suggesting that Wikipedia should become yet another anti-Semitic site just because somebody adds anti-Semitic garbage to the articles, and claims censorship, if he is not allowed to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but nor should Wikipedia refrain from featuring verifiable (not rumoured, speculated, or "well, everybody knows that") facts (not gossip, folk myth or urban legend), just because they are about Jews, Irish, Chicanos, Phonecians, Hittites etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But since that's not what has happened in this case, it's difficult to understand why you make that point. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Merely suspecting an editor of being racist or having an agenda should never be grounds for a block. If and when there's good evidence of POV problems or disruptive editing, try talking to Noleander about it, and then go to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Taking him to ANI now for these edits is OTT. Fences&Windows 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if Noleander is racist, nor do I care, because it is entirely irrelevant to my point, and to Wikipedia. All I care about is a pattern of edits, and a stated goal. Noleander edits Wikipedia primarily for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's disruptive, and wouldn't be tolerated if he did it in relation to other minorities. Good evidence of the problem has already been presented, and there have already been two AN/I threads about it. Keep in mind, it's only two week since he returned to editing; in effect, the problem never really went away, it's just that Noleander didn't edit for a long while. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Apologies for the delay: my account was blocked for awhile. Apparently some admin blocked me by accident, then tried to unblock me but failed. I'd complain, but it's hard to get angry when admins are unpaid volunteers :-) We all make mistakes.

Regarding Jayjg's complaint: this is about 3 things: Content, Content, and Content. Jayjg is unhappy with additions I have proposed to the articles Antisemitic canard, Criticism of Judaism, and List of Jewish American businesspeople.

Rather than continue the dialog on the Talk pages (and, yes, there was on-going dialog on all those Talk pages: Ive never made any significant change without discusson on Talk pages first), Jayjg decided to throw up another "intimidation via ANI" smokescreen. And so here we are.

In the last ANI, I explained why Im interested in criticism of religion. So I won't repeat those details. But it is the topic Im interested in, and I'll continue editing there. Unfortunately, articles on religion tend to be very controversial, so I'm used to being called anti-mormon, anti-catholic, anti-semitic. I'm not of course - although the notable sources such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Israel Shahak may be. But the distinction between editor and source is deliberately blurred by Jayjg.

One of these days, someone will address the issue of censorship in the religion articles, or maybe "systematic bias" is a more accurate description of the problem? A few months ago, I brought up the systematic bias issue, expecting some Wikipedia sage to actually step in and do something, but it is dawning on me that there is no sage :-) (Although there was one editor, User:Georgewilliamherbert, who was rational and objective ... whoever he is: props to him!).

It is so easy for a handful of editors to pile-on and do the tag-team thing to exclude content they deem offensive - regardless of how notable and substantiated the content is. I suppose intimidation and tag-teaming is easier than actually discussing the content on the Talk page.

But as I learned in the prior ANI, neutral editors that visit these pages are way too busy to do a detailed scrutiny. Who has time to look at the Talk pages of the pages and see if I've been civil (I have)? Who has time to look at the content and sources to see if they are reliable and notable (they are)? Who has time to see if Jayjg tried to discuss the issue on the Talk page (he didn't)? No one. We are all unpaid volunteers, blundering forward.

So, I propose that we continue, Jayjg and me and the other interested editors, discussing the issues on the Talk pages. I also suggest that we check our egos at the door, and try to focus on what is best for the reader of this encyclopedia. Working together, we can produce neutral, balanced, comprehensive articles. Shall we try? --Noleander (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I blocked you for only 15 minutes, which is bad enough I guess. However, I did unblock you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked for 24 hours. The error message was something like "You are not blocked, but your IP address is". The expiration time of the IP block was 12 Feb 18:13, if that helps. But I can edit now, so no big deal. --Noleander (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. You should have sent me an email - I didn't block your email access. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Noleander, despite your obfuscation, the issue is about behavior, behavior, behavior. You edit primarily Jewish-related articles, solely for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's a behavioral issue, since the specific content varies wildly, depending on the article. The fact that you pretend, with no evidence whatsoever, that there is "censorship" or "systemic bias" in relation to religion articles is a pretty transparent cover for this distasteful behavior. Adding a list of "Pornographers" to the List of Jewish-American businessmen has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. And the fact that you again admit you're trying to combat this imaginary "censorship" also puts the lie to the claim that you're simply trying to document antisemitic canards. No, you are trying to promote them, in order to overcome this imaginary "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I'd agree that the term 'pornographer' is probably not what such people call themselves, there are people in the US, some of whom may be of the Jewish faith or ethnicity, who are major players in the Adult print (and increasingly web) industry and the Adult end of the movie industry, which are big business in the US. Since this is a business, like any other, so if producers of other genres of entertainment media are mentioned, the notables in the Adult genre should be mentioned too. So if your objection is to the descriptor 'pornographer', I'm with you. If your objection is to revealing that some persons who would describe themselves as Jewish-American are senior executives in Adult entertainment, then that's censorship.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No Elen of the Roads. As I've very, very clearly stated more than once, this is not about any specific edit, but about a pattern of behavior. When one edits all Jewish-related articles, including the List of Jewish American businesspeople, for the sole purpose of, in that editor's view, making Jews look bad, then it's a behavioral issue. Mentioning the list of pornographers was simply a response to Noleander's transparent prevarication that he made this edit (and other similar ones) as a "criticism of religion". Adding a list of ethnic Jews in "Pornography" is not a "criticism" of Judaism; indeed, we have no idea what religion these people practice, and in any event their line of work is irrelevant to their faiths, whatever they may be. And the fact that he used the pejorative descriptor "Pornography" while in his edit summary used the more neutral and encyclopedic "adult industry execs" is merely one symptom (albeit a common one) of the larger problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander says his interest lies in criticism of religion, which is fine, but this has nothing to do with religion that I can see. He seems to be focusing on ethnicity. Jewish businessmen and pornography have nothing to do with Judaism. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Adult entertainment" is a euphemism. Must one use euphemisms to comply with NPOV? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noleander's use of the not-PC-on-Wikipedia word "censorship" is obfuscating the issue. He sees something missing, I think, rather than something that isn't allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Actually, though, the only evidence that it isn't allowed to exist is threads like this, as DGG pointed out above.

This isn't a case of WP:DUCK. It's a matter of choosing to perceive things a certain way, when there's a choice. WP:AGF tells us which choice we're supposed to make in cases like this. If someone said "Maybe it's time certain information that people have traditionally found objectionable, like Jewish pornographers, be included in articles, as info like this is sorely missing from Wikipedia," that's not an unreasonable cause to undertake. The problem is, such a person's edits would be rather indistinguishable from "pushing an antisemitic agenda"; it's just a matter of how you choose to see it.

Such ambiguous situations are the reason we have WP:AGF as a policy -- to remove the ambiguity, and tell you how you're supposed to view the situation, as least as far as your on-wiki actions are concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:36, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous? Indeed, we're supposed to assume good faith. However, once lack of good faith is demonstrated, and the assumption clearly is not a valid assumption, the policy becomes irrelevant. In this particular case, we have an editor with an unambiguously intensely POV approach to editing, doing his best to promote bigotry. It surprises me that this sort of bigotry has this much support, but perhaps I am naive. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no "ambiguity" whatsoever here. Noleander has made it clear by both his actions and words what his intent is. And Equazcion, we won't be diverted by your continued game of pretending this is about a single edit. No, it's not about "Jewish pornographers"; it's about editing articles related to Jews with the sole intent of making Jews look bad. Noleander is, as jpgordon states plainly and truthfully, "doing his best to promote bigotry". He's not trying to balance any imagined imbalance, or overcome any invented censorship. He's just quacking very loudly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be no ambiguity here. This is not the first time Equazcion has acted as an apologist for bigotry with the excuse that "wikipedia is not censored". Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that it's not about individual edits is the problem. If you can't point to any specific article issue, then there's no issue. The alternative is guilt by suspicion. The lack of individual issues to point out means there's no objective evidence. Just because you see something one way doesn't mean that's how it is. No one's condoning bigotry, they're just saying there's no reason to see it that way, nor is the perception any reason to act. WP:DUCK is pretty easily misused to mean "I can act on my suspicions". Anyway I'm sure you know that no one here is a bigot, and are in fact sensitive to those issues. Kindly cease the hostilities. People including me are simply disagreeing with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:05, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of objective evidence; it requires looking at the body of edits, not the individual edits. What a weird idea. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Invited comment: I have been notified of the existence of this thread by Jayjg, an editor I tend to disagree with on matters concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict but agree with on matters concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel. The notification was because I created a previous thread on this page concerning Noleander and his citing of articles held by far right webpages to do with Jewish involvement in Hollywood. The article about which I was complaining has been deleted along with one on allegations of anti-Semitism and because of that I have not got access to the complete archive of my postings at the time. However I recall a one sided selection of data on Noleander's part. I therefore tend to agree with postings above that WP:Duck applies. Why is Noleander so obsessed with matters Jewish that he feels the need to create entries concerning Jewish pornographers? I have seen no evidence Jews are either more nor less seedy than gentiles but am concerned by this editor's apparent obsession with digging up all he can find that is negative about Jews. I am quite happy to take part in mudslinging against the current and previous Israeli governments, but the suggestion that the Jewishness of some of the people on the seedy side of American life needs highlighting strikes me as extremely suspicious in one with the editorial history of Noleander. Unless Noleander demonstrates a capacity to spend well over half of his Wikipedia time on amtters that have nothing to do with Jews, then I think that he should be told to go and grind that axe somewhere other than in WIkipedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(Un-invited comment) I have to say, I find the existence of this thread depressing. If this were a brick and mortar encyclopedia, Noleander would have been shown the door, smartly, long before now. It's very disturbing that some people want to defend the indefensible. IronDuke 03:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure, I would have been kicked out of brick & mortar encyclopedia. But so would Jayjg. The fact is that there is a long and well-documented history of about 20 editors in Wikipedia fighting tooth and nail to keep any and all information out of the encyclopedia that in any way reflects negatively on Israel or Jews. Those editors, too, would not be tolerated in a brick & mortar encyclopedia.

There was that odd CAMERA incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign), and then there is http://www.thejidf.org.

And every time there is some dispute, those same 20 or so editors team up with Jayjg (including a few that have commented in this thread). The content and quality of the enclopedia seems to be the last thing on their minds.

But this is wikipedia, where content in controversial areas is - for better or worse - arrived at by the dynamic tension between "opposite sides" (for lack of a better term). Excluding controversial material seems to be top priority. If we spent half the time working on the articles in question as we did pointing fingers at each other, the articles would be in a neutral, balanced state by now. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Well, sure, I would have been kicked out of brick & mortar encyclopedia." It is heartening to see you acknowledge this. "But so would Jayjg." Quite wrong. Jay is a long-standing valued member here. You are not. The reason people are "pointing fingers" at you isn't because you have a POV -- lots of good Wikipedians do. It's that your actions are absolutely reprehensible, I hope you can see the difference there. But I sense that I am feeding you by replying, so I'll make that the last word from me. IronDuke 16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Im not following that logic. You're saying that the censorship practiced by Jayjg is okay because he has been doing it a long time? (By the way - you are one of the 20 or so editors that always seem to come to Jayjg's aid :-).

As for "Valued member" - Wasn't Jayjg stripped of checkuser powers because he abused it? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges

--Noleander (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that demonstrates that the community or its representatives are prepared to take various priveleges away from editors. Now looking at Jayjg's user page I note that he is entitled to quite a flashy Triple crown. Wikipedians have a lot of tolerance for editors who may be awkward in some ways but also provide good contents. (There has been a discussion on unbanning one such person on a board near here.) Now, if you want us to show tolerance for your quirks could you let us know how much featured or good content you have produced? As far as I can tell the answer is none at all as you are too busy pursuing the single purpose of digging dirt about Jews.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See above where I offered to bury the hatchet and work together with Jayjg to improve the content of several articles. He never responded. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What "hatchet" is there to "bury"? I have no "feud" with you. You are editing in a disruptive way, period. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA/FA contribs don't matter in a case like this. If they exist they might be something to point out as a "plus", but their lack isn't any reason to say an editor should be blocked. I don't think I've had many GA/FA contribs, and I certainly don't keep track of them, on my user page or elsewhere. That doesn't mean anything. The burden of proof is on the accusers to show actual damage, not on the accused to prove innocence through GAs and FAs.

On Peter Cohen's requested involvment, his extensive introductory comment undoubtedly meant to avert any accusations of WP:CANVAS violations on the part of Jayjg, this was indeed canvassing. Contacting someone who you tend to "agree with on matters concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel" and request they comment on a matter concerning anti-Semitism unconnected with Israel is the definition of Votestacking.

I'll say this again: There are two ways (at least) to look at this editor's "body of edits". It's far from an objective form of proof. As many others commenting here have said, pointing out an editor's perceived agenda is never grounds to do anything. It's a subjective judgment, and it's rather arrogant to claim that one's subjective judgments are in fact objective. You're supposed to assume good faith that the user is attempting to balance the content of these articles, rather than promote antisemitism. There's no way around that.

If someone takes it upon himself to add chlorine to swimming pools, you could conclude he must therefore like to swim in chlorine; but that would be a very glib and unenlightened interpretation. Taking it upon oneself to restore or maintain a balance might mean forming a body of work that doesn't look all that positive. If Noleander tends to only worry about one side of the balance because he feels Wikipedia content on the issue tends to be unbalanced, he has every right to do that, and doesn't need to balance out his contributions with edits that advocate the other side equally just to maintain some appearance of positivty. It's just not a requirement here. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:43, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, your post is pretty much a smokescreen unrelated to this thread. There's no "perceived agenda" here; Noleander has stated quite openly stated that he believes he must overcome some imaginary "censorship" as regards Jewish topics, and has made it quite obvious his way of doing so is by editing Wikipedia solely to make Jews look bad. Editing Wikipedia solely for the purpose of adding negative information about a minority group is highly disruptive, and Wikipedia would not put up with it if it were a different minority group. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jay, you're not listening. Please try to understand: My post answers exactly this concern. Adding only negative information is not necessarily bad. It just might look bad. See the chlorine metaphor. And again please stop with the hostilities, claiming my post is a "smokescreen". I have no agenda to obfuscate the issue. I simply disagree with you. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:08, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I'm listening quite well, it's just that your points, and analogy, fail miserably. They are predicated on the false assumption that articles relating to Jews have been suffering from "censorship" that has suppressed negative information. This is, however, a disturbed fantasy, no more. Adding only negative information is, if nothing else, a violation of WP:NPOV; NPOV, as the policy makes clear, is required of all editors. One cannot add only negative information, and expect other editors to balance the material. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV applies to articles, not user contribution histories. As long as an editor didn't cause an article to become slanted towards one POV, they can add all the negative information they like. Their reason for doing so is a subjective judgment and irrelevant. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:NPOV is "expected of all articles and all editors." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is expected that all editors strive towards editing articles so that they represent an NPOV view. The editor's contributions are not required to be balanced thusly. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:20, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. O.K., so, for example, when Noleander edited the List of Jewish American businesspeople, he was just attempting to "make it represent a NPOV view"? Let's take a look. When Noleander started editing it, it had ten names on it, and seemed a bit heavily weighted to Technology leaders. So, to create "NPOV", Noleander added 47 names, consisting of:

• 32 Jews in senior roles in the media/Hollywood (in support of the Jews control the media/Hollywood canard), including 4 Jews specifically searched for and added because they produced "Pornography".
• 12 Jews in senior roles in the Finance industry (in support of the "Jews control international Finance" canard), including 5 Jews specifically searched for and added because they had been convicted of serious crimes.
• 1 Jew in fashion, 1 billionaire casino owner, and 1 billionaire real estate developer (the latter from a book called "The Vulture Investors").

After his changes the list consisted of 51% media executives (including 7% "pornographers"), and 25% finance executives (including 9% criminals). Now given that there are hundreds of Jewish-American businesspeople with Wikipedia articles, in all types of business, do you think that Noleander's edits to this article have brought it into line with the WP:NPOV policy? Or do you, perhaps, concede that the list is now, oh, I dunno, a tad over-weighted with media and finance figures, criminals and "pornographers"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This would be a specific article problem so that's a good start. The thing is though that adding finance and Hollywood figures isn't necessarily negative. The convicts and pornographers could be perceived that way, but 9 "negatives" versus 35 others doesn't seem like a slant towards the negative to me. The fact is that there a good many Jewish people in those positions, whether it's PC to say that or not, so maybe the article being largely about them is an accurate weight distribution -- and again this is just the "others" we're talking about. Noleander's edits don't seem to have made it look like most Jews are convicts or pornographers -- those still make up the vast minority of the list. So no I don't see this article as a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:06, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, you must not pretend you haven't read the previous conversation, or that these edits were done in isolation. As part of Noleander's problematic activities, both before and after his break, Noleander was promoting the conspiracy theories that Jews control the media and world finance. This was just another way of doing so. Re-read the very first post in this whole thread, which explained this. In any event, your hand-waving rationalizations won't wash when confronted with the actual figures and percentages. The article became severely unbalanced after Noleander's edits. Are 51% of Jewish-American businesspeople senior media executives? Are 9% convicted criminals? Are 7% pornographers? No, we're pretty much done here. Noleander fundamentally violated NPOV in his editing philosophy, and specifically violated NPOV in his edits to individual articles, and there's nothing you can say that will whitewash those facts. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt most list articles do actually correlate to figures that represent accuracy down to the whole percent. No, I don't think the article is unduely weighted (incidentally, if it is then why not work on changing it?)

Anyway, I suspect you only think the edits were bad because noleander thinks his additions are "negative". Meaning that, had anyone else made the same edits, you probably wouldn't have seen a problem -- it's just this "quest" he's stated he's on that has you thinking differently. You don't want him to feel he's "succeeded", so to speak. Objectively there's no problem with the edits themselves, and had you seen them appear from someone who wasn't on a "quest", you wouldn't have batted a lash. As much as Noleander has an agenda, you've got the same one, perhaps, only going the opposite way -- you just haven't admitted it, as he has. You're very emotionally invested, which I suppose shouldn't be a shock, and I doubt there's any chance you'd let up no matter what anyone says or even if events changed.

The point is that this "negative" stuff is only "negative" because noleander thinks it is. Don't let that get to you. You need to read up on the word "objective" and see some examples of its proper use. The objective facts are that noleander added finance and Hollywood people. This isn't objectively bad. A subjective view is that he's added information that supports a canard -- and the fact that he sees it this way doesn't make it any less subjective. His subjective view of his edits don't dictate how we're to view or react to them, as long as they don't damage the article objectively. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:59, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about your inappropriate and incorrect speculations regarding my emotions, it's about Noleander's behavior. Several people have all seen the same issue with his behavior that I have. And, objectively speaking, the edits violated WP:NPOV regardless of who did them. Here are the objective facts: Noleander has been working for months to highlight the view that Jews control the media and finance. Are 51% of Jewish-American businesspeople senior media executives? 25% finance executives? 9% convicted criminals? 7% pornographers? Are the numbers anywhere close to that? No. Fundamental violation of WP:UNDUE, done deliberately. Case closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many people share your subjective view, and many also share my opposing subjective view. No, his work to "highlight" certain views is not objective, that's subjective. It's your opinion. Noleander has stated that he's working to restore an area of content that he feels has been kept out of articles, not to feature them with more prominence than other information, and I haven't seen any evidence that suggests otherwise. That's my subjective view. This doesn't matter though. Objectively speaking, an agenda is not a reason to sanction. I could have an agenda to add content to multiple Canada-related articles to support the view that they have a weak military, because I feel facts that support this view haven't been given their due weight. I can't be sanctioned purely for that. Whether I'm on a quest to add what I perceive to be the negative or positive, it's all facts. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:26, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazion can you explain how you are able to assume good faith about an editor obsessed with digging the dirt on all things Jewish but then you assume bad faith by writing that my "extensive introductory comment [was] undoubtedly meant to avert any accusations of WP:CANVAS violations on the part of Jayjg"--Peter cohen (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"obsessed with digging the dirt on all things Jewish" is a subjective take on the situation. Assuming good faith means viewing a subjective situation with the assumption that a person had the best of intentions at heart -- which is in direct opposition to assuming they're out to promote an anti-semitic agenda, or even that they're feeding an obsession. Canvassing policy has nothing to do with AGF. This was a technical violation. An editor who knew they'd get support from you asked you to comment. Faith doesn't come into play there. There are a lot of editors I could contact for support in this thread, but I don't, because it's against policy (and for good reason). Equazcion ^(talk) 00:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Equazcion, I had no idea if Peter Cohen would support me or not. My recollection of Peter Cohen's edits and comments was that he generally disagreed with me, period. I did not "canvass" his support, I quite publicly notified him of this thread as a courtesy, as he had started the previous thread regarding Noleander, and this violated no policy whatsoever. It's rather bizarre that you can insist that this action was a "technical violation", rather than simply Bad Faith on your part, while jumping through hoops to explain away Noleander's edits as being something entirely different from what they quite obviously are, and claiming others are exhibiting Bad Faith regarding him. I could as easily state that my assessment of Noleander's edits as fundamentally violating WP:NPOV is purely technical, and therefore entirely accurate and outside the purview of WP:AGF. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't know Peter Cohen would support you, then you're right, and I apologize. Peter's post wording led me to believe you knew he'd be "on your side" so to speak, but I may have misread. A violation of NPOV, however, is not the contribution of only negative information across articles, as I've just stated above in response to another of your comments. Editors aren't required to maintain an NPOV contribution list. So long as they don't cause an article to slant towards a particular POV, there's no NPOV violation. Noleander's edits are not "quite obviously" anything -- it's a subjective matter, again, and assuming good faith means assuming they were made in an effort to improve content coverage rather than slant it. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:17, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Peter may know his own mind, but I certainly don't know it. And, as I've shown above, Noleander's edits quite obviously made articles "slant towards a particular POV". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed resolution?

• refactored here, from above, by Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Noleander writes above that his interest lies in adding criticism of religions, so perhaps he could put people's minds at rest by focusing on that clearly from now on—on religion, rather than ethnicity, and using good sources that offer a critique of religion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm amenable to SlimVirgin's suggestion. My primary interest is ensuring that the "downsides" of religions are documented in this encyclopedia (in a neutral, balanced way), and I'm willing to focus on that area. Good sourcing is always a priority for me, but I can redouble my efforts in that regard. --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would probably resolve the issue, particularly if the criticism is spread around different religions or focuses on the general concept. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps that's the end of this, if everyone agrees...? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:29, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Noleander still thinks he has done nothing wrong, and insists he is just fighting "censorship". And you're supporting him as always, using ever more farfetched rationalizations, which give him no reason to believe otherwise. It's hard to resolve things with an editor who is on a policy-violating crusade, and a second editor who will defend anything the first editor does. If he doesn't understand what he was doing wrong, how can he stop doing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm growing irritated of this claim that I'll defend anything he does. I have no reason to be loyal to Noleander. Frankly he does nothing but ignore me no matter how much I defend him, even when I've attempted to communicate with him before. If you want to characterize people's motives you should at least have some grounds. I believe in Noleander's right to do what he's doing as of now. That's it. I have no loyalty to him personally whatsoever, and if he ever actually did step out of line I'd be the first reign hellfire down on his ass. Kindly desist from this. We disagree. Deal with it. A healthy debate can be had without continually belittling your opponent. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I'm not sure why you'd grow irritated with an objective description of your actions in this thread. You defend everything he does, using increasingly far-fetched rationalizations. Even when presented with indisputable numbers, you attempt to slap some whitewash on them. And since nothing he does, in your estimation, actually "steps out of line", your promise to "reign hellfire down on his ass" is hollow. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of the definition of the word "objective"? I do not think it means what you think it means. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:45, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't mean "Noleander can do no wrong, regardless of the evidence", as you seem to think it does. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that. See straw man. Are you aware of what it actually does mean? When you characterize someone's motives, as you've done with me, that's not objective. It's your opinion. Opinions aren't objective. Even if you're 100% sure you're right, and that no intelligent person in their right mind could possibly disagree with you, as you are undoubtedly sure of, it's still your subjective view. Tangentially, I tend to suspect people who seem this sure of themselves. It's usually the correct people who are willing to admit they could be wrong. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:36, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Err, no, actually, I haven't characterized your motives. Quite the opposite, in fact, you've characterized my motives, claiming I'm "very emotionally invested". In reality, though, I've simply described your behavior (and Noleander's). And yes, quite objectively, a word whose meaning I fully comprehend. I do appreciate the odd paradox you seem to have created; if you now admit you could be wrong, then that will ipso facto prove you to be correct. Good one! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious argument. See straw man again. Just because I say "I'm suspicious of group A while tending to find group B more likely to be correct" doesn't translate to "group B is always correct". You're correct that my characterization of your edits was subjective, but incorrect that your "description of my behavior" was any less subjective. You weren't merely describing. Describing means telling people what I said, even paraphrased; but it is not saying "he'll defend anything noleander does no matter what" (which furthermore predicts the future) or that I'm using "far-fetched rationalizations". Those are characterizations, statements of opinion, and they are indeed subjective. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:08, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And this subsection is supposed to be about SlimVirgin's proposed resolution. Do you agree or disagree with her offer? Noleander is willing to accept it. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:11, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Part of SlimVirgin's proposed resolution included ensuring "the criticism is spread around different religions or focuses on the general concept". Noleander hasn't agreed to that, has he? And, of course, if 90% of his criticisms were focused on Judaism, 5 percent on Mormonism, and 1 percent each on Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism, you'd still be defending him in the inevitable next AN/I thread, wouldn't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Noleander's pattern of edits are well described by the WP:DE and WP:TE. It seems to continue despite Tbdsy's warning. I have given him another, quite a stern warning and intend to block if the behavior does not change. Slimvirgin's proposal seem to be a good way to break the pattern there are probably hundreds other ways it is up to Noleander's but if his behavior would not change he should be blocked per WP:DE Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record I don't think this discussion shows any sort of consensus on the issue. There are some pretty well-respected editors and admins further up who don't see a problem here. I respect your view, but this warning seems rather unilateral; which isn't to say you weren't allowed to make it anyway, but still, this is just for the record. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:17, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This reflects a general principle not necessarily limited to Wikipedia, but I don't believe that editors could rightly be prohibited from editing from an anti-religious perspective, whether that is general or specific to a given religion, unless they are equally prohibited from editing from a pro-religious perspective (e.g., the principle being applied should not favor any particular religion over another, or favor either religion or irreligion generally). There is a question with Judaism, certainly, about whether it can be categorized solely as a religion, and I don't believe the same principle applies to editing from an anti-ethnic perspective (as it wouldn't apply to a pro-pedophilia position). At least with regard to religion, though, I don't believe that being either pro or anti can be favored over the other. That doesn't resolve this, of course. Regardless, I would generally suggest that admins should look at the quality rather than the motive of the edits. If edits are repeatedly being undone, and shown to have been inappropriate, then the result should presumably be the same regardless of the editor's motives; likewise with any of the behavioral policies. This should avoid a perpetual hassle in chasing someone around. Mackan79 (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Mister Flash regarding edits related to the British Isles

Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring for quite some time now over whether and how a great number of articles should use the term British Isles. That article is subject to a 1RR restriction, there is a taskforce at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, and I am not sure if this is related to and subject to the sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Many of these articles are watched by very few people, or the regular editors do not feel like getting involved with a highly contentious minor point (example: the recent edit war at FWA Footballer of the Year received no comment from editors not involved in this wide-ranging terminology dispute). It is certainly possible that wider editing restrictions may be called for regarding this dispute, but I think a restriction on Mister Flash would go a long way towards reducing British Isles terminology related disruption. I would like to propose that they be placed on a 1RR restriction and be required to gain firm consensus at the relevant talkpage or the taskforce page before making any edit regarding whether and how any article should describe this particular geographic and geopolitical region. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved in setting up the task force some intervention would be appreciated. There have been long standing edit wars over this, and consolidating all the debates in one place started to get some structure in place. However Mister Flash has an auto-revert approach on any change that does not involve the use of the BI term, regardless of the level of consensus. S/he seems to be a single purpose account. A brief review of the Task Force will show that while several editors are being even handed, their work is being disrupted by a failure to accept consensus and a consistent refusal to engage in discussion. There is a 1RR restriction already in place so I don't think that is the solution to be honest. We need something that prevents simple say-saying on every task force discussion--Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles-in-question, should be covered by the Troubles Enforcement ruling of 1RR (if they are not). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to state my case in this matter. First let me brief you on some historical aspects. From some time about early 2008 User:HighKing has waged a campaign against the term British Isles. I will not comment on his motives, but I merely draw your attention to the facts. Initially the removals were carried out en-masse, with perhaps dozens of removals in a single editing session. I estimate that in the three-year period of this activity a minimum of 500 removals have occurred. During his campaign HighKing has been assisted by numerous other users, principally User:Crispness (possibly now editing under a "clean start" as User:Þjóðólfr) and User:Snowded. HighKing's activities have spilled out across Wikipedia and have resulted in many edit wars, confrontations and violations of policy, involving everyone concerned. His work continues. Only two days ago a further two deletions were carried out, each of which featured the usual trademark of an edit summary not adequately describing what was happening. I came across HighKing in late 2008 and found myself objecting strongly to his edits. I tend to revert his edits because, in my opinion, the vast majority of them are not justified. Rarely is the term British Isles being used incorrectly. If it ever is, then I don't object to its removal. When removals are challenged, a variety of tactics are used to try and overcome the objections. All the tactics employed amount to variations on gaming the system, with wikilawyering and policy shopping being foremost amongst them. Take the recent example of Five Peaks Challenge - the edits which have caused the reporting of this incident: HighKing first tried to claim the subject was not notable, when that failed he went for a merge, and this was followed by claims that the references (references to support an axiom, I might add) were inadequate. This latter tactic is a favourite of the anti-British Isles community; place a cite tag on an obvious fact and when no references are forthcoming, delete the term. So to my part in this: I object to the policy of British Isles removals for what I consider to be political reasons, hence my numerous reversions of the edits of HighKing and others. I would be very happy never to edit another BI-related article (specifically involving addition or removal of the term) provided a similar restriction was placed on other users involved in this dispute. In his comments on this matter, User:Snowded would have you believe that I am 100% at fault and that he, HighKing and others have no case to answer. Such an assertion could not be farther from the truth. These users are at least as culpable as me in this matter. Remember that the root cause of this entire debacle is one single, solitary user - HighKing. If he stopped systematically trying to remove British Isles from Wikipedia we would not now be having this debate. So to summarise; I will accept a community sanction not to add or remove British Isles provided that sanction is also applied to the other users whose identities I have noted here. Mister Flash (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If my suggestion is adopted, then both sides will be restricted to 1RR on the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It won't work, GD. The BI removals would continue. Mister Flash (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

See above! A ban on all deletion and removals of British Isles by listed editors. Mister Flash (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Howabout a ban on all deletion/additions of British Isles for all editors on Wikipedia? I could accept that condition. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, am I missing something here, or did you refer to me as "being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account", and then go on to admonish User:LevenBoy for saying that User:Snowded "has us believe that he's whiter than white"? Quite frankly I'm astounded, but I'll let it pass. On the subject of my user page, which you don't like, would you care to assess this one then?. Please note that I do not edit politically. I try to revert the political edits of others. Your suggestion of a site ban for me is completely over the top. I've already agreed to refrain from editing British Isles related articles if others will do the same. What more do you want? The Special Examples page is worthless. It was set up by HighKing because he was forced to do it. He objects to it, and has now stopped using it. It is flawed: it only attracts HK's supporters and those seeking to limit his edits. Other article editors are largely unaware of it. It is no substitute for the article talk pages. As User:LevenBoy states below, this problem will not go away until all concerned agree to stop removing, or indeed inserting, British Isles. You note below that this thread is not about HighKing. Would you object if I expanded it so that it was - adjust title etc and put a notice on his Talk page. Mister Flash (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Flash I don't think you get it. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your contributions (listed below): inserting unsourced material, removing sourced material, edit warring and wikihounding are not vague conjecture (as LevenBoy's remark about Snoweded was), they are a matter of record. If I said somebody was a pov-pusher but then gave no evidence that'd be a problem. But I've examined your edits and shown the issue.
Yes I would have a problem with you adding HK to this since you've been wikihounding him. Please leave it to uninvolved editors and admins. If there is a substantive concern a WP:RFCU should be opened. Also since you've made no attempted to resolve the dispute between yourself and HK this is the wrong forum to begin dispute resolution.
I agree the Task Force should be examined but I believe that should be left to the community. Also just out of courtesy you should reply to people in the thread that they posted--Cailil ^talk 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Where didn't I do that? I generally try to keep the dialogue flowing, but it's not easy here. You really should look at some of the edits in more detail before saying they are inserting unsourced material etc. On the face of it, that may be true, but as I've said elsewhere, the issue of sources and the use of British Isles is just one example of gaming the system, but it's not immediately apparent how that gaming is taking place. See Talk:FWA Footballer of the Year for a classic example of this. You'll also note that on that talk page I did request outside involvement, as I have done in many cases. I add this point just to defend myself against the current accusations. Mister Flash (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view

First no this isn't covered by the Troubles ArbCom ruling or any other ruling to my knowledge because the article sin question aren't about nationalism - but these editors are adding ideological references within them. As an outside viewer and uninvolved sysop I'd say it's pretty clear that 2/0's and Snowded's assessments bear out.
I'd block Mister Flash myself as an obvious Single Purpose Account but for the fact that it might look bad, being that I'm Irish. Nevertheless, I'm not saying editors who disagree with Flash are right or innocent of treating the site as a battleground. What follows is a brief investigation of this issue.
The FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year edit-war is indicative[11][12][13][14][15] - if this wording is a notable point it should be verifiable. In this single case it's clear that Flash reinstated an unsourced footnote for reasons other than WP:V, WP:NPOV and contrary to WP:NOR. On top of that the user's own user page is highly politicized and openly hostile to the Task force. I believe it contravenes WP:USER, in that it is deliberately inflammatory (in the manner it links to the task force) and polemical (Scottish independence etc).
Below is a review of problematic, politically motivated, edit-warring and/or wikihounding edits made by Mister Flash in some of his top 10 articles[16]

• FWA_Footballer_of_the_Year (diffs above)
• Tin_whistle[17][18][19][20] And Flash's first edit to thois article is in response to High King's[21]
• Cochrane[22]
• Neopaganism[23][24] Interestingly He'd never edited here until High King did[25]
• 1960_in_rail_transport [26][27][28][29][30] Flash starts editting here immediately after High King[31]
• Henry_John_Elwes [32][33][34][35][36]. Once more Flash appears on this page after HighKing edits it[37]
• Sarum_Rite[38][39][40][41][42]. Again Mister Flash turns up here for the first time in order to revert HighKing[43].

In summary, it is clear that Mister Flash is not alone in tendentious and disruptive behaviour. A number of edits by User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr are equally problematic.
In terms of sanctions, HighKing has contributed positively to the project but seems overly focused on this issue([44]). It is also clear that Þjóðólfr and HighKing have edit warred with Mister Flash. It also seems that Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash engaged in wikihounding (Þjóðólfr of Flash; and Flash of HighKing).
For this reason I move that Þjóðólfr should be topic banned from British Isles naming dispute topics for 6 months and placed on a 1RR restriction; that HighKing should be placed on a 1RR restriction in all articles. It might also be worthwhile considering a 6 month topic ban from British Isles naming dispute topics for HighKing, but his presence on the task force (and therefore willingness to dialogue) gives me hope. That said it might be worth investigating both of them a little further.
Mister Flash being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account should be site banned. Wikipedia is not a battleground and unless or until Mister Flash can commit themselves to the core policies and standards of editing on this site they should be prevented from disrupting it further--Cailil ^talk 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, the only thing the special examples page has managed to do is introduce totally innaccurate, and borderline nonsense, information to articles, which other people have to clean up after the event. It quite evidently only exists to push a POV, 90% of cases presented are fine, it's the other 10% you need to watch to see how bad it is at coming up with an informed and accurate solution to this apparent 'problem' of mentioning the verboten phrase. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hence my call for further investigation and a potential topic ban for HighKing--Cailil ^talk 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

HighKing was problematic, but then fully participated in the task force and accepted the agreements reached there (albeit with frustration at times). However the functioning of the task group has been badly damaged by the actions of MisterFlash (occasionally with other support) who has either edit warred against consensus, or indulged in delaying tactics (look the discussions on Sarum Rite for an example). Attempts by myself and others to create some order through the task force have either being met by a total lack of cooperation or downright abuse. We could do with admin support there. I support the proposal by Cailil although I think it is harsh on Þjóðólfr who in general has responded to Flash and has not initiated any change where agreement has not first been established at the task force.--Snowded ^TALK 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For all those above that are buying into the "HighKing was problematic" statement - can you please provide diffs? From my point of view, this inaccurate view is a victory for the editors that we are discussing. By calling my edits political, part of a campaign, etc, it seems that many editors slowly but surely start to believe this. The task force has been up and running since last September, and before that each and every one of my edits was discussed on the relevant Talk page. I've always attempted to the best of my ability to edit within the policies, to provide references, and to engage in discussions. Labelling this behaviour as "problematic" is very unfair and inaccurate. It may be unpopular with some editors, but that should not be mistaken for my acting in good faith, in a collaborative apolitical fashion. Cailil's suggestion above that I am placed on a 1RR restriction for *all* articles is similarly misplaced and without foundation, and I'm shocked and disappointed that he would not examine my behaviour a little closer. Placing my behaviour in the same basket as that of Mister Flash et al is wildly inaccurate and unfair. --HighKing (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

HK, the very fact that your account was involved in an edit-war anywhere is problematic. The fact that this occurred multiple times at multiple articles only serves to make it worse. Secondly extending the British Isles naming dispute to articles not about the dispute is an issue[45][46][47] (these diffs are listed above). Yes Flash followed you to these articles but frankly, it takes two to tango (or in this case 3). BTW, no you are not being lumped in with Flash, you are not a single purpose account. Also I'm not convinced you should be topic banned but the edit-warring speaks for itself--Cailil ^talk 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, thank you for clarifying that my behaviour is not being lumped in with Flash - that's important to me. While I reckon that this probably isn't the correct forum to discuss individual articles, I don't understand what you mean by "extending the British Isles naming dispute to articles not about the dispute". The editing and Task Force is not about the BI naming dispute. The British Isles is a legitimate and correct name for the group of islands. I've no problems whatsoever with that. But your comment illustrates how easy it is to see *any* edit involving British Isles as somehow being caught up with Irish Nationalism, whereas my edits are concerned with accuracy (and this I've also stated before). The edits in question are where the term was (arguably) used incorrectly. Rather than debate here we can continue this particular discussion elsewhere - perhaps at the Task Force page. --HighKing (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For further reference please see this link [48] (HighKing was Bardcom) and this one [49]. Mister Flash (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash stop. Adding an old RfCU that went nowhere about HK and adding the AE that most admins are (and certainly the one who opened this section is) more than aware of, only goes further to show that you are wikihounding HK. Then emboldening that post only makes it worse.[50][51] You will not get another warning for wikihounding. You're being formally advised to disengage from HighKing and the British Isles naming dispute and User:HighKing--Cailil ^talk 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, I sincerely suggest you move on, before you start abusing your powers as an admin. I bolded it because it was in danger of being lost in a section that's being edited in several locations. As for the content of those references, they are as relevant today as they were when they were current. They provide background information to this dispute, a dispute which for some reason you fail to acknowledge as being the root cuase of the current debate - and you have yet to answer my question about extending this section. It seems that many admins have tackled this issue over the last three years and all have given up on it, so it doesn't bode well for you. Suggesting that I'm wikihounding HK as a result of my referring to relevant archives is laughable, as is warning me to disengage from the BI naming dispute - it's what this thread is all about for heavens sake! Mister Flash (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Inside view

I've previously been involved in this dispute but I've largely given up on it now. In fact, it's driven me away from Wikipedia to a certain degree. It seems that Cailil has not quite grasped the underlying issues concerned with HighKing and his edits. As many editors have noted, HK's edits are political in nature. He has an agenda and is using Wikipedia to promote it. It is his actions that are the ultimate source of the problems we encounter. Ask yourselves this question - If Mister Flash is site banned (a wholly disproportionate response) will the problem go away? Then ask this question - If HK is site banned (or topic banned) will the problem go away? I suggest the answer to the first question is 'No', because others would simply take up the reins. I also suggest that the answer to the second question is 'Yes'. It's very noticeable that when HK is not editing, no-one else is bothered about the SE page and there are no British Isles issues. Only when he re-starts does the problem crop up again. To me the solution to this intractable problem is simple - topic ban all concerned. Everyone involved in this has a case to answer, including Snowded who would have us believe he is whiter than white. No need for site-wide bans. Editors such as Mister Flash would simply melt away into background if a topic ban was in place. His editing is pretty much SPA so he'd move on elsewhere, and perhaps HK would as well. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to your points LevenBoy. First this thread is not about HighKing (hence my call for further investigation) but it is clear from his history that he edits other topics and is not a single purpose account. Second, please don't cast aspersions about other editors as you have about User:Snowded. Third, Mister Flash has, as can be seen by examining his contrib history used Wikipedia as a battleground. Fourth your points would be more convincing if you could provide diffs as evidence.
Over all I do see that groups of users are bringing political disputes to pages that have nothing to do with that dispute. Which is a) getting around the Troubles RfAR ruling, b) creating ideologically driven edit-wars and c) which is not limited to Mister Flash. However this thread is about Mister Flash - and frankly it would outside the remit of this forum to go through and unpick the complex of issues that users have with the Special Examples Task Force. That would require an RfAR which you are free to file. The other option and a suggestion that might be more useful to the community would be an extension of the Troubles AE ruling to the 'British Isles naming dispute' topic (widely construed). This would allow for discretionary sanctions on anyone edit-warring, etc, relating to the term 'British Isles'. To implement such an extension a request to ArbCom would be required. But IMHO it would make a lot of sense--Cailil ^talk 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Extent the AE Troubles ruling over the BI naming dispute. It can easily be assumed that there's some Irish nationalism & British unionism behind the disputes. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've said it on multiple occasions - there's absolutely no Irish nationalism from my point of view. And you can see that the work that took place on the task force and Flashes refusal on many occasions to engage meaningfully. --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The two are completely separate issues. You might just as well extend the Troubles ruling over the Macedonian naming dispute. Mister Flash (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I've only just seen this now. I hadn't been informed of this discussion. I arrived here as I was about to make a complaint about Mister Flash concerning this edit on St. Peter's Church, St. George's and Strumpshaw Fen RSPB reserve. Despite his untrue assertion that I was forced to create the Specific Examples page, the truth is that and I voluntarily set it up despite my misgivings about censorship - and in part because I had a good idea that it would end in disruption by a very small number of editors. Despite several warnings about civility, editing without following policy guidelines regarding references, and constantly branding any attempt to even discuss usage of British Isles as "political", his behaviour is not collaborative and he constantly edit-wars against consensus. He was warned in the past to not revert referenced material, but the two recent examples above clearly show that he openly ignores policy and admins. The Task Force has ground to a halt because of his behaviour and stone-walling. Examining his edits clearly shows he wikihounds my edits, and reverts without references or discussions. He takes the opportunity in his edit summaries, on every occasion, to label the edits as political or to unfairly cast any editors motives. In short, this is exactly the type of editor that we simply don't want on this project. He has recently been blocked for edit-warring, but his recent reverts demonstrate that he will simply continue to revert without reason in the future. --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the purpose of the task force just now. Its sole purpose is to limit, and ideally eliminate, usage of the term British Isles throughout Wikipedia; straight up. Mister Flash (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Having seen various disputes in this area, I think it may be best if the community looks at restricting one or both of the editors from adding or removing the term, period. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain who you mean by "both" (I thought this was about Mister Flash's behaviour - are we extending this?). It might be helpful if you provided some diffs showing example of the other editor's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We have good and bad uses of the term SirFozzie, what we want to stop is edit wars. HighKing has (to his credit) after a long period of removing the term wherever he could find it, being prepared to use the task force page. However Mr Flash with some others (LevenBoy being another) have with the very very occasional exception simply said no to any change regardless of the evidence. At one point I suggested a protocol which in a modified form would I think work. However any attempt to be even handed just results in the sort of accusations you can see above. Mister Flash's view of the purpose of the Taskforce is not supported by any examination of the cases there. Any examination of the edit history on the task force page, or on the articles will show that we have a single purpose editor who auto-reverts, makes accusations against other editors and actively seeks to prevent consensus on contentious issues. I've been prepared to spend time on the task force, looking at each issue as have a small number of other editors with experience of the BI issue. I can see some guidelines starting to emerge. However it is a thankless task when all attempts are subject to disruption and accusations. Per the proposed protocol, enforcing use of the task force and some dispute resolution process could work with community support. --Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

While observation does bare this Snowded, from an outside perspective it is only proper that we handle this dispute neutrally. HK and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. Yes there are other, more serious, issues with Mister Flash's on site activity but revert wrring is a serious matter and needs to be seen as such by those who engage in it.
While I think there are positive aspects to your protocol I don't see it as a positive step for the project. We have the BI SE task force itself, WP:CSB for countering systemic bias, WP:WQA, WP:AN3, WP:AN, WP:RFP for policy issues and admin intervention and the ArbCom enforcement policies for the troubles rfar - which dealt with a similar (but not the same) naming dispute. We don't need a special group for this dispute.
In short we have policies for behaviour and content already. If certain volunteers can't follow the rules then we will prevent them from disrupting others who will. Simple as that--Cailil ^talk 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please point out where I edit warred with Flash - that's twice you've made that accusation. I believe you'll find that Flash was editting against concensus. You use 3 examples above, none of which can be regarded by any stretch as edit warring. And BTW, you must also take into account that for some of this time, BlackKite had ruled that no editor could revert a good edit especially if it involved references, which Flash continues to do on a regular basis. Many of my reverts were valid, and I made sure I didn't start an edit war. If you check the articles in question, you'll find other editors did far more reverting of Flash that I did. Sure, on occassion I have become frustrated with his behaviour, but I have never breached policy, or even warned or blocked for edit warring. Do not make the mistake of grouping me with disruptive editors. This is another example of an exaggerated and unfounded allegation, borne from the severe breaches of WP:CIVIL that accompany most of my edits. I'm no martyr, but please please please take the time to examine my behaviour (especially in the context of the very severe bullying, namecalling, and name blackening I have been subjected to over the past number of years), and if there's problems, provide diffs. I believe you'll conclude that my behaviour has not crossed any line or breached any policy. --HighKing (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh the Irony: Had the propper action been taken in the first place, perhaps there would have been no need to Shoot the messenger again!! for the same misdemeanor. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid disagreeing with actions that are taken does not allow you to break WP:EDITWAR. It is clear however that you have other interests and productively edit so I recommend you just disengage from Mister Flash. The community can handle this--Cailil ^talk 11:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see diffs for the alleged "long period of removing the term wherever he (HighKing) could find it". As far as I can see, it is an unfairly-repeated exaggeration at its very best, and a real slur on a committed editor at worst. He began a bit rashly as Bardcom (a long time ago now, and I was one of those who called him up on being too 'prissy' in his reactions to some simply concerned requests, and I reverted any BI changes I disagreed with), but this repeated exaggeration of HK being a "extremist" editor is totally unfounded as far as I can see. Nobody saying it is proving it - it's just all words.

The term "British Isles" was incorrectly-used all over Wikipedia, and Bardcom/HighKing had every right to go from article to article addressing it. He has always listened to article-related criticism, and avoided uses of the term which are obviously correct. Very occasionally he copy-edits away from a 'fair' use of the term (ie when various descriptive routes can easily be taken) - but again that is simply an editing right. As HighKing (perhaps a name to start afresh with) he has stood behind every form of BI-related taksforce, when others have shunned them for various reasons.

In between there have often been people around who have insisted that the term 'British Isles' should be used widely and without censor - a situation which will never suit Wikipedia, or kind of consistent dictionary or encylcopedia.

If HighKing gets a topic ban I will take this to he top and shine a light on everyone involved. I'm tired of seeing the actual workers get the eventual heavy blows on Wikipedia. There is no sense in it at all. And I am not 'anti' the term British Isles, I'm very much a 'British' editor. Terms like British Isles are simply problematic. "British Isles" is both inherently potentially-misleading, and has different definitions on the actual islands it covers, and regarding its mixed cultural/political/geographical usage too. The only way Wikipedia is going to deal with those inherent problems is via the kind of Style and terminology Guidelines that every other serious encyclopedia adheres to in these situations.

Until that guideline happens, topic-banning or unduly restricting any editors for reverting each other (eg punishing them outside of simple 3RR or Civility) would be punishing them for Wikipedia's own clear failings. The guideline will happen eventually (I'll be back on it soon myself), and until they are completed we need to stick to the Specific Examples page and 3RR. After we have those guidelines, admin will be much clearer about how to address any situations that could flare up (and these would be minimised anyway), and the future will be a lot less fractious, and actually quite-easily managed. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt do you think as an Irishman I am unaware of the misuse of the term 'British Isles'? I agree with your points re the term except that we do already have a standard here on wp - verifiability. If a source uses a term we use it. If a source uses another term we use that. It's really very simple. Secondly, I am not out to blacken HK's name, but you should be arware that in cases of revert warring blocking "both sides" is a common and oft justified result. It takes two to tango. And if outsiders see a long term pattern of problems then that needs to be addressed. I am convinced that HK should be placed on a 1RR but that's all. Others have stated that we should consider a topic ban- I agree that the community should consider that but I'm not in favour of it.
Also please note that threatening people who have come in to resolve an editwar with 'scrutiny' is not compatible with WP:CIVIL. But please feel free to bring this to ArbCom by all means. I remain convinced that the community can sort this out and I believe that theArbs would see it that way too--Cailil ^talk 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, if you consider that the term British Isles is "misused" (in Wikipedia?) then you really should consider recusal from this debate. Yes, the term is used in error, though not often, but I have yet to see anywhere in Wikipedia where it's being misused - a word that implies abuse. Mister Flash (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

People do seem to forget the amount of unquestionably good work HK has done - the work we'd all (even if reluctantly) agree was clearly beneficial to Wikipedia. Who wants a term used incorrectly? When he first addressed BI it was misused (used incorrectly, whatever) a lot. Less so now, obviously. IMO, to go up to 3RR to include "British Isles" in places where it could be extra-ambiguous, not greatly needed, and liable to cause offence, is not clever at all. There are simply other terms we can use. I think it sould be the term for geographical/archipelago use, and a guideline should state this. I know you've put it in places - if it is in a 'political' use, I'd like that to change via a guideline. Muliti-meaning terms need to be handled properly, per other encyclopdia's like Britannica. The main thing is that the term does not get outlawed. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone would have to attempt the 1RR before I'd bother Arbcom, obviously. Are you saying you don't think the Arbs would support a BI guideline? I would have to disagree on that.

Regarding my comment on "shining a light" (hardly a real civility infringement surely?) - I didn't mean "everyone" literally. What I meant is that I won't stand back and let HighKing be punished unfairly alone (or even along with Mister Flash). I won't accept such injustice, and opening up other's edits on BI should be enough to stop things from developing. You (and those who support such punitive actions) do need to see how strongly I feel about dishing out 1RR's and topic bans - because I won't be alone on this, especially regarding an editor with a law-abiding background like HighKing's. I'd like to know how you can be so "convinced" that HK should be on 1RR? What is your justification for what is in my eyes a very very very serious act? Editors are not make of clay - you cannot just mould them into shape to solve an external problem when they haven't done anything wrong. And who says he should have a actual topic ban?! I would see that as nothing less than a human rights infringement - he has done nothing to deserve that at all. Was it actually an uninvolved person, or just someone who counter-edits him on BI? Editors are real people who invest hours of their life to Wikipedia - they have to be treated with human respect.

Do you actually have compelling diffs where HighKing has failed to be a civil and law abiding editor? How many times has he been blocked or warned for civility? This would need to be shown.

IMO, to give HighKing 1RR is simply to use an iron fist on a committed editor, to paper over a crack that will only grow. So why is it even being suggested? Imo it is ultimately down to a problem that scars Wikipedia throughout: the single-minded faith in the verifiability rule. X says Y so the resultant Z is the truth for this sentence. Once you establish the 'truth' you can take it anywhere. It is a philosophical nightmare. Single-minded faith in V is the single worst enemy of Wikipedia, and this very AN page is full of examples of it. Some people think that can simply cripple the annoying editors, and then V will win out and save the day again: in fact V is abused evey day and every where. Would you allow every permutation of meaning of "British Isles", simply because there is a "verified source" for each meaning? Perhaps two different meanings in the very same article? Why not? And what if someone just wants to use "British Isles" as a descriptive term without a source being needed? Verification is as much a curse as it is a benefit - it must always be used with caution and a starting point only. One day Policy will properly reflect that, instead of being so utterly flimsy on the matter. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt regarding the suggested 1RR do you understand WP:EDITWAR? Secondly in regard to your discussion of sources do you understand WP:NOR and how it works with WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE)?
We do not need a new policy wikipedia about terminology whether it has to do with the use of 'British Isles' or 'French Polynesia'. We have polices and standards. Wikipedia is not here to correct the wrongs and/or the perceived wrongs of the world. We reflect reliable sources about notable subjects in a neutral manner, full stop.--Cailil ^talk 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you asking if I understand core policy like Edit warring, No Point of View, No Original Research, and Undue Weight? There is 'WP' somewhere on doing that to an experienced editor: it's not considered particularly polite to frame it like that. WP:Verify stops at the first line for people who want to get their point in at all costs - any long-standing copy editor will tell you that. V is a bugger to challenge, despite red flag (the best part of weight). When we know that V is so challenged, why rely on it to save us after we find ourselves in a position where someone like yourself wants to force 1RR on a decent editor? Just because V should work? It's just not logical.

Wikipedia has a great many guidelines in MOS - one more on using "British Isles" will not hurt anyone. Wikipedia does need it I'm afraid. V is not a "Full stop" for me. Wikipedia was designed to empower people, not mislead them - we must never forget that amongst all the 'WP'. Despite the cries of "no no we must NOT right wrongs!!!". Simply expecting accuracy should not be seen as a partisan thing. Most of the problems, sins and failings of Wikipedia effectively hide behind (or stem from) the inadequacies of policy. Or else why are they there? And why would you be suggesting 1RR on someone such as HighKing?

1RR is not in WP:EDITWAR, nor is it in policy anywhere: you want to do it because policy has failed. HighKing hasn't failed anything. Simply re-trying different copy or reverting someone happens all the time - it's how WIkipedia improves. It is NOT edit warring, unless there is bad intent and a failure to discuss, or it gets to 3RR. All per WP:EDITWAR. Effectively it's another ambiguity, as almost all reverting/replacing could be called edit warring (and probably has at some point). The question is - do we use are heads over difficult matters and look at guidelines, or just focus solely on V, quote downwards, then punish when things go wrong? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt, I apologize if I came across as antagonistic towards you. But you seem to missing the core point I'm making about how casual, wholesale reverting is a problem. Edit wars, be they fast or slow, degrade our articles' histories. There is rarely one user involved in an edit war and when 'all sides' have been educated, warned, blocked, restricted etc we must take action to prevent article's histories or parts there of being rendered useless.
I disagree with you as regards the MOS, but that's my view. If you want to propose it at the MOS go ahead. I don't see a need for it, as WP:UNDUE and WP:V should cover it, but I respect your view - perhaps others will be more supportive. Also, and just FYI, 1RR is spelled out here--Cailil ^talk 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those battles (they pop up from time to time) end up being a stage in the current process - I've seen the flurries happen (people may push 3RR, but they are seeing who if anyone comes to support, which can happen of course), and then they focus on the SE page, and then a solution is found (sometimes this is all smooth, other times its more protracted). It's the various 'words' said in between from some parties which is the most disappointing aspect imo (HK has taken things on the SE page admin would look at on article talk). But it's just the way it goes - the term is a real problem on Wikpiedia. A guideline has actually been worked on, on and off, for a long time. It has a couple of major issues to iron out (and the current version is a bit convoluted), but I'm certain that eventually something will be proposed. There is strong support both for and against having one. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions

As discussed above: it is proposed that Mister Flash is either topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed) and restricted from all contact and communication with User:HighKing or User:Þjóðólfr, or site banned.
That User:HighKing is either placed on revert restriction (1RR) or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being [and] restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash. And that User:Þjóðólfr is either placed on revert restriction (1RR) and/or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash.
I would suggest considering his perfromance here that if Mister Flash is not site banned that he is additionally placed on civity parole--Cailil ^talk 09:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked above, and I'll ask again. This is about Flash. Are we extending it to include me and User:Þjóðólfr? You've provided no basis for calling for a topic ban or 1RR for my behaviour. It's also noteworthy that other editors involved in the Task Force have not backed up woolly allegations against me, yet you are continuing to try to push through a punishment. This doesn't reflect well on the project, or on the due diligence we'd expect from elected admins. --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

HK, both you and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. He didn't do that alone and both you and Þjóðólfr seem to have missed the point about how serious edit-warring is taken. But I am not seeking to puinish you this is a preventative measure until you can demonstrate that you understand what you were doing wrong. Also please bear in mind 3 sysops have posted here - we're all looking for further input this section gives the community a choice of sanctions and a space to voice their opinions. I've stated above that both myself and Sir Fozzie think we should examine the possibility of wider sanctions rather than just for Mister Flash and that both of us are not sure whether you should be topic banned. I personally don't think so but I do think the wider community should be consulted. Please be clear this is for the edit warring with Mister Flash that is shown above in the diffs I found. His behaviour has been duly noted--Cailil ^talk 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Cailil, I have been in general agreement with you so far. However HighKing has been prepared to submit to the discipline of proposing changes at the task force rather than making them directly. He has also abided by the decisions there, something which is not the case with Mister Flash. I suggest a better approach would be to enforce use of the task force, with a ban on any aware editor (in practice that is all those engaged), making any changes prior to agreement there. You could make that more specific to editors who have edit warred, ie preventing them from making the changes. --Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowded there is nothing to prevent you from formulating a remedy for HK along these lines for community discussion. That is all I've done above (and BTW I was asking outsiders for input as User:2over0 was). However, your suggestion seems like something the community might consider reasonable. I prefer sanctions to be cleaner - from experience that's what works. But there's always a first time--Cailil ^talk 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is pretty much the practice the Task Force asked editors to abide by. With minor exceptions, it worked pretty well to a point. Twas the lack of enforcement that made it difficult to continue at times. (Leaving aside the constant abuse, the editing against consensus, the lack of engagement, etc.) If the Task Force had more discussion with the idea of creating guidelines and more editors submitted examples I think this might work. I'd certainly sign up to it (on the basis that the original rules regarding civility and no stonewalling are *strictly* enforced). --HighKing (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We musn't forget that the Specific Examples page in the taskforce was optional for HighKing and everyone involved. My understanding was that HK readily volunteered to it, as he has with all of the taskforce since it started. There is no law on Wikipedia to say people cannot edit the term "British Isles" without opening a discussion first. The real sense in the SE page was that it got debate away from the article talk pages, saving them from being locked for the duration of the debate (like at River Shannon when Tharkuncoll was involved, just before the taskforce started). I can't see how Wikipedia can actually manage forcing people to use something like the SE page though, even if it was the right approach. For me the guideline is the only solution. Until then though, we should encourage each other to stick with the SE page, and I'll try and look it more myself too. The more people who weigh in, the more effective it is. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the task force - but is Snowded wants to put it for discussion as an alternative suggestion to mine that's fine with me--Cailil ^talk 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to restate what I said above - the diffs you found do *not* show me edit warring with Flash. --HighKing (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You also state above that you are not setting out to "blacken" my name. But in actual fact, that's what appears to be happening. You say it takes two to tango, but in this case you'll find that Flash edited against consensus on the Task Force and several editors reverted his persistent edit warring. Why pick me out - I wouldn't even be counted as the editor that has reverted his edits the most, or even the 2nd or 3rd most. Just because Flash has been levelling his guns at me for an extended period of time does *not* mean that you should apply sanctions to me. You should not even suggest it! Because less diligent admins and readers will just pick up and say "Oh, but there must have been something in it. No smoke without fire, etc". Please. Please. Please. Listen to the other editors that have worked on the Task Force. Or that I've "disagreed" with in the past. Look at my edit history - especially in the context of the abuse I've been the target of. And stop trying to, intentionally or not, lump my editing and behaviour alongside that of Flash. That is wrong and unfair. --HighKing (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

HK I am not out to blacken your name. And on an extend review of multiple pages (which I'll post here in about an hour) I've decided to alter my position. I've striken my suggestion that you should be topic banned. I however do believe the rest of eth community should *look* at your revert pattern and I suggest a 1RR for 6 months. An alternative would be a voluntary revert cap on your BI reverts per page (rather than per day). On review this is not much different to your actual practice. And if there's a problem with reverts out of order bring it to ANI or to my attention or another admin if I'm not around. I would be satisfied with that - as long as the community is. My view of Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash has not improved. And extended review of edit patterns shows Flash wikihounding you and Þjóðólfr following and revert warring with him. That's a serious issue--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, peace. I accept you aren't out to blacken my name on purpose, but from experience I've seen that once someone calls you a duck (and especially an admin, and most especially here), you're a duck. Thanks though for reviewing my edits. You'd be surprised how many times my behaviour is made to fit the accusations. You'll no doubt have seen that a lot of different things have been tried in the past, including 1RR. I've no problem with attempts to try to limit disruption and I've always agreed and adhered to the community processes. But also note that a sanction pointed at me will be seen as a punishment for a breach of policy or rules, and this is how other editors and admins will view it. Context is often forgotten. Singling me out in this way would beg the question as to why? Other editors who have worked with me (and not always agreed with me) on this topic are saying to you that I'm not disruptive, I engage, I remain civil, etc. This started off talking about Flash's behaviour, and he neatly tried to turn it into a content dispute, or that he was merely retaliating to provocation. This isn't true, and I believe Þjóðólfr grew frustrated and took action on occasion when he couldn't understand why Flash could edit against consensus, revert without discussion, revert while removing references, etc, and all without any sanction. I've also pointed this out in the past to admins such as BlackKite but he retired and I would guess partially because he was fed up with behaviour such as we've seen from Flash. I'll back off this discussion now, since I'm happy that you've reviewed, etc. --HighKing (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

HK, let's cut to the quick; if you'll volunteer not to junk British Isles from Wikipedia again (unless its use is absolutely in error) I will never revert your edits, I will never add British Isles under any cicumstances and I won't engage in any activity that others might construe as wikihounding. Whilst I am the subject of this thread, your actions are instrumental in the debate, so it's only natural that they are also being highlighted. Do we have an agreement? Surely it's not a lot to ask that you don't remove British Isles? Oh yes, and I acknowledge that many of my posts directed at you have been over the top and uncalled for, and for them I apologise now. Mister Flash (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash, you're very much mistaken if you believe this is solely about you and me. Nor is it about "British Isles". This is about your behaviour within this project since you started. Now that your behaviour is put under a microscope and editors and admins are discussing serious sanctions, you offer a belated apology to me (under duress). I'd like to accept the apology, but I've no reason to believe it is genuine or made in good faith. I'm sure others wouldn't be foolish enough to either. BTW, it doesn't help by starting with calling for me to "volunteer not to junk British Isles from Wikipedia" and trying to associate your behaviour with mine or trying to make you that somehow I have caused you to behave in this way. I do not bait you, or wikihound you. Your proposal is also transparent since your stated aim is to prevent any editor from discussing any article in any way which might result in the article being rewritten and the term "British Isles" being removed. Thankfully it seems you caught the attention of an admin who decided enough was enough. --HighKing (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen disengage from one another please--Cailil^talk 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, and why now? I thought they are supposed to talk? I don't get all this, but I'm very concerned about it. I'm really worried about big heavy power moves on the horizon as I've invested a lot of time in BI. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Stage one of dispute resolution: stay cool and disengage (that doesn't mean don't talk ever again - just the equivalent of "break it up"). This page isn't for personalized statements--Cailil ^talk 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "heavy power moves". I've stated clear what I'm suggesting. Community sanctions - that's it. I believe that will solve the problem without the need for anything more. drop me a talk page line if you're worried about something specific--Cailil ^talk 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just worried that a big ruling of some kind will come and essentially make the guideline harder to achieve. The taskforce and SE page were needed and positive ideas, but the guideline is the only thing a this stage that is actually a 'positive' thing (in itself), and the only thing I can envisage working.Matt Lewis (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither I and nor another admin would have such power. AFAIK even ArbCom could only propose a MFD for the page - so I don't think that's likely to happen--Cailil ^talk 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I did try for an agreement, so carry on; topic ban, site ban, whatever. It makes no difference. This will not end here. The British Isles removals will no doubt carry on, and with a renewed vigor, since it seems they are being endorsed. I predict a never ending dispute, after all, it's been going on for at least two years already. The opportunity is here, now, to put an end to it, but the deletionists are reserving their right to continue unrestricted; the opportunity appears to be fading away. Mister Flash (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for silly deals. You should be careful here that speaking for others doesn't make you look like you run more than one account. When the taskforce started Mister Flash wasn't around, remember. And framing two years in terms of being "therefore never ending" looks iffy too. What about before then? HighKing actually advocates a guideline, so things would surely end with that for him. 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Place British Isles usage under the 1RR limit. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to misrepresent other editors Mister Flash - that's the 2nd time you've misrepresented me in 24 hours. For the record nobody is endorsing any content issue. This is about behaviour; edit-warring specifically. And as I've said feel free to others open an RfAr. But the community should be able to handle this--Cailil ^talk 00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting you or any other editor. Stroll on! Is my phraseology so difficult to understand? It's the process that is currently ensuing that I'm commenting on, not you. Mister Flash (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Shouldn't someone tell Þjóðólfr seeing as there's discussions about banning him? It's more than a little concerning that this ANI, originally set up to discuss Mister Flash's behaviour, has been expanded beyond the original scope, and that the editors being discussed haven't been officially notified. --HighKing (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He was advised if you check his talk page, but has deleted it along with other material --Snowded ^TALK 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For outside input sanctions re: Mister Flash and Þjóðólfr

As above it is suggest that that Mister Flash is either topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed) and restricted from all contact and communication with User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr, or site banned.
That User:Þjóðólfr is placed on revert restriction (1RR) and/or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash. If User:HighKing is willing to voluntarily cap his reverts I would be satisfied with that. But please refer above for other suggestions.
Note to users related to or involved with the dispute please post in the above section entitled 'sanctions'--Cailil ^talk 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC) For evidence see:

British Isles naming dispute edit war to Feb 2010
padding
Report in relation to a long running edit war concerning the use of the term 'British Isles' in wikipedia. Editors mainly involved Mister Flash (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Þjóðólfr (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) HighKing (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) Summary Mister Flash is revert warring with High King while wikihounding him. User:Þjóðólfr has revert warred with Mister Flash while wikihounding him. HighKing has on occasion used the revert function to restore his preferred version of a page. Evidence As the listing of diffs would be exhausting. What is presented below are the revision histories of some of the articles involved in the dispute. The list is broken into 3 sections: current, ended December 2009-January 2010, and ended before December 2009. The most relevant sections are the first two. The other shows context. Current Five Peaks Challenge - very long padding 18:55, 12 February 2010 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (1,421 bytes) (Rv) (undo) 18:46, 12 February 2010 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,418 bytes) (Undid revision 343586472 by BigDunc (talk)Not only have you removed BI, you've also removed non-controversial stuff.) (undo) 18:45, 12 February 2010 BigDunc (talk | contribs | block) (1,412 bytes) (Reverted to revision 343576746 by Snowded; per Snowded. (TW)) (undo) 18:03, 12 February 2010 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,418 bytes) (Fix paragraph) (undo) 17:58, 12 February 2010 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,429 bytes) (Undid revision 343576746 by Snowded (talk)Using BI doesn't detract from cited material) (undo) 17:43, 12 February 2010 Snowded (talk | contribs | block) (1,412 bytes) (conform description to cited material.) (undo) 17:19, 12 February 2010 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,429 bytes) (Undid revision 341636960 by Snowded (talk)Revert to common sense description) (undo) 06:34, 3 February 2010 Snowded (talk | contribs | block) (1,412 bytes) (conform to citation) (undo) 23:44, 28 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,089 bytes) (Undid revision 334634849 by Þjóðólfr (talk)Rv vandalism) (undo) 23:43, 28 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (1,101 bytes) (Equally self evident) (undo) 23:37, 28 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,089 bytes) (Ref not needed here. It's self evident.) (undo) 23:04, 28 December 2009 86.31.45.117 (talk | block) (1,096 bytes) (Undid revision 334628720 by Snowded (talk)) (undo) 22:57, 28 December 2009 Snowded (talk | contribs | block) (1,072 bytes) (conform opening line to references (although they are poor, they mention each country by name)) (undo) 22:36, 28 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,096 bytes) (Take out Notability tag. Already tested with AfD) (undo) 21:46, 28 December 2009 Snowded (talk | contribs | block) (1,108 bytes) (The reference given is not a reliable source) (undo) 18:18, 28 December 2009 Canterbury Tail (talk | contribs | block) (1,079 bytes) (request suitable references, ones provided are not suitable and make no support of the claims they are being used to back up. IN fact they are links, not references.) (undo) 15:19, 28 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,275 bytes) (Removed tags - references are given and notability has recently been tested by AfD) (undo) 15:10, 23 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,275 bytes) (Undid revision 333563176 by HighKing (talk)Corrected) (undo) 15:04, 23 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (1,312 bytes) (Corrected) (undo) 22:18, 11 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,310 bytes) (Undid revision 331154818 by HighKing (talk)) (undo) 21:26, 11 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (1,347 bytes) (As per guidelines, used the smallest relevant area) (undo) 18:52, 11 December 2009 Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk | contribs | block) m (1,310 bytes) (moved 5 Peaks Challenge to Five Peaks Challenge: Spell out "5" per MOS) (undo) 18:09, 11 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,310 bytes) (Bit of rewrite) (undo) 13:32, 11 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (1,285 bytes) (Undid revision 330965322 by LevenBoy (talk)RV WP:V self-published and obviously incorrect) (undo) 23:01, 10 December 2009 LevenBoy (talk | contribs | block) (1,310 bytes) (Ref added) (undo) 18:16, 10 December 2009 Snowded (talk | contribs | block) (1,285 bytes) (countries is inappropriate there) (undo) 17:41, 10 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (1,307 bytes) (List the countries) (undo)[52] Ended December 2009-January 2010 Tin whistle padding HighKing Revision as of 19:08, 21 December 2009 Mister Flash Revision as of 19:21, 21 December 2009 HighKing Revision as of 19:08, 21 December 2009 Mister Flash Revision as of 14:09, 23 December 2009 1960 in rail transport padding 15:39, 13 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (5,741 bytes) (Restore previous version. Reference requested was for somthing else) (undo) 15:16, 13 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,832 bytes) (→June events: fix ref) (undo) 15:15, 13 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,831 bytes) (→June events: add reference) (undo) 15:13, 13 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,742 bytes) (Undid revision 331430557 by Mister Flash (talk)Rv tenacious and disruptive article spoiling) (undo) 13:46, 13 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (5,741 bytes) (Undid revision 331307332 by HighKing (talk)Your version is also unreferenced!) (undo) 19:53, 12 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,742 bytes) (Undid revision 331305856 by Mister Flash (talk)As per SE page (unreferenced)) (undo) 19:43, 12 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (5,741 bytes) (Undid revision 331200183 by HighKing (talk)) (undo) 02:52, 12 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,742 bytes) (Undid revision 331163086 by Mister Flash (talk)No reference) (undo) 22:19, 11 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (5,741 bytes) (Undid revision 331155995 by HighKing (talk)) (undo) 21:34, 11 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,742 bytes) (Undid revision 331121693 by Mister Flash (talk)As per guidelines and SE page) (undo) 17:46, 11 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (5,741 bytes) (Undid revision 331089546 by HighKing (talk)Corrected to British Isles) (undo) 13:53, 11 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,742 bytes) (corrected to UK) (undo) [53] Henry John Elwes padding 00:01, 25 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (11,185 bytes) (Undid revision 333885573 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 23:43, 24 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (11,173 bytes) (Undid revision 333884663 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 23:35, 24 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (11,185 bytes) (Undid revision 333880199 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 23:02, 24 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (11,173 bytes) (Undid revision 333878181 by HighKing (talk)No consensus) (undo) 22:48, 24 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (11,185 bytes) (Undid revision 333582422 by Mister Flash (talk)Rv - this has been discussed on SE page) (undo) 17:07, 23 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (11,173 bytes) (Undid revision 333582256 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 17:07, 23 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (11,185 bytes) (Undid revision 333581279 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 17:03, 23 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (11,173 bytes) (Undid revision 333576304 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 16:37, 23 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (11,185 bytes) (Undid revision 333565447 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 15:22, 23 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (11,173 bytes) (Undid revision 333563870 by HighKing (talk)GB&I may be incorrect. IoM and CI excluded. Expert advice needed) (undo) 15:10, 23 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (11,185 bytes) (→Trees of Great Britain and Ireland: Corrected) (undo)[54] Sarum Rite padding 21:23, 24 December 2009 Tcncv (talk | contribs | block) (14,305 bytes) (Fully-protected for three days - content dispute) (undo) 21:21, 24 December 2009 Tcncv (talk | contribs | block) m (14,283 bytes) (Protected Sarum Rite: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)))) (undo) 21:04, 24 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (14,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333865778 by Off2riorob (talk)) (undo) 21:01, 24 December 2009 Off2riorob (talk | contribs | block) (14,259 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Þjóðólfr; Stop edit warring over this change, move to discussion . (TW)) (undo) 20:56, 24 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (14,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333861494 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 20:31, 24 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (14,259 bytes) (Undid revision 333859836 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 20:19, 24 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (14,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333851346 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 19:20, 24 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (14,259 bytes) (Undid revision 333849932 by BigDunc (talk)) (undo) 19:10, 24 December 2009 BigDunc (talk | contribs | block) (14,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333847267 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 18:51, 24 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (14,259 bytes) (Undid revision 333844432 by HighKing (talk)No consensus for this change) (undo) 18:31, 24 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (14,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333581406 by Mister Flash (talk)RV - please see SE page where it was discussed) (undo) 17:03, 23 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (14,259 bytes) (Undid revision 333576647 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 16:39, 23 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (14,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333565222 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 15:20, 23 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (14,259 bytes) (Undid revision 333564203 by HighKing (talk)Resotre stable version pending expert opinion) (undo) 15:12, 23 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (14,283 bytes) (corrected) (undo)[55] The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen padding 00:44, 10 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (114,942 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by Mister Flash; Revert to accurate source version. (TW)) (undo) 20:44, 8 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (114,953 bytes) (Undid revision 330277044 by HighKing (talk)Revert - WP:BOLD see earlier) (undo) 20:43, 8 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (115,023 bytes) (Undid revision 330277646 by HighKing (talk)Revert -WP:BOLD. Tkae to SE page for discussion) (undo) 17:51, 7 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (114,942 bytes) (→1610s: Corrected to agree with BLKD) (undo) 17:47, 7 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (115,023 bytes) (→12th Century, BCE: Changed - Britain is not the same as British Isles) (undo) Nothofagus dombeyi padding 13:15, 5 January 2010 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,273 bytes) (Undid revision 335487375 by Mister Flash (talk)Rv as per SE page) (undo) 18:03, 2 January 2010 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (5,259 bytes) (undo) 16:12, 22 October 2009 Dentren (talk | contribs | block) (5,273 bytes) (→References and external links) (undo) 18:24, 1 October 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs | block) (5,269 bytes) (Reference added for British Isles) (undo) 13:04, 1 October 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,126 bytes) (Undid revision 316987750 by TharkunColl (talk)Undo as per BK guidelines - no ref) (undo) 23:53, 29 September 2009 TharkunColl (talk | contribs | block) (5,124 bytes) (British Islands is a purely legal term connected with citizenship) (undo) 18:17, 29 September 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (5,126 bytes) (Undid revision 314445740 by TharkunColl (talk)Undo, I suspect UK is better term) (undo) 00:02, 17 September 2009 TharkunColl (talk | contribs | block) (5,124 bytes) ("British Islands" is a legal term invented in 1889) (undo) Neopaganism padding 01:28, 12 January 2010 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (43,807 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by Mister Flash; Rv - reference provided. (TW)) (undo) 19:50, 10 January 2010 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (43,628 bytes) (Undid revision 337018655 by HighKing (talk)) (undo) 19:50, 10 January 2010 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (43,650 bytes) (Undid revision 337028811 by HighKing (talk)) (undo) 17:42, 10 January 2010 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (43,807 bytes) (Added ref) (undo) 16:38, 10 January 2010 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (43,650 bytes) (Changed to agree with references) (undo)[56] Mediterranean campaign of 1798 padding 19:38, 12 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (66,457 bytes) (Undid revision 331289561 by HighKing (talk)You are not an expert. JackD is.) (undo) 17:52, 12 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (66,483 bytes) (Undid revision 331255921 by Jackyd101 (talk)Rv as per SE page - WP:OR and unreferenced. Take to SE page to discuss) (undo) 13:07, 12 December 2009 Jackyd101 (talk | contribs | block) (66,457 bytes) (Undid revision 331249694 by Þjóðólfr (talk) how many times? Do not make these changes while discussion is ongoing) (undo) 11:52, 12 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (66,483 bytes) (rv) (undo) 11:01, 12 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (66,457 bytes) (Undid revision 331224253 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 06:35, 12 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (66,483 bytes) (rv If you want to use your Reference add it to the text) (undo) 22:21, 11 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (66,457 bytes) (Undid revision 331156686 by HighKing (talk)) (undo) 21:38, 11 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (66,483 bytes) (Rv as per SE page) (undo) 00:21, 9 December 2009 Jackyd101 (talk | contribs | block) (66,457 bytes) (→Bonaparte's plan: rm "successful" per talk page) (undo) 00:07, 9 December 2009 Jackyd101 (talk | contribs | block) (66,468 bytes) (Undid revision 330565521 by Þjóðólfr (talk) much worse way of saying the same thing) (undo) 23:58, 8 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (66,483 bytes) (→Bonaparte's plan: per talk) (undo) 23:49, 8 December 2009 Jackyd101 (talk | contribs | block) (66,468 bytes) (→Bibliography: source) (undo) 23:48, 8 December 2009 Jackyd101 (talk | contribs | block) (66,200 bytes) (→Bonaparte's plan: ref) (undo) 23:23, 8 December 2009 Jackyd101 (talk | contribs | block) (66,165 bytes) (Undid revision 330539718 by GoodDay (talk)see talk) (undo) 21:37, 8 December 2009 GoodDay (talk | contribs | block) (66,138 bytes) (→Bonaparte's plan: Removing 'un-needed' info) (undo) 20:41, 8 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (66,165 bytes) (Undid revision 330490832 by HighKing (talk)Revert - WP:BOLD. Take to SE page for dicussion) (undo) 17:26, 8 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (66,101 bytes) (→Bonaparte's plan: Fixed according to related SE page discussions, and existing reference) (undo) [57] List of extinct states padding 19:37, 12 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (60,012 bytes) (Undid revision 331289097 by HighKing (talk)Don't get it, do you) (undo) 17:48, 12 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (60,049 bytes) (Let's just correct it for accuracy - none of these "extinct states" have anything to do with IoM or CI (as per SE page)) (undo) 17:17, 12 December 2009 Jackyd101 (talk | contribs | block) (60,012 bytes) (→Europe: tense) (undo) 17:34, 11 December 2009 MaxEspinho (talk | contribs | block) (60,024 bytes) (→Asia) (undo) 02:09, 7 December 2009 Yopie (talk | contribs | block) (60,013 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 72.192.215.76; Rv unexpained del. (TW)) (undo) 01:42, 7 December 2009 72.192.215.76 (talk | block) (59,948 bytes) (→Asia) (undo) 22:16, 6 December 2009 Colonies Chris (talk | contribs | block) m (60,013 bytes) (→Modern states: sp, date & link fixes using AWB) (undo) 21:32, 4 December 2009 95.96.198.252 (talk | block) (60,660 bytes) (→Pre-colonial Africa) (undo) 00:41, 30 November 2009 Black Kite (talk | contribs | block) (60,673 bytes) (rv back to long-standing version - take to Specific Examples page please) (undo) 22:21, 29 November 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (60,722 bytes) (Changed back to current state names) (undo) 23:59, 28 November 2009 JaGa (talk | contribs | block) m (60,673 bytes) (Disambiguate Santa Catarina to Santa Catarina (state) using popups) (undo) 12:08, 27 November 2009 LevenBoy (talk | contribs | block) (60,650 bytes) (Undid revision 328132075 by HighKing (talk)No agreement to do this) (undo) 01:29, 27 November 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (60,687 bytes) (→Europe: Changed to current state names) (undo) Ended before December 2009 Military history of Britain padding 08:39, 16 May 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (21,556 bytes) (Undid revision 290212944 by HighKing (talk)Not currently being discussed. Put back sensible addition) (undo) 01:16, 16 May 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (21,560 bytes) (Undid revision 290179083 by Mister Flash (talk) Removed tokenism inclusion of IDF until Talk resolved) (undo) 21:52, 15 May 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (21,556 bytes) (→See also: Remove red link, add blue link to Irish Defence Forces) (undo) Hebrides padding 06:13, 4 August 2008 Crazygraham (talk | contribs | block) (13,125 bytes) (Re-worded the first part in language. Not sure about Hebrides as a whole, but the Western Isles don't even compose half of all Gaelic speakers.) (undo) 08:29, 26 July 2008 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs | block) (13,148 bytes) (→The arts: Add information) (undo) 08:04, 26 July 2008 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs | block) (12,064 bytes) (Quick tidy up of lead and headings per WP:MOS) (undo) 20:15, 25 July 2008 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs | block) (11,327 bytes) (Add "amongst" and qualificatory footnote for Rollinson et al. Rem unnecessary visitscotland ref) (undo) 20:01, 25 July 2008 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs | block) (10,917 bytes) (Add Rollinson ref. "the University of Cambridge had found Europe's oldest rocks at a remote location near to Gruinard Bay") (undo) 19:48, 25 July 2008 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs | block) (10,721 bytes) (Add Gillen page nos.) (undo) 19:45, 25 July 2008 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs | block) m (10,703 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by Mister Flash; Undo last two edits which have resulted in a confusion of contradictory statements. (TW)) (undo) 16:36, 25 July 2008 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (10,651 bytes) (Put back some geology) (undo) 16:11, 25 July 2008 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (10,506 bytes) (Got rid of rubbish reference. Replaced with more credible one.) (undo) 14:32, 25 July 2008 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs | block) (10,703 bytes) (improve and qualify geological statements) (undo) 14:23, 25 July 2008 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs | block) (10,473 bytes) (rv Please do not remove sourced material and replace with unsourced.) (undo) 13:49, 25 July 2008 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) m (10,389 bytes) (Oldest in British Isles) (undo) 12:38, 25 July 2008 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (10,473 bytes) (Reference states they're oldest in Europe. No evidence that they're oldest in British Isles.) (undo) 11:36, 25 July 2008 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (10,389 bytes) (Rocks are oldest in British Isles. No evidence for Europe) (undo)[58] British poetry padding 19:07, 30 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (559 bytes) (Reverted to 29 Sept for further discussion at SE page) (rollback | undo) 18:42, 29 November 2009 GoodDay (talk | contribs | block) (811 bytes) (When in doubt, throw it out) (undo) 18:24, 29 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (836 bytes) (Undid revision 328625857 by MidnightBlueMan (talk)) (undo) 18:22, 29 November 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs | block) (560 bytes) (Undid revision 328623655 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 18:10, 29 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (836 bytes) (Undid revision 328573678 by MidnightBlueMan (talk)) (undo) 12:29, 29 November 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs | block) (560 bytes) (Undid revision 328404510 by Þjóðólfr (talk)British Islands is inappropriate usage) (undo) 16:47, 28 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (836 bytes) (rv) (undo) 16:45, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (560 bytes) (Undid revision 328401052 by Þjóðólfr (talk)Political edit made without explanation) (undo) 16:25, 28 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (836 bytes) (Undid revision 328391141 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 15:18, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (560 bytes) (Undid revision 328386901 by Þjóðólfr (talk)Editor using Wikipedia to promote political agenda) (undo) 14:48, 28 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (836 bytes) (rv) (undo) 14:09, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (560 bytes) (Undid revision 323809335 by Þjóðólfr (talk)British Islands defo incorrect. Irish poetry is also listed) (undo) 01:18, 4 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (836 bytes) (rv) (undo) 19:09, 29 September 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs | block) (560 bytes) (Undid revision 316925700 by HighKing (talk)British Islands has a very specific meaning; its use is inapproprriate here) (undo) 17:48, 29 September 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (836 bytes) (Reverted 3 edits by TharkunColl; No basis for counting Irish poetry as British poetry, British Islands is also a valid descriptor for UK, etc. (TW)) (undo)[59] Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland padding 00:15, 25 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (11,284 bytes) (Undid revision 333887822 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 23:59, 24 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (11,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333887072 by Off2riorob (talk)) (undo) 23:54, 24 December 2009 Off2riorob (talk | contribs | block) (11,284 bytes) (Here you all are again, this is about the fourth article you, all have edit warred over, do you want to get this article locked as well?) (undo) 23:47, 24 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (11,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333884987 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 23:38, 24 December 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (11,286 bytes) (Undid revision 333851276 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 19:20, 24 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (11,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333849832 by BigDunc (talk)) (undo) 19:10, 24 December 2009 BigDunc (talk | contribs | block) (11,286 bytes) (Undid so Ireland doesn't get a mention??) (undo) 18:57, 24 December 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (11,283 bytes) (Undid revision 333847605 by HighKing (talk)) (undo) 18:54, 24 December 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (11,286 bytes) (Changed to Britain and Ireland) (undo)[60] Battle of Jersey padding 19:29, 29 November 2009 Black Kite (talk | contribs | block) (13,553 bytes) (rp) (undo) 19:29, 29 November 2009 Black Kite (talk | contribs | block) m (13,526 bytes) (Protected Battle of Jersey: Edit warring / Content dispute: Take it to the Specific Examples page, please ([edit=sysop] (expires 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)))) (undo) 19:07, 29 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (13,526 bytes) (RV Sock) (undo) 19:03, 29 November 2009 Dangerous Temujin (talk | contribs | block) (13,637 bytes) (It is correct to include the Channel Islands in the British Isles. The original statement is correct. This was the last land battle. It is well known in Island history.) (undo) 18:11, 29 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (13,526 bytes) (Undid revision 328573241 by MidnightBlueMan (talk)) (undo) 12:25, 29 November 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs | block) (13,649 bytes) (Undid revision 328387177 by Þjóðólfr (talk)BI is correct) (undo) 14:50, 28 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (13,526 bytes) (rv) (undo) 14:48, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (13,649 bytes) (Undid revision 328386008 by Þjóðólfr (talk)) (undo) 14:42, 28 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (13,526 bytes) (Battle of Britain?) (undo) 14:23, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (13,649 bytes) (British islands didn't exist in 1781) (undo)[61] Early Medieval Alliance padding 17:01, 28 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (1,746 bytes) (Added ref to Membership) (rollback | undo) 16:47, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,704 bytes) (Undid revision 328400967 by Þjóðólfr (talk)Politically motivated edit introducing incorrect terminology) (undo) 16:25, 28 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (1,706 bytes) (Undid revision 328390969 by Mister Flash (talk)) (undo) 15:17, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,704 bytes) (Undid revision 328386459 by Þjóðólfr (talk)Revert - yes British Islands is unreferenced) (undo) 14:45, 28 November 2009 Þjóðólfr (talk | contribs | block) (1,706 bytes) (rv Unreferenced) (undo) 14:16, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (1,704 bytes) (Undid revision 317273161 by HighKing (talk)British Islands is not recognised othert than in legal matters) (undo) 16:39, 1 October 2009 Cmadler (talk | contribs | block) (1,706 bytes) (→External links: remove link per WP:EL) (undo) 13:11, 1 October 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (1,779 bytes) (Undid revision 316987541 by TharkunColl (talk)rv according to BK guidelines - no refs) (undo) 23:52, 29 September 2009 TharkunColl (talk | contribs | block) (1,777 bytes) (British Islands is purely a legal term.) (undo) 18:18, 29 September 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (1,779 bytes) (Undid revision 314445625 by TharkunColl (talk)Seem like the correct term to me) (undo)[62] Christmas padding 22:09, 29 November 2009 HighKing (talk | contribs | block) (64,258 bytes) (British Isles is in Europe, revert silly edit) (undo) 09:25, 28 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (62,161 bytes) (Undid revision 328262212 by Andymcgrath (talk)British Isles is good here) (undo) 20:43, 27 November 2009 Andymcgrath (talk | contribs | block) m (62,183 bytes) (OK list UK and Ireland (i personally have no issue at all in stating British Isles - but there is a task force who apparently do)) (undo) 19:43, 27 November 2009 Mister Flash (talk | contribs | block) (62,161 bytes) (Undid revision 328227129 by Andymcgrath (talk)Not good enough, cos it excludes Ireland) (undo) 17:39, 27 November 2009 Αδελφος (talk | contribs | block) (62,162 bytes) (undo) 16:25, 27 November 2009 Andymcgrath (talk | contribs | block) m (62,149 bytes) (UK (as opposed to British isles) to avoid dispute) (undo) 12:12, 27 November 2009 LevenBoy (talk | contribs | block) (62,148 bytes) (Undid revision 328131703 by HighKing (talk)This edit completely changed the context and was carried out for political reasons) (undo)

Thank you for compiling this, Cailil. I think that the interaction bans are definitely in order. Additionally, I think I could get behind the proposed topic ban for Mister Flash and a 1RR revert restriction for Þjóðólfr in this topic area (so far as I am aware there is no need to restrict their behaviour elsewhere in the project). If disruption continues in other areas, sanctions may be extended. I see a smattering of worrisome edits from HighKing (e.g. [63], [64]), but nothing in the last few months that rises to the level of disruption; I think that a friendly informal warning to tread carefully in articles related to nationalism will suffice. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

modified proposal

Per the invitation above, a modified proposal based on engagement with this issue over a couple of years now. I've got the scars ....

• Mister Flash topic banned from British Isles naming dispute (widely construed) per above for a period of three months
• Do not revert a revert restriction for this topic area (better than a 1RR) for all editors once informed (similar to Troubles)
• HighKing required to continue recent practice of posting proposed changes to working group first and not making changes to articles without confirmed consensus on each change. If this is broken then progressive topic bans follow
• Strong enforcement of civility on working group pages
• Clear statement that the working group is there to use cases to create some simple rules (per Matt's comments) over the next few months)

Ideally some admin involvement on the working group would help. I'm happy to maintain the pages and draw in admin support if needed, but also happy if someone else takes it on. --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've more scars than you. Based on what appears to work, and what doesn't, I'd modify the proposal as follows:

• Mister Flash site banned until such time as he agrees to adhere to the basic WP policies that all editors are expected to accept.
• "Rules of Participation" are published. The rules will be clearly laid out and unambiguous, and be restricted to civility and processes of collaboration and how to reach consensus, as well as a statement outlining the objective of the creation of usage guidelines. Rules are likely to contain the following:

1. No addition or deletion of the term British Isles to articles without consensus of the Task Force
2. Strong enforcement of civility. Breaches result in an escalating series of blocks. Breaches are likely to include any comments relating to an editor, and not relating to the content or article at hand.
3. Editors must argee to the rules in order to participate. Activity by a notified editor who does not sign up to the rules may result in a progressive series of sanctions.

--HighKing (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on please

I have information regarding User:Þjóðólfr, who I have very good reason to believe is a sock of another editor with an extensive prior history of edit warring in related areas, including twice being put on probation from an ArbCom case. I don't have sufficient time to prepare a SPI case today but it will be done tomorrow. As the result of the SPI case should have a direct bearing on the sanctions here, I request any decision is put on hold until then. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Open a WP:SPI if you can provide evidence--Cailil ^talk 16:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppett

retrieved from Sarastro's page [edit] Troll banned Hi, Sarastro. I think you'll be pleased to know that the FirstComrade/BrownEdge/ASMF troll has been banned via WP:ANI. Your replies to him were instrumental as you clearly identified him as HughGal. My interest in him was his Fieldgoalunit alias last year, under which he caused considerable disruption and annoyance. Hopefully he will finally get the message that nobody wants him here. We don't want him in the ACS either, despite his blatherings about it (he was sacked as journal editor and chucked his Wisdens out of his pram: yes, he really did). JJJ (not at home so not logged in). --86.160.125.25 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarastro1"

Clearly JameszJJames is a blackjack sockpuppetMariaSpawasser (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burpelson_AFB" see also JamesJJames for more personal attacks. Check that JamesJJames returns to editing when Blackjack was bannedMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the above account posting has only 3 edits: 2 to Burpelson AFB's talk page and the edit above. I would treat the above account as a sockpuppet itself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were so, which it isn't, it does not condone a)The personal abuse at JamesJJames and b)The fact thaT JamesJJames is a likely sockpuppet of blackjackMariaSpawasser (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Make that 4 edits total. Checkuser, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the abusive posting by a sockpuppet. Why?MariaSpawasser (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

5 edits total. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

7 in totalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 8 In TotalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is the JamesJJames is a sockpuppet of blackjack - 8 In totalMariaSpawasser (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually only 6. If any admin was concerned in the slightest by this, they would have commented. So, unless you can come up with some diffs on why we should take this seriously and also establish you aren't a sock, I see no reason to keep this open. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have no idea why this account copied this to my talk page. It's pretty weird. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the actual complaint, which is an accusation that User:JameszJJames is a sockpuppet of User:BlackJack. It's possible, the very first edits that the account (JJJ) made were to create their user page citing "useful links" pointing to various policies and then to make informed comments in a number of AfDs that are unusual for a new editor. It's also possible that JJJ was simply a very informed editor, or had edited extensively as an IP before creating an account. I do enough to warrant an SPI in this case, however. JJJ and BlackJack have similiar interests. They both comment to similar user talk pages, and JJJ was inactive for almost 2 years until shortly after BlackJack was blocked for being a sockmaster. I'll open an SPI.

At the same time, I believe that the reporting editor is a sockpuppet of Richard Daft, seeing that JJJ's only contributions after becoming active again were to get Richard Daft's sockpuppets blocked, and this ANI report is probably retaliation for that.

So what I see is friction between socks (and anyone who has done laundry knows that can be a sticky situation. I'm filing two SPI reports, because there's not quite enough evidence for me to block either of these editors immediately. -- Atama頭 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone beat me to the JJJ sockpuppet investigation, a CU already confirmed it as likely so I've blocked. Looking through the two editor's contribution lists, it's clear that they are the same person. I'm filing a report now for Richard Daft/MariaSpawasser. -- Atama頭 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPI report for MariaSpawasser is here. -- Atama頭 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose community ban of User:Monshuai

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

Moved to WP:AE by submitter on my advice. There, editors should limit themselves to a single brief comment direcly concerning the merits of the request for enforcement. Please do not discuss about the merits of the content at issue, or about the conduct of users other than Monshuai.  Sandstein  23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Monshuai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an extremely aggressive Bulgarian ultra-nationalist with a severe case of WP:BATTLE mentality. Virtually all his articlespace edits are tendentious, usually consisting of Bulgaria-related antiquity frenzy or aggrandization of Bulgarian scientific achievements, with a particular obsession with John Vincent Atanasoff. Examples below:

• Bulgaria antiquity frenzy:

[65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] Some more recent examples in the same spirit: [79] [80]

• "Aryan" origin of the Bulgars:

[81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

• Thracians:

[86] [87] [88] [89]

• Bulgaria Science & Technology:

[90] [91] [92]

• John Vincent Atanasoff:

[93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

• Various other articles:

[104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]

• First Bulgarian Empire:

[114] [115] [116] [117] The last two in particular, are extremely disruptive, as the article was put under page protection. The minute it expired, Monshuai rams these edits against all consensus in a deliberate attempt to inflame the atmosphere, and to drive home a point ("This is my house!").

He frequently uses extreme hostility in edit summaries, routinely threatening users so as to intimidate them and have his way: [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]

A particular favorite tactic of his consists of threatening an article that he thinks his opponents hold dear ("If you mess up my article, I will mess up yours"), again as a way of intimidating others. For example here [124] he is mad about the use of the word "disintegrate" with respect to the First Bulgarian Empire, so he goes and makes a POINTy edit to Byzantine Empire [125], while at the same time lying that he has the consent of myself and User:Cplakidas to make this edit [126]. Here he threatens similar retaliation about the articles on ancient Greek city-states, hoping to intimidate me [127]. Here he does the same with User:Cplakidas [128].

When there is a clear consensus against him, he engages in interminable rants and filibusters on article talkpages, waging a psychological war of attrition with maniacal tenacity in the hopes of wearing down his opponents. Virtually the entire archive of Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff is a monument to Monshuai's maniacal tenacity. Other good examples include Talk:Bulgaria#Ancient_Heritage, Talk:Bulgaria#Part_2, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Monshuai is accusing me of hypocrisy, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The_Origin_of_the_Greeks.2C_Ph.D._thesis, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#John Vincent Atanasoff.

Examples with diffs: [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] (gloats after Martijn Faassen gives up in disgust), [134](attacks Martijn Faassen for returning), [135] [136] [137]

• John Vincent Atanasoff

[138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144]

• Bulgaria lede - Recently, he has gone on an unstoppable ranting spree to have his antiquity-frenzied way here

[145]. Following this innocuous comment [146] by User:man with one red shoe, note how he deliberatley and utterly contorts his opponent's words, screaming "racism!" (a favorite tactic of his)[147] and playing the victim. Again, an attempt to intimidate. Continued trolling: [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]. He even fights with reasonable Bulgarian editors, as here with User:Tourbillon: [155] [156] [157] [158]. Nothing registers with this guy, it's all hostility, all the time, against everyone, always.

Recently, he has embarked on a campaign to sabotage a discussion on First Bulgarian Empire by filibustering the page with interminable rants about sources, threatening users, off-topic rants, and threats to other articles: [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170]. To a large extent, he has succeeded: After a promising start, the discussion has gotten side-tracked and bogged down in the mud. I am convinced that as long as he is allowed to participate, this discussion will get nowhere.

Most disturbingly, his psychological attrition warfare against his opponents WORKS: [171] [172]

Trolling other users' pages is another favorite tactic of his: [173] (tit for tat mr hellas), [174] ("this discussion will go on foerever if it must"), [175], [176] (kookery on Alison's page), [177] (I will not quit playing the race card), [178] [179] [180] (I will assemble multinational team of admins), [181] [182] [183]. Here, he wants an apology from User:Alison over an honest mistake, and won't let go: [184] [185] [186] [187].

Administrators are not immune to his loony threats either: [188] [189] [190] [191]

A particularly illuminating example is this discussion with Cplakidas, where he tells him he has 23 sources [192]. When Cplakidas asks to see them [193], he tells him to find them himself [194]. When Cplakidas asks again [195], he tells him "no free lunch" [196]. When Cplakidas justifiably feels insulted [197], what does Monshuai do? Plays the victim and feign offense [198]. This, against one of the most patient, civil, AGF users out there. I have never seen anyone get in a discussion with Monshuai and ever get anything out of it or not end up regretting it. It is impossible to reason with this guy.

He has been the subject of a community ban proposal before [199], but incredibly got away unscathed even though he had even created a CU-confirmed sock Janelle4elle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) dedicated to sabotaging the discussion at John Vincent Atanasoff. There is virtually no rule that this guy hasn't broken. There are two reasons why I am pushing for a full, indef community ban. One, he has shown zero sign of improvement over the years. Consider his very first edits to Bulgaria [200] and Talk:Bulgaria [201], with his most recent [202] [203]. At John Vincent Atanasoff, he's been at it for years [204] (Dec. 2007) [205] (Oct 2009). Similarly, an indef-topic ban is a non-starter: As the above examples illustrate, no articles are immune, even those that are way beyond the scope of WP:ARBMAC. Any attempt at discussion is completely futile and will only end in grief for the other party. No, only a full, indef community ban will work against this guy. He has been disrupting wikipedia long enough, time for it to end. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user that they are being discussed. However I believe this ban discussion is more suited for WP:AN. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Or WP:AE per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, if the requisite warning has already been issued.  Sandstein  22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support this request, whether as a full community sanction or (simpler) as an Arbmac matter. This user has been an utter waste of time for much too long. To Sandstein: yes, he's been previously both warned and blocked under Arbmac, and he's been perfectly aware his recent behaviour has been highly contentious, so that should be no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're right, it appears that Bulgaria is in the Balkans and therefore within the scope of WP:ARBMAC, and he has been warned, so conceivably a full Bulgaria topic ban could cover it. Judging by the request above, this appears to be the sort of situation that case was intended for, though of course we haven't heard from Monshuai yet.  Sandstein  22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Athenean here, good job getting all those diffs. This guy doesn't seem like he's worth the effort. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not reviewing that many diffs for free, but this reply was over top. Screaming racism for saying that Bulgarian ancient history isn't as notable as Greek ancient history? C'mon, [206] 18,000 gbooks hits; [207] 600 hits. And speaking of "Thracology", editors are invited to read the article on protochronism; there's something about Bulgaria and "Thracology" towards the end. Pcap ping 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In this post I will present evidence that double standards unbecoming of Wikipedians are utilized in article editing. My goal from the get-go has been to identify inconsistencies and report them in discussion pages. I use sources to back my statements in an attempt to present the full story, and not just one facet of it. I have maintained that as human beings we share in each other's history, and the achievements of one group is not mutually exclusive with the achievements of another. All people share the historical wealth of one another's aggragate contributions (through the positive effects of cosmopolitanism and globalization) to the formation of a global civilization. This also means that the history of anyone modern nation (a product of the post "Treaty of Westphalia" period) or historical state/culture (of the past) should not be suppressed nor presented using different standards from one article to another because that is disingenuous, partial and unethical. There must be equality, and there must be singular objective standards for everyone. No nation, no person, no editors should have more or less rights. Not here, not anywhere.

In my humble opinion the goal of this organization is to maintain objectivity and fairness. One example of the opposite for this ideal is the double standards that have been applied to the Bulgaria and Greece ledes. It is imperative that this informational gradient be neutralized. On one hand I was told by Future Perfect at Sunrise that it is peacocky to mention the Bulgarian territory's Thracian heritage, but somehow it is not peacocky to have the following sentence in the Greece lede:

"Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of ancient Greece, generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization. As such, it is the birthplace of democracy, Western philosophy, the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama, including both tragedy and comedy."

As of a week ago, Future Perfect at Sunrise had edited the Greece article 22 times since March 2/2009 and never once stated that its lede is peacocky. Please compare this to the lede element that I proposed as part of Bulgaria's general lede:

"The territory of Bulgaria was once home to prehistoric and ancient civilizations. The country is composed of three regions called Thrace, Moesia and Macedonia. During the period of classical antiquity the Thracians, Ancient Greeks and Romans each contributed unique cultural elements that sculpted its heritage."

Please also compare this to portions of the ledes in the following articles: Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Italy, England, China, Iran, etc...

Upon showing this, Man with one red shoe stated the following:

"Also, it's a matter of notability, I'm afraid to say this, but "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians".

I noted that it is indeed racist to state that the country's territory is OCCUPIED by Bulgarians. First, Bulgarians are not on someone else's land. Second, Bulgarians like all modern nations are composites of multiple ancestral groups regardless of their modern national name. As an example, the fact that modern Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Egyptians etc are officially Arab does not mean that their links to their to pre-Arab heritage is severed. It also does not mean that they are occupying someone else's territory.

Man with one red shoe then stated that Bulgaria's ancient heritage is not notable because people around the world would not have heard of it. He used Japan as a specific example. I countered by providing the following sources:

-http://sofiaecho.com/2009/07/16/756602_golden-thracian-treasure-returns-to-bulgaria-from-japan

-http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=100803

In fact the latest exhibition of Bulgaria's ancient heritage in Japan averaged over 20,000 visitors per day, and a record performance of 45,000 visitors in the peak day. The Japanese are also quite familiar with the Varna culture of Bulgaria, as the Varna Necropolis treasures were on exhibition for 7 months in Japan in 1982. That Bulgarian exhibit in Japan was called, "'The Oldest Gold in the World - The First European Civilization' with massive publicity, including two full length TV documentaries. In the 1980s and 1990s it was also shown in Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Israel, among others, and featured in a cover story by the National Geographic Magazine. Varna necropolis artefacts were [also] shown for the first time in the United States in 1998 and 1999 as part of a major Bulgarian archaeological exhibition, Thracians' Riches: Treasures from Bulgaria."

I also provided the following text published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: http://members.multimania.co.uk/rre/History-Seven.html

Finally, I discussed the National Museum of Bulgarian History, of which 1/3 of the exhibits are of the country's ancient heritage: http://www.historymuseum.org/collection.php

Man with one red shoe then went on to write on my talk page whilst telling me not to write on his. I noted this was hypocritical. He also swore on my talk page using the word "shat". Some people may find this funny, and to be honest I am not disgusted by it either, but I don't think using any language that refers to human excrement is appropriate on a person's talk page. I stated this and his response posted in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts was, "I wanted to say "shit", but then I remembered that some Wikipedia admins are morons, I don't know why I censured myself, is not in my habit, in any case I remove myself from this discussion I don't want ever to discuss with this guy." Since he said this I have no longer been conversing with him.

I will present more on this topic as this discussion evolves. However I will now move on to the discussion regarding the First Bulgarian Empire and Byzantine Empire.

Please note that Athenean has edited both of these articles. His premise seems to be that it is peacocky to say that the First Bulgarian Empire was one of the most powerful of its time and for a time the cultural centre of Slavic Europe, even whilst sources have been provided to back this up. At the same time, he believes that is quite alright to include the following line in the Byzantine Empire lede:

"The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe..."

He has also maintained that within the First Bulgarian Empire lede, the Bulgars must not only be mentioned but in fact defined as Turkic. Some of the other editors found this to be very strange, as it is not customary to include such detailed ethnic information in the lede while excluding mention of other ethnic groups also involved in the social dynamics of the time. Thus I stated that if it is acceptable for one ethnicity to be mentioned, then all other ethnicities involved must be included as the state in question was multi-ethnic. The Turkic Bulgars conquered the territory from the Byzantine Empire, established themselves as a ruling elite and were gradually over a period of three centuries assimilated by formerly Byzantine populations (primarily Slavs). In other words, it would be unreasonable to include one detailed element of history to the exclusion of other components that complete the picture. Furthermore, I asked them if they believe the same standards should be applied to the Byzantine Empire article. After all, its roots are Latin, and further enriched by Vlachs, Greeks, Coptics, Georgians, Armenians, Arabs, Persians, etc... Unfortunately they neglected to answer this even whilst they continued to insist that only a partial informational element be applied to the Bulgarian article in question.

Let me also mention that I have supported my statements with academic sources. Here are just a few of the sources I have used during said discussions:

1)- (Hammond, 1976) Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas‎ - Page 67

2)- (Ference, 1994) Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history‎ - Page 61

3)- (Cramton, 1987) A short history of modern Bulgaria‎ - Page 2

4)- (multiple authors, 1980) Academic American encyclopedia, Volume 10‎ - Page 556

5)- (multiple authors, 1993) Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 1‎ - Page 750

6)- (Medieval Academy of America, 1950) Speculum, Volume 25‎ - Page 529

7)- (Setton, 1974) Europe and the Levant in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance‎ - Page 617

8)- (Dobson et al, 2000) Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1‎ - Page 1581

9)- (Shashi, 1992) Encyclopaedia of humanities and social sciences‎ - Page 1207

10)- (Obolensky, 1994) Byzantium and the Slavs‎ - Page 9

11)- (Stoyanov, 1994) The hidden tradition in Europe‎ - Page 109

12)- (multiple authors, 1989) Library of Congress Classification Schedules D History General and Old World‎ - Page 181

13)- (McCarty et al, 1999) Masks: Faces of Culture‎ - Page 133

As for the power of the First Bulgarian Empire here is what the "Encyclopaedia Britannica, A New Survey of Universal Knowledge, Volume 4 - page 37" has to say:

"The national power (of the First Bulgarian Empire) reached its zenith under Simeon (893-927), a monarch distinguished in the arts of war and peace. In his reign, 'Bulgaria assumed rank among the civilized powers of earth.' His dominions extended from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, and from the borders of Thessaly to the Save and the Carpathians. Having become the most powerful monarch in Eastern Europe, Simeon assumed the style of 'Emperor and Autocrat of all the Bulgars and Greeks' (tsar i samodrzhetz usem Blgarom i Grkom), a title which was recognized by Pope Formosus."

I have added a number of other sources regarding other points of dispute.

With regard to the Bulgar conquerers being assimilated (therefore a portion of a complex ethnic amalgamation):

14)- Graboïs, A. (1980). The illustrated encyclopaedia of medieval civilization. New York: Mayflower Books., p. 148

15)- The South Slav journal: 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. (1989). The South Slav journal, 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. London: the journal., p. 4

16)- Ference, G. C. (1994). Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history. Detroit, MI: Gale Research., p. 61

With regard to Tervel being the first foreigner to receive the title Caeser:

17)- Ostrogorski, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine state. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press., p. 143

Regarding the First Bulgarian Empire being a cultural centre of Slavic Europe:

18)- Sedlar, J. W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. A History of East Central Europe, v. 3. Seattle: University of Washington Press., p. 426

19)- Hussey, J. M. (1990). The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford history of the Christian Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press., p. 100

20)- Encyclopaedia britannica: A new survey of universal knowledge., Volume 4, Part 4A. (2009). Chicago: Encyclopaedia britannica., p. 37

Athenean responded to this by telling me that I did not include page numbers and therefore the sources I provided were not valid. The reality however is that I provided page numbers for each of the 20 sources from the very start and anyone who looked carefully at what I had written would have been able to take note of this. Thus Athenean's attempt to disregard the sources provided in my post was neither objective nor ethical. Soon after, Alexikoua stated that the Encyclopaedia Britannica source is unacceptable, as he claimed that tertiary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. However this is strange when he had previously said nothing of the Britannica source used to reference the Turkic ancestry of the Bulgars. He also accused me of creating source chaos because I was apparently using too many sources to prove a point, even though again he said nothing of the nine sources used to reference the Turkic roots of the Bulgars.

Kostja and Gligan defended what I posted and said the following:

"So, it is a chaos of sources when he [Monshuai] proves something that you don't like but it is not chaos of sources to put nine references that the Bulgars were Turkic people. If Britannica is not valid, remove only that reference and do not use it as an excuse to remove all. That is not constructive at all. -- Gligan (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)"

Kostja added to this by saying, "I should add that tertiary sources are permitted, especially high quality ones like Brittanica:

[208].

Kostja (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)"

Now before this discussion moves on I must ask that only neutral administrators who are not involved nor ever have been involved with Balkan related articles analyze this predicament. I believe that all people (myself included) are liable to subjectivity and therefore an external and maximally neutral perspective is warranted. In this case it seems that editors and an administrator who stem from this region, in particular a country of this region, are attempting to cast me in negative light. What I think is strange is that every time I proposed to take this issue to WP:ANI they disagreed. However once I presented 20 reliable sources (shown above), they rushed here. Ironic, especially when I'm the person who has backed statements with reliable academic sources!

I believe that it is fair that I be scrutinized as you deem necessary. After all, I do not hide the fact that I am fallible and thereby I adhere to the philosophy that my personal defects be discussed openly. Though I strive to learn as much as I can about the world, I, like everyone else, have limitations. Said another way, this is certainly a valuable convention whereby individual and collective fallacies that are embedded in the virtual fabric of this encyclopaedia can be exposed, interpreted, categorized and improved. That applies to everyone who is a part of this community including those that use double standards. Therefore I will answer your questions and continue to provide sources to back my statements whilst utilizing (as I have recently done) deductive, abductive and inductive reasoning to elucidate my premises, rather than just give my opinions. From the onset this is what I have done in talk pages whilst facing countering statements that are not backed by such references. I also think that the other involved parties be scrutinized under the same lenses of maximal objectivity.

I am now going to discuss a comment made above by Future Perfect at Sunrise. He stated that I have previously been blocked by WP:ARBMAC. This is not true. I have been blocked once (for a 24 hour period) in the 3.5 years that I've been here. The reason being was that I made the mistake of revert warring, something I no longer do (hence backing my statements with sources in discussion pages and only making edits when backed by internal article links and reliable primary, secondary and encyclopaedic tertiary sources). Unfortunately at the time of making said transgression (3RR-24h), I believed that all theories about the Bulgars' ancestry be included in the article, as there did not seem to be absolute consensus amongst academics regarding their origins. I was under the impression that Dr. Peter Dobrev's Iranian-Bulgar theory was properly referenced and peer reviewed. However after studying the issue I came to the conclusion that his theory was not supported by a majority of the academic community and therefore most of the evidence pointed to the (Hunno-Bulgar) Turkic theory being correct. In other words, through intense research and education I came to view the Iranian hypothesis that I previously supported as being what Wikipedians refer to as a fringe theory. Therefore I stopped supporting its inclusion and all my edits hence forth were in favour of the Hunno-Bulgar Turkic theory. I have also read about the theory proposed by Dr. Shin Yong-Ha that the Bulgars originally stem from the Korean Peninsula as the Bu-Yeo culture that then migrated to the region presently known as Greater Mongolia. It seems Dr. Shin's premise directly ties to the primary theories about the Bulgars' Altaic (Turkic) origins. In other words, there is growing evidence that the Bulgars stem from central regions of north-eastern Asia. In light of this I was the one that made the edit that the Bulgars originate in the steppes of Mongolia.

I must also ask the following question. What is Wikipedia's policy toward users who wrongfully accuse an editor of having a sock puppet? It is not acceptable for people to say such things without there being repercussions, especially when that issue was already investigated. I was also accused of being a sock puppet of Lantonov. This seems to be a favourite strategy of users who cannot disprove your premise and sources and therefore resort to undermining your credibility by connecting you to other editors. If need be I will find the discussion where this was already discussed (anyone who has access to it please feel free to post a link as it is also in WP:ANI) and I will ask that action be taken against those who are currently using this as a way to undermine my efforts to include numerous sources for the articles in question.

Thank you for your time and please feel free to ask me any questions relating to the issues at hand.--Monshuai (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the ban. To my opinion Monshuai should not be banned. He might be persistent but also he always tries to provide reliable sources and furthermore I think that there is something like double standards between Bulgaria and Greece. What I think is that Monshuai should be advised to use the talk page more often and if his edits are disputed not to edit the article itself but to discuss in the talk page with neutral users (not at all linked to or interested in the Balkans) involved as mediators. I think that recently he is doing exactly that. He really does not deserve to be banned if not at least because of his efforts and the fact that he always provides sources. --Gligan (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support the ban. I recently participated in the discussion in First_Bulgarian_Empire and the behavor of the specific user was really disruptive using hardcore wp:own 'strategy'. While the rest of the users tried to reach a appropriate version for the article's lead, User:Monshuai boycotted all the efforts finally adding a version which was even more unecyclopedic than the initial one [[209]]. (the -cn- tag is prevailing)

Characteristically:

• completely ignored User:Gligan's version: [[210]] which I found a good one.
• also completely ignored User:Cplakidas arguments [[211]] [[212]]. He readded his extreme lead version about Tervel being named Caesar, although he didn't provided a single argument for this.
• insisted on removing that Bulgars, were a Turkic tribe, contradicting User:Gligan's version again [[213]].

Well, actually that is the proposal of Athenean; mine is below and is almost the same with my suggestions put in bold. I also insist on removing that the Bulgars were Turkic (that is mentioned below and is not good for a lead - as if to put Slavic Bulgarians in every lead) and removing Danube Bulgars Khanate (1. - Not applicable for the whole existence of the state; 2. Not the only possible name - it is also called Bulgarian Khanate and Danube Bulgaria; 3. It is out of context - I have put the term in one of the first sections where it is explained why is that term used sometimes.) --Gligan (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that the rest of the Bulgarian users are really willing to discuss the issues, most of them Assume good faith, but Monshuai's extreme edits lead to nothing but creating battlegrounds. Since it's not the first time he tries to initiate a battleground his ban should be the only solution. Very good job User:Athenean.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, this phrase by User:Monshuai isn't a really good approach: [Now before this discussion moves on I must ask that only neutral administrators who are not involved nor ever have been involved with Balkan related articles analyze this predicament.] meaning that we have also non-neutral administrators here. We should better avoid such comments without giving appropriate explanations. Also giving 20 source in lead is contrary to [wp:lead], they sould be mentioned in the appropriate sections of the main text.Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean are you willing to discuss the use of double standards? As shown in my statement above, all my comments and edits were backed and continue to be backed by reliable sources, something that you tried to disregard. I also ask, what punishment should there be for Athenean after accusing me of having a sock puppet when this is not only a lie but something already investigated and disproven? I believe this is evidence that due to an inability to discredit the sources I have provided said user has attempted to tie me with other editors. Consequently I must ask, how many reliable sources did he provide to back his statements in the First Bulgaria Article discussion page? Everyone can look at the edit history of the article and see that he repeatedly removed credible sources. As Gligan said to Athenean, he was being unproductive.

So please try to discredit the sources if you have a problem with the statements I have made in the First Bulgarian Empire discussion page, because no matter what you say about me I am not the one who wrote those books. In other words, however you try to attack me, the sources I use remain credible.

@Alexikoua, with regard to Tervel, how can you say I didn't provide a single argument when in fact I provided many including a source about his precedent? I will once again post that source:

Ostrogorski, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine state. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press., p. 143

I'm also not sure what exactly you mean by us having to avoid comments about non-neutral administrators. Administrators are people, and as such are not completely neutral. However neutrality can be maximized when administrators that are as Gligan puts it, "neutral users (not at all linked to or interested in the Balkans) involved as mediators."

I also invite everyone to read the primary comment I posted above, including the sources I have provided.--Monshuai (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. By any means, User:Monshuai can be qualified as disruptive. Certainly he has made constructive edits in the past by introducing sources to some statements (even though this has led to onverinflation of articles or sections); but considering the number of recent and rather destructive ones (such as the aforementioned by User:Athenean), a bit more severe measures should be taken. Talk pages are being flooded with enormous amounts of words, and why ? Because somebody does not agree about a single word in a head section, or because the given article doesn't follow the exact same model of another, and many other such "issues" that are certainly not worth the sizzles.

Playing the "double standards" card or any tricks like that won't work, because the user has persistently refused to aknowledge other opinions and impose his own, as seen in the discussions of Bulgaria [214], and First Bulgarian Empire [215]. It's not about facts or sources here; we're talking about the "article ownership" attitude and lack of understanding to any change that doesn't reflect Monshuai's point of view. Any logical proposition by other users gets drowned by Monshuai in a storm of random arguments and accusations about "misjudgement" (or anything like that) [216]. All of the users he has argued with, have been neutral, and none of them tried to impose a biased point of view. No matter at what level we discuss this, there is a general consensus about the negative essence of Monshuai's actions. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tourbillon says that I pretend to have "article ownership", whereas in fact of the last 500 article edits of the Bulgaria article 106 are by him. In comparison I have made 11 of the last 500 edits there. In other words, his edits comprise 21.2% of the edits/reverts, while mine comprise 2.2%. So as you can see, rather than just make edits like Tourbillon, I discuss issues in the talk page. I also use sources to back my statements. I also want to note that on Tourbillon's user page he states that he does "NOT care about democratic principles, supports authoritarian rule, and is against democratic fanaticism." Is that the kind of neutrality he speaks of? Is that what Wikipedia principles are? Unlike Tourbillon, I don't like the authoritarian control he values, including his self-righteous proclamation that he and other involved users are neutral. Human beings, especially those involved in specific issues, are not neutral (including me). I however can admit it! Finally, unlike him I am for democratic principles especially the right to share one's view and to use sources to back it. --Monshuai (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The number of edits I have made to the Bulgaria page have seen an introduction of sources, removal of unsourced information, reduction of the enormous size of the article, and so on. I never stated my opinion there neither have I imposed it, nor have I argued with at least 5 people to prove them I'm completely correct (so, ironically, my "un-democratic values" have shown more understanding towards other opinions than yours). The few edits you have made, have brought you here - so I'm not sure whether I should be a subject of discussion here at all. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who said I claim to have article ownership, whereas based on your edit history it is you who dominates said article. Also, I believe it is fully democratic to intellectually debate with as you say "at least 5 people", unless of course you consider the opinion of at least 5 people to be reflective of a democratic majority or worse yet the authoritarian regime you support. Based on your views about authoritarian rule and your NOT caring about democratic principles, it is clear why you maintain the Bulgaria article as you see fit and thereby have attempted to stop me from sharing statements backed by sources in the talk pages.--Monshuai (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations are once again hollow - because apparently you do not make a difference between "number of edits" and "essence of edits". Nobody has a limitation on how many edits to make; if an article had a number of (neutrality, factual accuracy, verifiability) issues, they were to be fixed. As I did, and nobody reverted the changes I made. My edits have been constructive, yours - mostly destructive. I have discussed freely page content with other users - you have rejected their opinions. So please do not talk about me, we are discussing your actions here. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are deflecting scrutiny of your values and actions, which is unethical. In other words, you have the right to say anything about me, but I don't have the right to point out what you yourself admit to think and likewise what you do? You also say that no one has a limitation on how many edits they make. There is also no limitation on how many statements one makes in a talk page, especially when they are backed by sources and when one is using that talk page in order to avoid a revert war. The fact that you do not want me to discuss you is also undemocratic. Remember you came here to discuss me before I even had a chance to know about what was being said and therefore before I could defend myself, whereas the only time I discuss you (or others) is when you have full knowledge of my comments.--Monshuai (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of examples have been given above, reflecting your opinion imposement and deconstructive edits (in other words, your current hypocrisy in teaching me how to value other people's opinions); This section of the noticeboard is about you. If I were so bad, I would've already been discussed here. My opinion has been expressed, as well as that of several other editors here; you should really start defending yourself, and stop accusing me about what I am, and leave any unrelated topics aside. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you had read my original statement (you have already stated before you don't read my "massive posts") you would have seen that I did defend myself and I backed each of my statements with sources. I also gave a lot of examples, as you say. Now I am giving examples with respect to one of my accusers, YOU. This is important because by way of your support for authoritarianism, not caring for democratic principles and your statements on the talk pages, I am showing that you are unwilling to accept a perspective that is in disagreement with your own. This is the case even when my comments are backed by sources. An example of this is when you stated on the Bulgaria talk page, "Jesus Christ, I won't even bother reading this." This was in reference to my post which was 574 words long in comparison to the post that you made before (and to which I was responding) that was 240 words long. You admitted that you do not want to read my comment because it wasn't summarised, even though it would have taken far longer for you to write you post. Again, your post was 42% as large as my "unreadable" reply. As I said before, your disregard for my posts is unfair. Reading speed is multiple times faster than typing speed. Therefore, you simply showed that you are unwilling to acknowledge the points I provide to counter your posts. That's another authoritarian action on your part.--Monshuai (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You can keep all this up, I don't mind. You're not working for yourself, though. You're just aggravating the situation. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am doing here what I did in the talk pages (which is to back and defend my statements). Also, it seems rather strange that you are suddenly concerned about me and thus giving me advice as to what I should say in order to be "working for myself" when in fact you originally stated that I have a negative essence. There is an incongruency there. Neutrality and objectivity means that actions, double standards and self-proclaimed values be scrutinized with regard to the current dynamics.--Monshuai (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We see this a lot, actually. Someone is brought here for tendentious, mission-based editing, and the first thing the accused party points to is a 'double-standard'. The filing party provided one hundred and fifty diffs of you adding overwhelmingly pro-Bulgarian material to articles and shouting down people who dispute you. You've got a ways to go to prove yourself the victim here. --King Öomie 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I have made mistakes in the past including a 3RR revert in support of Dr. Peter Dobrev (of the Economic unit of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) and his theory. I then however (over a few months) re-checked his sources, read six seperate books, studied peer reviewed academic articles on the matter and finally came to the conclusion that what he was presenting is a fringe theory. I admitted this and since then I have been an adamant supporter of another premise supported by a majority of academics. I also learned a lesson, which was to always read credible sources (start to finish) about the various issues discussed in Wikipedia and discuss this on talk pages. Furthermore, I did say that I am open to criticism and that I fully realize that I am fallible and full of defects. No doubt about it. My style of communication needs to improve, become gentle and more articulate. That said, I have used credible sources to support my recent statements (including those about said standards). The errors I've made in the past, for which I've already had to defend myself in the past, are not directly tied to the sources I brought to this discussion. Again, I openly admit past errors and the improperly unreferenced comments that I made then are not like the referenced comments I have made recently and herein. Also, I do not believe I am a victim (as you say), however I do have the right to defend myself. Speaking of that, one can conjecture that when double standards are used, everyone is negatively affected if even a little bit, including the people that are using the double standards in the first place and of course all others who are interested in objective encyclopaedic knowledge. Finally, my "negative essence" or "maniacal tenacity" or anything else said about my character and the fallacies that I've indentified in myself do not change the reliability of my sources.--Monshuai (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support the ban. I was recently involved in the discussion on Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff, where User:Monshuai's attitude was counter-productive and disruptive to the extreme. His primary "debating tools" were personal attacks and inflammatory statements, to the point that other well-meaning contributors were driven away from the discussion simply because it was becoming a resource-drain for them.

The resource-drain aspect is also partly a result of Monshuai's tendency to be excessively verbose. This of course does not in itself constitute a reason for banning - however he frequently uses verbosity as a means for lending himself an air of authority, while not making any meaningful points. It seems that for him this is also an effective way to deter others from actually attempting to engage in a discussion with him. The following, in response to a reasonable point by User:Tourbillon, is one of the best examples [217]: "So far we've had your misinformed opinion on these matters and consequent shifts in the premise whenever it is shown to utilize what is known by logicians as fallacious reasoning. In this case, you've employed two argumentative misconstructions that amplify the errors and/or incompleteness in your original assertions and therefore lead to defective conclusions. By doing so you have unfortunately committed both a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy."

For whatever it's worth, I just wanted to quickly voice my opinion on this. I have a great deal of appreciation for Monshuai's constructive contributions, and a great deal of respect for the time he dedicates to his research, but I feel that on the whole his presence on Wikipedia is detrimental - both to Wikipedia's content as well as to the community. Tomatoman (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

After a long debate and analysis of the sources you provided at the end in the John Atanasoff talk page I accepted the conclusions you made. I stated that "I thank Tomatoman for looking at the evidence as impartially as he could." I showed respect towards your research and I have accepted that your position as sourced was the correct one. Consequently I have not gone back to the discussion page. As I said, I value reliable sources provided by users even if I do not agree with specific comments that they make about me. That said, the statements that I made that prompted this discussion herein are also backed by credible sources. I also don't think that my verbose writing style is incorrect. The terms formal fallacy and informal fallacy exist. Also, in the statement you refer to, Tourbillon stated that exhibits cannot be used to determine national history as the Louvre shows artefacts from around the world. I then provided a source about the National Museum of Bulgarian History in which it is clearly stated that it (unlike ie: the Louvre) only shows artefacts from Bulgaria's heritage and not those that come from other countries. While English is not my first language I have worked hard to learn to write well. Yes, it's true I can become more articulate. Yes it's true that I must be more diplomatic. Yes, I can always use sources to back my statements and I do that. Part of the lesson that I learned from my discussion with you is that sources can bring debates to a fruitful closure. However, as I brought sources to the table in my recent discussions I was accused of using non reliable sources, of not providing page numbers, etc...--Monshuai (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the ban. User Monshuai is one of the very few wikipedians that write on Balkan topics that I really respect. He brings fantastic sources, arguments them like few and has no Bulgaria-related antiquity frenzy or aggrandization of Bulgarian scientific achievements. I think Athenean's accusations are completely unfounded. If someone finds Monshuai verbose, then that someone has problems with understanding of the English language and critical thinking. Particularly I think that Monshuai has done a good job defending the Bulgarian American legacy of Atanassoff and I have given my opinion in the talk page for that matter. As a matter of fact I find that many contributors have pushed Monshuai to get him upset, and the fact that he has not taken the bait, upsets these users even more. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, something would have been really amiss if Sulmues wasn't following me around and doing everything in his power that he thinks would spite me. He is canvassing every Bulgarian user he knows, and any and all Albanian, and Macedonian users that he thinks may have an axe to grind either against myself or Greeks in general: [218] [219] [220] [221] [222]. This is extremely disruptive and needs to stop. I have warned him in the past that canvassing is unacceptable [223], so he fully knows that what he is doing is wrong. I believe this warrants a block. Athenean (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So Sulmues exercises his right to share his opinion and now you want him banned too just because that opinion is not the same as yours?--Monshuai (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One, I am not trying to get him banned, but what he is doing is definitely blockable. Second, read WP:CANVAS (not that it's going to make a difference, but anyway). Athenean (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the WP:CANVAS link you provided and it states that "Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open" is acceptable. Sulmues has not told anyone what to think, nor has he sent private messages to these users. The messages are open.--Monshuai (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that the users involved are all from selected ethnic groups, hence the "Neutral" and "Nonpartisan" parts are a bit problematic. Athenean (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues informed only a number of Bulgarian and a Albanian user, accidentally avoiding any Greek one. Moreover this [[224]] is unacceptable ... defending Sulmues while he was disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I have the right to share my opinion. Could it be that most of the Greek users that Sulmues knows are already here attacking me? Which other Greek users should he have informed?--Monshuai (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the case: I see the greek users (FPS, Athenean, and Alexikoua) casting their vote to boot Monshuai out of the English Wikipedia project and Monshuai trying to desperately defend himself: FPS advises Athenean to bring the case to ANI ([225]) because "it's faster". In this case having other editors involved in this decision is extremely important so that we can defend Monshuai's excellent work in Wikipedia. Countless hours of contributions could be lost if the Greek users find their way. I posted a friendly notice to a limited number of people who are not only Bulgarians (that is just not true), but are very knowledgable with Monshuai's work because I have seen their postings close to Monshuai’s. These people know what Monshuai has done and could be interested in this vote cast.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You selectively contacted users either of the same ethnicity as Monshuai (Preslav, TodorBozhinov, Laveol), from your own (Kedadi), or from an ethnicity with a known vendetta against Greece (Mactruth). Why not have contacted neutral users, e.g. Moreschi? But the point is not who to contact, but why contact anyone at all? Actually, now that you have canvassed these users' talkpages, if (and that's a big IF, considering even other Bulgarian users support his ban) they come to Monshuai's aid that will be taken into account by the community and reduce the value of their support. Whereas if no canvassing had occurred and they had come here on their own, their voice would have had more weight. So by canvassing them in the manner you have done, you have potentially done Monshuai a great disservice. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For what I am concerned I really respect Monshuai's work. I have enjoyed the perspective he has put in the English Wikipedia and I honestly think that contributors like him who challenge the status quo and undermine weak arguments really deserve to bring their contributions in this project. I am trying to make the Wikipedia community aware of what Athenean is doing. If the ANI is fast like FPS says, then it may reach hasty conclusions. Athenean, you are trying to get a very respected contributor banned from Wikipedia and the community needs to know. What are you affraid of if these users are so biased? It's you working in tandem with Alexikoua and FPS running to your aid that should be reported, not Monshuai or I. FPS giving you advice in your talk page is particularly unethical: he is an admin and of Greek ancestry and should keep his distance from these cases. And I repeat, I posted friendly notices. Btw I had no idea about Mactruth's vendetta against Greece, so you really need to remember good faith. Moreschi (who has already blocked you in the past) is idle and also tired of hearing from you and me after all the accusations that you have unjustly written about me in his talk page (User_talk:Moreschi#Sulmues.3DGuildenrich) I don't think he has any desire to see you give other false accusations. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues never shared the same interests with Monshuai, not in a single article so far. Actually he came here just by checking Athenean's contribution history and I'm not surprised that a user with such a block log record still continues to be disruptive. Not to mention that he received barnstars by someone that posted this against Athenean.Alexikoua (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: If you are trying to blacken my contribution to Wikipiedia by describing my "bad character" through showing blocks that I have gotten thanks to you working in tandem with Athenean, why don't you start changing your own behavior towards me and become more civil? So far every time that Athenean reports me, I'm sure to see you running on his aid and spite me. That is called WORKING IN TANDEM. Only in the last two days I have received the following insults or trolling comments from you in one single talk page (@Vangjel Zhapa]] see [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231] where Vangjel Zhapa is falsely called of Greek ethnicity: I provide all the sources in the talk page to assert that Vangjel Zapa is instead, Albanian, and all I get is insults), and I cannot even delete these insults because you revert me so that your insulting style can show forever. I have received continuous provocations from you and Athenean and so have many Albanian users who have been reported by you and Athenean in tandem. I am not going to let that happen now to the Bulgarian users. Once that you will have gotten rid of the Albanians, Monshuai is in your agenda and I'll do whatever it takes to not to let that happen. I have read Monshuai's work in Atanassoff's case and I have made edits on it, and I have have left this message to his talk page before ([232]), so your accusations are, as always, empty. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 23:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. See this discussion]. He firstly accused two editors: Fut.Perf. and myself of hypocrisy because that edit of Fut. Perf. and my opinion didn't stand well with his nationalistic POV. Even in the "defense" he wrote on this page he used as arguments things that I already clarified, for example I already mentioned twice or trice that by "lands occupied now by Bulgarians" I simply meant "lands inhabited now by Bulgarians" and didn't mean "occupation" as in the sense of "taking land illegally" however this clarification doesn't serve his purpose to accuse people of racism (he repeated the accusation on this page) and he chose to ignore it and even capitalized "OCCUPATION" to make his point. I see this as an act of bad faith. I got tired of responding to his logorrheic non-factual derailing strawmen accusation and I just gave up continuing the discussion. Wikipedia would be a better place without this individual. man with one red shoe 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Man with one red shoe, I think it is very necessary for people to read our original discussion start to finish. Also, I have already given you 4 examples of you being hypocritical. Since you insist on continuing the discussion here I am going to list those examples below:

(1) You decided to initiate a conversation on my talk page and then stated that you do not want me posting on your talk page. This is hypocritical because you were doing something to me that you did not want done to you.

(2) Even though you were being hypocritical I decided to respect your wish and not post on your talk page. Nonetheless, you decided to again come back to my talk page and swear. You then stated that this wasn't as bad as it could have been, because according to you using the word "shat" was a form of self-censorship. Your words were, "I wanted to say "shit", but then I remembered that some Wikipedia admins are morons, I don't know why I censured myself, is not in my habit, in any case I remove myself from this discussion I don't want ever to discuss with this guy."

(3) You stated that you were offended when I called you hypocritical, yet it was alright for you to say I am delusional. Psychiatry defines the term delusional more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). So by calling me delusional, were you accusing me of being sick/mentally ill? I backed my statements with evidence, can you back yours? Either way, I accept your right to think and say this about me.

(4) You claimed that Bulgaria's ancient heritage is not notable and therefore should not be mentioned in the lede, whilst using Japan and the Japanese people as evidence for your assertion. Once I provided sources that showed that a significant number of Japanese do in fact have interest in Bulgaria's ancient history, you went on to say that 16 million Japanese people (2.1 times Bulgaria's population and 12.54% of the world's 10th most populous nation) is a few. In other words, when evidence was presented to disprove your premise using criteria that you had established, you disregarded it.

Your original statement about Bulgarians, was NOT that they were inhabiting the land, but that they are occupying ancient lands. I responded to this by pointing out that (a)it made it seem as though Bulgarians did not have a right to claim the heritage of their land and (b)that they were on someone else's land. You then decided to change the sentence by using the word "inhabit", which is an indirect confirmation on your part that your original statement was divisive. Even regarding its changed wording, Bulgarians are not "inhabiting" a land to which they have no ancient connection. After all, Bulgarians (like all modern ethnicities) are a composite nation formed by multiple ancestral groups, one of which produced its land's ancient heritage in antiquity. I also explained that modern states are not direct products of ancient states, but rather institutionally formed in large part due to the international law, specifically concept of sovereignty, solidified by the Treaty of Westphalia. Thus while modern Iraq is considered to be a largely Arab and Islamic country that is not a direct product of the Sumerian civilization, its peoples' links to the territory's ancient past remains a reality. This concept is acknowledged throughout the world and is respected in Iraq's lede as well as many other country ledes. Yet strangely for the Balkans, only Greece has a lede that mentions this. Countries such as Albania with its ancient Illyrian heritage as well as Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Bulgaria etc with their respective ancient legacies have been told that they cannot have this information in their ledes.--Monshuai (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support. I think some aspects of Monshuai's behaviour are best described by WP:PUSH. His behaviour has been mostly disruptive such that Wikipedia would be better off without him, but he also seems to have a great knowledge on Bulgarian history (a.o.) and his point of view and the references supporting it would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia. I am in favour of any measure which would encourage him to devote his time and energy on writing and expanding Wikipedia articles, and not on elaborate discussions on talk pages (95%+ of his recent edits were on talk pages). Maybe a partial ban on editting overview articles on Bulgarian, Greek and Byzantine history (those that are part of a series), while allowing him to expand articles on details of those histories, would be the best solution? I also think that the behaviour of some of those proposing or supporting a ban here can also be described as POV-pushing (less disruptive, but also less polite than Monshuai). Preslav (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By your vote you just proved my point that I did not invite only pro-Bulgarians to defend Monshuai, contrarily to the accusations given me by Athenean above. You are asserting that he should be talking less in talk pages, but the reason why he is doing it is that the Greek editors work in tandem against him, so he is desperately trying to assert his references through talk pages. There is no POV pushing here, on the contrary, the Greek editors, deleting his references are POV pushing and I'll show below some examples. Monshuai is trying to collaborate with the Greek editors who are already bunched up to revert him without falling into the 3RR trap. He is left with no choice but to try to enter his legacy in the talk pages so that some other Bulgarian can pick his fights up and restate the truth. A partial ban that you are proposing, given Monshuai's interest in Bulgarian history is really a strong support and I would invite you to reconsider. The Greek contribution to the Bulgaria related pages tries to assert that Bulgarians of today are nothing but people who have come to the Balkans in the 4th to 7th century. The Greek editors have already done that in the Albanian pages. Their agenda tries to demonstrate that the only autochtonous people in the Balkans are the Greeks. In fact, the Greek editors try to assert in Wikipedia that there was no merge whatsoever between the Thracians and the Slavs, but the newcomers destroyed the ancient populations and there is no trace of the old ones. The only ancient civilization remaining in the Balkans is the Greek civilization. This is not corresponding to truth and Monshuai demonstrates it. The Slavic populations have merged with the Thracian one and no one can say that today's Bulgarians are only Slavs and nothing is left from the Thracian ancestry. The Thracian population and civilization merged with the newcoming Slavic civilization and the result was a population that constitutes the modern Bulgarian civilization. The genetics have already proved that the Bulgarians are a mediterranean population (see Bulgarians#Genetic_origin, but the Greeks make sure to keep 15 references in Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis to assert that they came from the Northern Caucasian Steppe. I wish they were so eager to keep the references that demonstrate the theory that Albanian descends from Illyrian (but no: the Greek editor Athenean, who is proposing this ban made sure to delete all 72 references three times (see reverts [233], [234], [235]) and asserted it only as "one of the theories" . By the same token, the Greek contributors assert that the Albanians appear only in the 11th century, failing to acknowledge that the Albanoi Illyrian tribe has been mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC as Arbon, in the 2nd century AD by Polibus as Albanoi, and in the 6th century as Albonios by Stephanus of Bysantium as, see (Origin_of_the_Albanians). The Greek editors are just affraid of having an editor that brings much better sources than theirs and they have a history of removing the sources (see only in the last pages what they do by continous blanking of the references ([236], [237], [238]) which is not nice, but disruptive. Rather than accusing Monshuai of being POV-Pushing and disruptive, Proslav, try to understand that once that the Greek editors are done with the Albanians their next target is the Bulgarians and the Macedonian editors. Take a look at the cemetery of editors that this war has produced (Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans). The ARBMAC has to completely be reorganized as it's the biggest graveyard of truth you'll find in Wikipedia concerning the Balkan topics. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support All one needs do is see some of the very long discussions that Monshuai drags out with his irksome tendency to refuse to accept that consensus is sometimes going to be against him. This is usually done by persisting with inadmissible arguments such as "double standards" and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, sometimes leading to retaliatory WP:POINT disruption on other articles. This reduces the ability of the editors that have the energy to continue debating with him to work on anything else. At the very least, a topic ban from editing articles and talkpages where his participation is at its most tendentious should be considered.--Ptolion (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) If Ptolion believes that evidence of double standards is an inadmissible argument, then what is his proposition for the resolution of these double standards? What is more important, the inadmissibility of evidence that double standards exist or the inadmissibility of the double standards themselves? Also, if a number of Greek editors maintain that their edits in the First Bulgarian Empire article are correct (whilst calling my sourced edits disruptive), then they should be happy that their correct standards also be used in the Byzantine Empire article. However the irony is that the application of their standards to Greek articles is also called disruptive and/or retaliatory by the very same people. This is a severe incongruity that leads one to consider two primary possibilities.

(a) The proper standards are used in the Greek history article ledes, while improper standards are used for the history article ledes of other Balkan countries.

(b) The improper standards are used in the Greek history article ledes, while the proper standards are used for the history article ledes of other Balkan countries.

If (a), then it means that the other Balkan country article ledes be brought up to date with information regarding their ancient heritage.

If (b), then it means that the Greece article lede be brought up to date with only information reflecting the unified country itself (shared borders, central governance, etc), which does not include city states more than 2 millenia ago.

(2) Sulmues makes very good points. It is important that administrators who have not edited Balkan related articles look at the region's respective country article ledes (and other history pieces) and note the disparities. These admins could form a task group that ultimately decides what information is admissible and likewise inadmissible for all involved countries. In other words, they would have the challenging and interesting task of creating transparency.--Monshuai (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason I am asking for a full community ban as opposed to a topic-ban is that no articles are going to be immune from Monshuai, even those are only the most tangentially related to Bulgaria, for example Spartacus [239], Ancient Rome [240], Bulgari [241], or Europe [242]. If he is topic banned on Bulgaria-related topics, there is no telling where his tendentiousness will be turned towards, whether it is some plant species discovered by a Bulgarian scientist, or some rock formation in Antarctica named after a place in Bulgaria. When it's this intense for this long, a topic-ban will not work. Not to mention that the ban will have to be continuously monitored and policed by the community. We can't expect that our users spend their time in this fashion, monitoring the topic-ban of every kook out there, instead of building content. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice case-filing, Athenean. It must have taken quite some time to properly collect all the diffs.:P From the little I've seen on the past few days, I can tell that the attitude of the editor involved is not... constructive. There's also the "That's that.PERIOD" thing, that is quite annoying. (Well, he's not the first or the last that does that around here, but at least this one does it excessively often, often enought to annoy.) Just a comment: Monshuai, the discussion here at ANI is about your behavior, not the articles or the outcome of their discussion. So, don't bring the discussions here, because it's just pointless to do so.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Proofreader77 Indef Block consensus review.

These issues are pending attention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Proofreader77 blocks, collapsing for readability.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ProofReader is currently blocked. He was originally blocked for 48 hours and then recently this was extended to indefinite. With the utmost respect to User:Gwen Gale I think this is a bit extreme. The user is blocked and is doing what he normally does in his blocks, gather documentation and talk about going to ARBCOM. However it is on his talkpage.....and if admin simply WP:DENY or salt his talk page during his block the issue is solved. I also didn't see justification for the block lengthing and find it somewhat punitive aalthough it may not have been meant that way. I'd like to have the community discuss to gain a Consensus on if this is a way we want to go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC) The indefinite length is wholly preventative. If Pr77 carries on with wikilawyering, trolling and months-long threats to take flocks of editors to arbcom, which are meant only to frighten others from dealing with him, his talk page should be shut down too. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I support the indefinite block, which does not necessarily mean "permanent," and agree with Gwen's comment above. The fact that the user "is doing what he normally does in his blocks" speaks to the general problem here, namely that Proofreader77 has engaged in troubling and at times bizarre behavior of a disruptive nature in the past. There is no sign of that stopping, and it's already wasted a lot of time. This latest incident that led to the initial block was discussed here. Personally I have severe doubts that Proofreader77 is contributing in good faith, and given past incidents I think an indefinite block is completely appropriate. If there was any indication that the behavior was going to change then certainly an unblock would be worth considering. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC) He's said he was taking people to arbcom before. To my knowledge he never has, let him vent his frustrations. If you think that salting the talkpage will help great but a indef for documentation for something he fels is unfair. It isn't paticullarly disruptive if you ignore it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I did not lengthen the block to indefinite because of his sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (ec) Blocks, including indefinite blocks, do not require consensus to impose; they however generally require consensus (or ArbCom) to overturn. So far the blocked user himself has not yet made an unblock request, so an ANI discussion is probably premature. That said, I am not quite sure why the block was increased from 48h to indefinite. Just because of the weird wikilawyering on the user talk page? A block won't stop that.  Sandstein  22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC) To Hell In A Bucket, I respectively disagree and think Proofreader's behavior is quite disruptive, though the issue goes well beyond what was posted at that editor's talk page. As I said at WP:AN, I would have supported an indef simply because of the behavior discussed there and the past problems. Almost every comment I've ever seen from Proofreader77 involved mockery, jokey poetry, or drama-mongering (often all three combined). If there is something else I'm missing let me know, but the positive contributions would have to be pretty strong to outweigh what seems a clear path of disruptive editing, the reasons for which are difficult to comprehend. We're all volunteers with limited time and one of the things we need to get a lot better at collectively is saying "you're not helping, rather you're wasting our time with this nonsense, go away now" to people who are here to play games and stir the proverbial pot rather than help write and maintain the encyclopedia. I think that's where we are at with Proofreader77, but I'm serious when I say you should let me know if there are a bunch of positives I'm missing which should cause us to reach out to this editor and try to deal with the problems. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I have my differences with Proof. He can be irritating and I was invovled with his first block. Yes he is a bit eccentric with the poems and such, but as you point out we are all volunteers and he has made monetary contributions for us to be here. I'm not suggesting this gives him carte blanche in anyway to be disruptive but it is something to consider. He's been here a few years and does have wiki's best interest in heart. If you can point out how he doesn't I'd be interested in knowing but if that is my base premise on Proof I simply understand he has a unique way of expressing himself to the community and I'm not the person who has to like it. He does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs) The fact that Proofreader donated money could not be less relevant, and indeed from what I can gather in the past the user was essentially threatening to not do that anymore (or take it back) if something did not go their way. That's not good. My point is not that Proofreader does not have Wikipedia's best interests at heart—perhaps they do (I have no idea). My point is that the evidence of disruption is extensive and ongoing. We can't accommodate people who maybe are trying to help but who in all their time here go after others, disrupt conversations, and generally waste time and piss people off (if everyone has a problem with how they communicate, that's pretty relevant). We have behavioral norms so we can work together, and people who can't follow them should not be here, just as is the case for organizations (volunteer or otherwise) in the real world. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC) "Threatening to go to arbcom" as justification for an indef? Asking for a proper block notice is wikilawyering? Pathetic. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) As I said above, if Proofread77 has made good contributions recently that would suggest we should keep them around I'm very much open to hearing about them, all I've seen is disruptive editing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support If this was only about the threat to go to ArbCom, I would oppose. However, this user has a history of problematic edits to Wikipedia and user talk space. I don't see this changing, and the only unblock I would support would a limited one for him to finally file his long promised case against anyone and everyone. AniMate 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC) So if you cut your finger with a paper you amputate the hand? That doesn't make sense....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC) If you keep cutting your fingers off, it might not be a bad idea though. He's consistently disruptive. We don't need an editor like that. AniMate 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose Indef Block I browsed over the myriad of links prior to this, and I definite agree that Gwen Gale was out of line. However, i'm not sure why he was blocked in the first place, and i'd be happy to get more information on what exactly happened here. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support. Pr77 has a history of being problematic and refusing to get the point when blocked. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but maybe a month or so away from the project might help him get the point. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support ...reluctantly. The rationale would seem weak normally, but he adds those freaking little "documentations" things in places other than his userspace, wherever something happens that he disagrees with. Proofreader has consistently shown himself to be a non-constructive presence at this encyclopedia. He's a dick to everyone, and the incident] with User:Rodhullandemu, that originally sparked the exchange that led to the block, is just the latest example. If he wants to vent, he should write an essay in userspace or something, rather than continually remind everyone he comes into contact with about how badly everything works around here and that eventually he plans to do something about it. It's enough already. I'd support unblocking him if he said he'd stop with that crap, though I'm not sure if he has the ability to understand what exactly the problem is. Equazcion (talk) 23:06, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC) About bloody time. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support As said by others already, the user has a history of being problematic, and given the threats for arbcom and the general...stubbornness(?) I would almost call it contempt (per arbcom threats)...he shows when people tell him he's in the wrong, he doesn't seem to have the right attitude for an encyclopedia at the moment. However, also as stated above, indefinite != permanent. I would also like to see him actually file an arbitration request as he has long been promising rather than holding it as a threat over everyone's heads. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support - NLT generally exists to prevent users from coercing other users to do what they want. Arbcom is essentially our court system, and 77 was threatening anyone who he had thought wronged him, or disagreed with him with with a potential case about their own actions. Yes, NLT was aimed at the actual court systems, but the fact remains that 77 was using Arbcom to get other users to stop discussing his poor behavior. If this block remains, he'll hopefully someday realize why it is bad to act as he has been. Why it is bad to threaten users to get what you want. This kind of stuff shouldn't be allowed(threatening with arbcom to coerce). Long deserved, good block.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Neutral One of the things that I think everyone needs to remember here is that while forceful, he still has his points. I think in a sense, he has been disruptive, and does in fact deserve a block. Comments, Allegations, etc. seem to only stem when he is backed against a wall and he wants to force his way out. We, as Wikipedians, need to remember the difference between reality and the online world. He, in essence, has not shown he can differ between the two. I support a block, but I oppose an indef block. While disruptive, he has shown that he can be a constructive editor. I think that one of the larger underlying issues is that there may have been bad faith blocks made in the past, and there is still a grudge being held there. If there is, ArbCom cannot help him there. That is the past, and as such, he needs to get over it. If he has such an issue with Sysops on Wikipedia, then he shouldn't edit here. If he continues to try to make a point, I think that an Indef block might be acceptable, as the disruption could possibly be more than on his userpage and talk page. Continuously crying and saying "I'm going to ArbCom" or "I'm collecting evidence for ArbCom" only shows that he is not willing to accept a penalty for his actions. DustiSPEAK!! 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I've asked this above and really would be interested in any information, but on what basis do you conclude that Proofreader "has shown that he can be a constructive editor?" I don't doubt you and am not familiar with Proofreaders' every contribution, but I've scrolled through the last 1500 edits (which go back to late December) and do not see a whole lot there besides talk page comments and notes in drama forums. It seems the only article this editor has created is Fang Xingdong which is about someone who has a web site with a name like Proofreaders' own web site. My point is that I'd be much more inclined to work something out with this editor if there was evidence they were really helping out the project, but I just have not see that, or at least not anytime in the recent past. If there is something I'm missing, which is quite possible, please let me know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Support He's been disruptive, and his constant threats of going to Arbcom are just threats to frighten off other editors. Now, he can finally have time to file that long-awaited Arbcom case, and see what they think. And for the last time, no one should care how much money he's donated. Dayewalker (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose Indef Block. It's to extreeme. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment I don't see any diffs for blockable behavior, or any significant discussion prior to the block. It's hard for any uninvolved editor like myself to see why this account was blocked indefinitely. Folks should really do a better job of documenting blocks for non-obvious reasons like "trolling".   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The block is for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Disruption of what?   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) How did he disrupt the encyclopedia? Can you please explain more fully with diffs? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Strongly oppose, and for the first and hopefully last time in my entire life, I agree with DuncanHill and Doc Quintana. This is not the first time I have seen Gwen Gale use admin tools in an abrupt way when another admin has already dealt with the situation. This is a terrible, terrible block. Tan | 39 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) ::Strong oppose as per Tan. <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose - With Gwen Gale's almost refusal to provide any form of diffs for this block and where she directs at the bottom sub-section to go to her talk page (when there she direct users to this ANI thread), I see no reason for an indef block when there are little to no diffs and lots of questions. Request an uninvolved admin roll the block back to the previous 2 weeks 2 days until Gwen Gale can produce some diffs on why this has to be an indef block, otherwise it just looks like punishment than a block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It was actually 2 Days. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) HellinaBucket is correct and I will change that. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose- Proofreader was a bit obtrusive but nothing imo worthy of an indef.Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 'Comment Proof has not, at this moment, requested an unblock. PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose Indefinite is a very nuanced tariff, mostly it is "forever" but sometimes it is "for as long as necessary" - if this was "for as long as necessary" then I would support, but the response above indicates that most people would want it to be "forever"... and I do not see the disruption being so severe as to require that. I also have some dealings with P77, and while eccentric do not raise to the level of disruption - I also think that having someone with a different perspective, one who makes others take the trouble to rationalise what they are doing, is of a benefit to the project. Such an individual is Proofreader77, and I think a fairly long but finite block is all that is required in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose. I oppose indefinite blocks as a matter of general principle. Any serious editor will be more careful even after a three month block. A pure vandal on receiving an indefinite block will merely discard the account and start again. If a serious editor is not careful after a three month block and gets another three month block, so what? Eventually they will come to realize what is acceptable behaviour if they wish to engage in constructive and uninterrupted editing. David Tombe (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Question For Gwen Gale Could you provide some diffs explaining why an indef block is necessary here? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I already answered this on my talk page. When I asked you to take this to ANI, I was thinking of any further input you might have. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) No, you didn't answer this at all, you just said look at his contributions, which number around 15,000. Can you please answer the question? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Put it this way, click on any 20 of his contributions from the last one or two months and the pattern straightforwardly shows up. If you don't agree, that's what this thread is for. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Gwen, stop beating around the bush and give us some diffs or this looks like admin abuse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I concur. If I had administative powers, I would revert the indef block at this point. I am not sure about the 48 hour block, but I am definitely sure now that the indef block is inappropriate. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Like I say I have my differences with Proof but I had my own block extended at one point in this same manner. Proof documentating a case for arbcom is his own thing. That is his business Christ if the shoe fits wear it, if not brush it off and have confidence in your own actions and his documentation will lead nowhere. It does sometimes appear to be a bit crusader but if he feels there is a issue he can appeal to Arbcom. Blocking him for preparing his case is ludicrous and can be seen as a appeal to fear for both sides. Per the blocking policy unless he commits another infraction while being blocked that he has previously been warned for the original block should never be lengthened. Most of this can be immediately cleared up with a specific diff that violates a referenced policy, thus justifying the need for extending the already proscribed remedy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Some folks here really ought to do what Gwen is suggesting, even if you think it comes across as a brush off—click on any set of 20 diffs from the last couple of months and determine if you think this is really a user who is here to help, or to have a bit of a laugh and waste time. It's one thing to object to an indef block, but there's a reason this editor has been blocked three times before, and why they were blocked for 48 hours just prior to this (which related to an incident where they were basically taunting a fellow contributor). I'll look and throw together some diffs, but it's not an exaggeration to say you can click at random on this user's contribution's list and find little but problems. I'd like to see those opposing the block explain what Proofreader77 has contributed to the encyclopedia. This is a serious question and I've asked it several times without having it answered—indeffing this account seems a no-brainer to me since I've seen nothing but low-level (and sometimes high-level) disruption from it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the next block could be indefinite but this is out of procedure. After the remedy is handed down by the blocking admin the editor must offend another policy. One of the references to legal threats above is a joke. We start using our own policy as legal threats is absurd, what is next blocking for a ANI thread threat? Let's look at the current institution of the indef block as to what offense warranted it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I didn't lengthen the block for legal threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) To Hell in a Bucket, Wikipedia is not for process wonkery or "procedure" for the sake of it, it's an encyclopedia. Do you think Proofreader has done anything to help that endeavor of late? I haven't seen it, and when I asked you for evidence above you provided none other than "they gave us some money." I have seen an extraordinary amount of disruption which wastes the limited amount of time we all have. If it's important to folks that we have a big pow-wow and analyze diffs endlessly before doing absolutely nothing and letting Proofreader pursue their agenda of writing poems, threatening ArbCom cases, and toying with other editors then so be it, but y'alls can handle it next time when Proofreader gets unblocked and starts disrupting the project again as will inevitably occur. Honestly, at times it's necessary to apply a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE, and surely common sense suggests this person is an obvious net negative to the project. Not one person has suggested otherwise as yet which is telling. Probably some admin will come along and unblock, but as far as I'm concerned future disruption by Proofreader is on the shoulders of that person and others who have commented here in support of the unblock out of fear or "admin abuse." Indeffing disruptive accounts protects the project, which is what admins are supposed to be doing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) As regards contribs, here's the bigger picture, which I add without comment. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Gwen, what did you lengthen the block for and provide diffs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC) NeutralHomer have you looked at Proofreader's block log and contributions history? Do you see anything in the latter in the last couple thousand edits that suggests this is a person who is here to help us, rather than make odd comments and have a go at various people? I'm asking in all seriousness, because it seems plain as day to me that this account has done nothing but edit disruptively for quite some time, which is in and of itself a reason to indef block. And I will try to add some diffs here, but seriously go click on some things at random and see for yourself. It's good to understand the context before crying admin abuse. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC) His blocks were for being annoying more or less. This doesn't mean we show him the door. Look at his contribs, 40% in articles? So what he's annoying ignore him, don't make it a personal issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Bigtimepeace, it isn't shouldn't (and isn't) your place (but thank you for doing so) to add those diffs. If Gwen Gale wants this block to be upheld, she needs to be forward with the diffs, give as much information as possible on what she though this block was needed to be indef. So far, she has been vague, withholding and kinda rude when it comes to answers on most questions about this block, which makes me question if the block is even needed in the first place and whether Gwen Gale is acting in good faith (yeah, I am going there). When an admin refuses to provide any information on a block they have made, it is our duty to overturn it until they can do so, willing or not. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Disruption isn't allowed because it drives away helpful volunteer editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Gwen, please stop giving bromidic boilerplate answers and explain yourself. It's great that Bigtimepeace is fighting your fight for you, but maybe you could summon up the energy for more than a sentence? There's clearly concern here. Tan | 39 01:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I don't agree with anything in that post, Tan. So far as I can tell, you don't seem to think Pr77 is likely to be disruptive after 48 hours. I think otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC) So your answer to everything here is to simply state, over and over, that any pertinent facts are so blindingly obvious that there is absolutely no need to explain yourself, other than making sure you say a variant of the word "disrupt" many, many times? I think I'm going to overturn this indef block. Tan | 39 01:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I think you're angry. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Good Call. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Ok what disruption did you extend the block for? sometimes everyone makes bad decisions but if it is as clear as you claim it to be it should be little matter and effort to show the offense warranting the extention. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You should look at hist past 2000 edits stretching back a couple of months or so (only 99 edits in article space). A vastly different pattern. He needs to go back to article writing. A project and/or user talk ban should help, temporarility at least. Pcap ping 01:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I see no disruption on this contribs, I seen him being an annoyance at the most, but that can be ignored easily...overturn the block and let's move on. Gwen Gale hasn't given us any motive to keep this block at indef. Overturn back to 2 days or even time served and I highly recommend Gwen Gale be taken before ArbCom for this. This is a definite bad act and not becoming of a respected (and she was to me before this point) admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Some editors think Pr77 has been highly disruptive and others don't think Pr77 has been disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) What that sentence right there shows me is you have zero reason for your extension of this block to indef. I have definitely lost all respect I had for you over this incident and believe you need to turn in your adminship immediately if you can't use it better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I've given my reasons, you disagree as to the level of disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) No, you have given extremely vague reasons with no evidence to back it up. That is not what a good admin does. Sorry, but you haven't swayed anyone with your vague answers and no evidence. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::I recommend that this user's conduct should be requested for comment. <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Well, who are you to recommend anything, Mister Fifteen Edits To Their Name? In fact, the fact that you seem to know your way with wikicode makes you smell somewhat sock-like.HalfShadow 02:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I can't see the swastikas on my UTF-8 system. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) ::Everyone is entitled to participate in discussion regardless of edit count or how new they are right? <swatiska redacted> The Main Edge <swatiska redacted> 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Redaction of Hindu Swastika With regard to the redaction of what appeared to be the Hindu Swastika symbol in a signature during the above discussion, I am unclear if the editor mistakenly confused the Nazi Swastika (rotated by 45 degrees) with the Hindu symbol. Is there a prior consensus that applies to such redactions of any character or image that may be confused with the Nazi Swastika? Ash (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Arbitration An involved party should just file an arbitration case, please. It's clear there's not going to be consensus here, and far too much repetitive argumentation. Besides, Proofreader77 indicates on his talk page that this is what he wants. Pcap ping 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Link, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [243] Pcap ping 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Filed [[244]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Proposed Based on the refusal of the extending admin to back up block extention by policy, we should revert to the original 2 day block. Proofreader77 should be admonished he is on thin ice and the community would like to see the Arbcom case filed or dropped. Dragging on is unacceptable and it can lead to indefinite blocks in the future if the disruption warrants it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Support per above.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Support per above as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Whatever. I'll support so long as everyone freaking out about the indef gets a trout slap once the account is again indeffed in the future (after it's wasted a lot of time in the interim) either here or at a long, stupid ArbCom case (and that will happen). This is a triumph of process wonkery over basic common sense as to what kind of contributors we want around here, but we often do a terrible job of applying common sense in these kind of situations. It should also be noted that Gwen's block (and I don't even know Gwen) was supported by 8 people immediately, so the idea that it was wildly out of process and inappropriate is absurd—it apparently did not have consensus, but that does happen from time to time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sure Works for me. Diffs next time though. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Done I reinstated the original 48-hour block per the above. While I feel that it would be a delicious irony to simply let it be without explaining myself (perhaps stating the term "inappropriate" a lot, in lieu of anything else), I'll say that admins should not simply extend blocks - especially to indefinite - without having a strong argument to support themselves. As it became painfully clear that Gwen Gale had no argument prepared and isn't likely to prepare one anytime soon, I reinstated Fut. Perf's original block. Tan | 39 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You did so without consensus and your rationale, as put forth here, is mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Given your penchant for handing out indefinite blocks after admins have already meted out shorter blocks - with nary an attempt to discuss it with the admin first - I'd say that it's you that's short on consensus. Tan | 39 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I see consensus above for a permanent block. Did you miss it? And are the opinions of other editors of no value compared with that of the blocking admin? Does the expressed wish of the community mean nothing to you? Rodhullandemu 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 8-8 is a consensus? Since when? Did I miss it? Are the opinions of the eight dissenting editors of no value compared with the other eight? Tan | 39 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Consensus isn't about numbers, it's about strength of arguments. Whereas one or two of the supports might reasonable be discounted, so equally can one or two of the opposes. The remaining opposes are largely based on lack of evidence to upgrade the block, whereas the remaining supports are based on longitudinal assessments of this editor's disruptive behaviour- and that, to me, is the distinction. There comes a time when an admin is duty bound to take action to protect the encyclopedia (remember that?) against negative influences. I'm not convinced that a case has been made either that Proofreader77's recent (i.e. going back to December) behaviour has been of net benefit to the encyclopedia, or that previous blocks have been effective in making that point to him. Taking a longer view, I don't necessarily see that situation improving, although that is up to him, and I can confidently predict that we'll be back here before long. Rodhullandemu 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Hell, I'll confidently predict we'll be back here before long. I hope I'm wrong, as I often am, but I'm also confident in my stance in this block. Gwen had every opportunity to explain herself, and instead opted to, well, not explain herself. An admin had already assessed the situation and plotted a course of action. For another admin to unilaterally (save the irony comments) lengthen the block (from 48 hours to indefinitely, no less), without any discussion, explanation, reasoning, etc. is simply wrong. Look at her attempts to deflect responsibility above; it's astonishing. Tan | 39 02:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment on IRONY, Gwen you claim Tan has changed the block out of process, yet you fail to explain how your original modification was based on. Can't you see the hypocrisy? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Comment -- I'd just point out Sandstein's comment above, that indefs don't require consensus to impose, but do require consensus to overturn. I'm not seeing said consensus here. Equazcion (talk) 02:05, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) There was no evidence for the block in the first place, so the block was nothing but punishment, which is not allowed. Tan's overturning of the indef block was a good call. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Regardless, the question of whether the indef was indeed inappropriate should be left up to consensus, not the unilateral decision of you or an admin. I don't see consensus here. Equazcion (talk) 02:10, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) Well, it has been undone, so it doesn't matter. Hell in a Bucket below makes a very good point (you should read it). This entire thread should be marked as resolved and closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Also look at the fact thaqt most of the issue is personal dislike and annoyance. The proposed action doesn't protect him if he fucks things up, just gives him enough rope to either get himself out of the corner he is in or hang himself. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Overturning was fine given the reaction (even though it's a dumb outcome), but eight other people supported the block almost right away. It's wrong to suggest that this was something horribly bad on Gwen Gale's part, she extended a block of an obviously problematic user, a lot of people agreed, but just as many or more disagreed, so the block was overturned, and now the user can continue to create problems. Like I said it's dumb, but beyond that there's nothing to get worked up about here. Let's hope Proofreader does not waste too much of our time in the week's ahead, but I won't hold my breath. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Call it principle. I'm willing to listen to a whole lot of "I told you so" if it means that admins are required to explain their indefinite blocks (in the face of concern) with more than Gwen mustered above. Tan | 39 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) We can only hope he makes the right decision you are correct. But next time the case would be lock stock and barrel if he gives a justifiable offense and then it wil be moot. The ball will be in his court. Maybe the thread will make him see some different perspectives. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) To Tan39, there's no doubt that Gwen could and should have explained better, but there was no rush to unblock either (indeed none was requested), and you might have let the conversation continue since there was arguably just as much support for the block as non-support. It's obvious that some of those who were asking for an unblock were just not familiar with the background, or the fact that Proofreader recently e-taunted another editor who expressed anger at a comment and explained he had experienced recent trauma in real life (hopefully you know what I'm talking about since it started the whole incident). Honestly to me that was worthy of an indef block all by itself and I said so at an earlier thread on AN, which is maybe even where Gwen got the idea. It's a difficult question round here when it comes to a choice between doing something "on principle" that might result in a shitty outcome or being not strictly process-bound in the interests of doing the right thing. Given that you brought to the table your own past problems with Gwen's admin behavior (and obvious anger over this affair, which comes out in your sarcastic comment after unblocking), I don't think you were the right person to decide what to do here. I do appreciate you taking ownership of the unblock though, and hopefully you'll be the first one to deal with future problems from Proofreader so the rest of us don't have to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) If the block is only 2 days again, can an admin at least please give Proofreader some kind of official notice that once the block expires, he's not to continue with his arbcom threats or "documentations" or else risk being blocked again? I realize he says he'll be filing imminently now, but who knows exactly when he actually will. Equazcion (talk) 02:28, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I do agree with this as indicated above. A little article creation or work would do him good in lieu of a Arbcom case. If he does choose to do so then it is over and he will have his behavior jkust as closely scrutinzed as those he accuszes of impropriety. Sometimes better to let sleeping dogs lie. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Admin warning should come from Tanthalas39 who did the unblocking. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Again, can an admin please issue a formal warning to Proofreader regarding posting his "arbcom documentation" crap? He seems to still be at it. Equazcion (talk) 03:23, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) I suggest dropping Tan39 a note and asking him to do it if you think the warning is needed—it's best if it comes from the unblocking admin such that the warning is basically part of the unblock (i.e., "your unblock is in part contingent on you not doing X anymore"). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Done, here's hoping. Thanks for the suggestion. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC) Just to say, told you so [245]--Jac16888Talk 11:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Belated comment. Sorry, I've been involved in other things, which pushed reading WP:AN & WP:AN/I way down on my list of things to do. However, I regret that the indef block against Proofreader77 was reverted to a 48-hour block: he has been problematic in the past (see, for example this incident), as well as a nagging suspicion I've had since our last interaction -- over the incident Benjiboi alludes to above below -- that he has been Wikistalking me. Personally, I have been extending to him good faith & otherwise ignoring his actions because I can't determine whether he is simply well-meaning but clearly missing the subtleties of Wikipedia norms, or that he is intentionally pushing the limits of our patience much as a troll would. WP:AGF & WP:BITE both encourage us to have patience with other users, but there comes a time when we have to say enough. Based on Gwen Gale's action, I would say that we have reached it. And even if this rollback of an indef block is maintained, his next block ought to be his last -- & an indefinite one. -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Topic ban from Arbcom and editing restrictions against diff gathering for any "potential" arbcom cases This seems to be something he loves doing. A user disagrees with him, wrongs him, and he threatens arbcom. As far as I have seen, these threats are only used to push other users away. He cannot be allowed to continue this. I know that this is not a real legal threat, but it's just about as close as you can get. NLT was create to prevent people from threatening court action to coerce people into doing what they want or backing off. There should be a separate policy, or a modification of NLT to account for threats to go to arbcom used for coercion. This can't be allowed to continue. I, as the writer of this, obviously support.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Nahh, let him file one if he desires. If ARBCOM accepts, then he had a reason to file one, whereas if they reject it, it'll make a stronger statement to him than if we ban him from filing one. However, I would support banning him from threatening other users with going to arbcom (the exception being notifying them if he actually files a case), as that's just ridiculous tactics aimed at getting other editors to "cease and desist" what he doesn't like. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Per your response above, I have downsized and made things more clear. He's basically only allowed to prepare for the case without alerting any of the involved users(as he normally does by posting it all over his talk page), and he is only allowed to alert any of the involved parties if it has been filed.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

• Proofreader77 is restricted from threatening or alerting other users of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases unless alerting them of a case already filed, nor can Proofreader77 ask anyone(on or off wiki) to do this for him.
• Diff gathering by Proofreader77, or any user they ask to help them(on or off wiki), must take place on a sub-page in Proofreader77's user space or user talk space. It may not take place on his user page or user talk page.
  • Under no circumstances shall other users be made aware of this page by Proofreader77, or anyone that Proofreader77 has asked(on or off wiki).
    • This page shall not be linked by Proofreader77, or anyone they have asked(on or off wiki), from his talk page, or his userpage. He can easily save a bookmark and watch the page if he wants to keep tabs on it.
  • Should the arbcom case in regards to this page not be filed within a timely manner, then the page may be subject to deletion.
• Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 is blocked for (insert good amount of time here).

Per Ks, I have revised the restrictions and tried to outline everything. I believe that sums things up. As the writer of this, I obviously support.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Of course Proofreader77 is able to prepare a case for arbcom, and is able to gather evidence for a likely case in a subpage. However, the irritatingly high noise-to-signal ratio is a problem: please stop talking about proposed arbcom cases, and please stop repeating points that have irritated other editors. It is disruptive, and leads to total time wasting like this discussion (which will not be totally wasted if we can achieve a consensus to reign in Proofreader77's talk page drama). 07:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) signed correctly this time, sorry Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you fix your sig? I don't want to do it for you, as I think you might want to. c.c — Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases makes sense I suppose, but I don't understand the second bit about keeping diffs gathered on a separate page. Whether Proofreader links to it or not, any other editor who checks his or her contributions (which will happen) will immediately "be made aware of" it—you can't really "hide" a page you are editing. As such I'm confused as to why doing this "diff gathering" would be less troublesome at User Talk:Proofreader77/Diffs than at their normal talk page. Even the first proposal about not threatening ArbCom cases seems unnecessary to me, though I have no problem with it. This indefinite block had significant (if not sufficient) support, and I think the next time there are any shenanigans there will be resounding support for such a measure. I'm not sure we need to impose any formal restrictions in the interim, and surely Proofreader77 knows they are on thin ice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the bit about it being on a sub-page, this is because when 77 posts these kind of things on their talk, they are either insulting, irritating, or threatening by their very existence, such as when 77 posted that I took 5 edits to undo a resolved tag. Stating such a thing is rather insulting, as I was just having a bit of trouble with the template. There is also no good reason to record perceived flaws as openly as 77 has done in the past. Especially when they have continually threatened arbcom, but never really gone through with it.

In case the above is tl;dr: They use their talk page as a means of an indirect threat against those that are there, or some over project page like ANI, to leave, or they would become a party in his next case. There is no need for that kind of thing here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, my point is just that shunting those "indirect threat" sort of comments off to a subpage does not really do anything about the problem. They will be somewhat less visible, but will still be there, and people will obviously know about them. Indeed the page would almost certainly come under discussion as an attack page possibly warranting deletion, so it might actually create more problems. I understand the spirit of what you are proposing, I just don't think it would have much of an effect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Having the page deleted as an attack page is actually a better course of action than what we have currently: 77 makes threats about potential cases on his talk pages, and as they are "pending", and on his talk pages, they can't be deleted when he fails to file any such case. If they were restricted like I write, those pages could be deleted when he fails to file any such case for a due amount of time.. and as such, going to clarify that above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm unsurprised to see this editor here as the last time I was trying to deal with them Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed (November 2009) they were specifically told unambiguously they were on thin ice and needed to work with other editors and stop overwhelming opposition. That same thread includes a link to another thread of mass distraction whereby Boke, a disambiguation page, had to be rolled back by reasonable and productive editors with an immense amount of energy as evidenced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Vulnerability of short pages to attack, UD overflow, and other issues of Boke (April 2009) . Unfortunately I see little to show that they have changed. Myself and several editors have tried to deal with them regarding Roman Polanski but simply walked away instead. I think the relative concept is WP:Competence, perhaps a line needs to be added their that even if you can spin a sentence in twelve ways and utterly frustrate all others on a talkpage does not mean you are correct or that anyone agrees with you; and WP:Hear. Gwen Gale, IMHO, has been patiently dealing with this and these editing restrictions (in November 2009) should likely be strengthened as part of this. I also feel Gwen Gale's suggestion of a mentor is a solid one that likely should be enforced for Proofreader 77 to remain. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this assessment. This user may not be here to help build an encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As do I. This editor appears to be on thin ice repeatedly. Maybe a formal ban proposal...? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:04, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with BB for reasons (especially about Gwen's patience) I've stated elsewhere in this thread. The problem originally may have been one of ability, but Proofreader77 has now moved on to being a distraction in other ways -- which does not indicate he wants to contribute in a positive manner. However, a mentor will only work for Proofreader -- as for anyone --only if she/he wants to be a productive contributor here; I'm not convinced that is the case. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a considerable amount of irony going on here. Proofreader77 spammed me out about a month ago when I raised the issue of law keeping on wikipedia. I considered his behaviour to be somewhat irritating. He was resisting the proposals that I was making. Yet those proposals were designed to protect editors from the very kind of excesses that Proofreader77 has now found himself at the brunt of. Proofreader77 nevertheless has a sense of humour and I have no desire to see anybody blocked indefinitely. I'll repeat my view that all serious editors will eventually mend their ways if they are subjected to enough 3 month blocks. It's quite simple. If genuine disruption occurs, then block them. Begin with short blocks and build up to 3 months. Three months is a long time. If they continue the offending behaviour when they come back after 3 months, then block them for 3 months again. They will soon tire of it. Could it be any more simple than that? There is no need for all these complex restrictions and probations, and topic bans. There is too much time wasted on it. And why are we witnessing so many cases of short blocks being suddenly bumped up to indefinite? It's a bit like watching traffic fines being bumped up to the noose because the accused looked at the magistrate the wrong way. I'm just glad however that Proofreader77 won't be able to spam me out on this occasion, at least until tomorrow anyway. David Tombe (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You've never had to deal with a real problem editor, have you? Repeated 3 month blocks just means we'll be blocking certain people every three months ad infinitum. An indef block is actually less of a penalty, as they can come back whenever they can demonstrate they're no longer going to be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making out here that pushing the block button is a major effort. Yes, I've had problems with Proofreader77, but I believe that remedial measures need to be kept proportionate. There is something seriously wrong when somebody gets blocked for 48 hours, and as soon as he squeaks, somebody else piles in and bumps it up to indefinite. Why? Why this excessive action? If they thought that 48 hours wasn't long enough, then why not 72 hours or a week, or even three months? Why go storming straight in for indefinite? It strikes me as being a case of kicking somebody when they are down. Look at me everybody, nobody can kick harder than I can. I've no objection to having a wikipedia jester as such. It adds a bit of humour to the project, yet at the same time such a jester needs to be strictly regulated. And I don't agree with your assessment that you'll necessarily be repeating the blocks every 3 months. Even an encyclopaedia jester will soon tire of having his jokes interrupted for 3 month periods at a time, and they will quickly learn how to be humorous in a less annoying way. And a block of any length can be appealed, so I don't follow your logic that an indefinite block is less of a penalty than a three month block. David Tombe (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree. In many cases an increasingly lengthy approach is sensible. I think this editor may need some exceptional intervention but do note they have been blocked a few times lately. Having been frustrated by their winding up the talkpage on a BLP for months to frustrate any change, no matter how insignificant is just my experience. It was a colossal waste of energy driving away the very editors we want to be using a talkpage to make significant improvements, their involvement wholly frustrated and in some cases rolled back improvements. Court jesters, fine we can use a few. Humour? Great, no problems there. But disruption remains disruptive and whatever their goals here they seem rather incapable of adhering to community and collegial approaches to editing. We really don't want to encourage intellectualized battlegrounding. Just because other editors give up in frustration doesn't mean the oppressive side's view is correct. This has been played out many times going back almost a year if not longer. If this is a social experiment of theirs put a fork in it and call it a day. Having said all that it seems their block was reinstated to just the original 48 hours. If they don't show a remarkable about face to working with other editors then editing restriction and topic bans are in order. Roman Polanski remains a BLP mess but I won't bother until Proofreader77 is off that article altogether. Generally blocks should increase incrementally, but as in this case several blocks that likely should have occurred didn't. I've seen this before where the right people didn't bring an editor's behaviours to wider attention in the right way. And ... the situation grinds until it hits a breaking point and then looks like it's an over-reaction. The initial case could have/should have been presented in context of months and volume of disruption - "what is the best way forward". It wasn't so here we are to pick up the pieces and mop the mess. Maybe Proofreader77 can explain where they're coming from and how they will bring their eccentricities in line with community standards without the spin, poetry, etc. -- Banjeboi 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only pointing out the need for proportionate action. As regards the case of Proofreader77, my opinion is that you weren't hard enough on him when you needed to be, and then suddenly you went over the top. Recently an editor came to my talk page regarding problems with Proofreader77. He had raised the issue on a noticeboard, and if I recall correctly, the admins turned the tables right around on him, ultimately leading to a block, and Proofreader77 got off scot-free, no doubt with a smile on his face. Turning the tables on the person complaining seems to be a cowardly tactic which is rife on wikipedia. Hence you gave Proofreader77 a licence to continue with his behaviour. And suddenly then you clobbered him hard, and a trail of discord has been left along the way.

What you should have done was listened carefully to the complaints that were being made against Proofreader77 back in January and taken heed. A block for a week or two would have eased the pressure at the Roman Polanski article, while at the same time allowing Proofreader77 a chance to think it all over, knowing that he would be returning again. Had the cycle repeated often enough, I can assure you that he would have tired of it unless his sole objective was to become the first wikipedia editor to get a block record which carries on to a second page.

But to let him off scot-free and encourage him, and then to block him for 48 hours when he's not expecting it, and to suddenly bump it up to indefinite because of some talk page edits serves no purpose other than to wind him up. Why should his talk page edits have been a problem to anybody? I don't habitually look at Proofreader77's talk page and if nobody else did either then they wouldn't see anything that they didn't like.

Apply blocks proportionately and fairly when they are required, and there will be alot less discord on wikipedia. David Tombe (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I hear you and generally agree however in practice a lot of problems are ignored until they boil over. In Proofreader77's case(s), IMHO, it's never a simple read and it's always WP:TLDR. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. When a user dances on the boundary between what is permitted & what is not, it can be hard to see whether that is due to simple naivette or careful malice. And Admins who take a firm stand in one instance should always step back & let another Admin, who has fresh eyes & no vested interest handle the next. In this case, however, I'm finding it hard to continue to extend good faith to Proofreader77. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you must never bang the door totally in someone's face, and that is what an indefinite block does. That's how you wind people up. If he really is being big trouble, and has been so for a long time, then block him for 3 months. If he starts again as soon as the 3 months is up, then block him for another 3 months. I assure you that he will get the message, and although he may be angry at the lengthy blocks, he will not have had the ultimate insult of having had the door shut completely in his face, and he will know that he will ultimately be allowed another chance when the period expires. Even Jimbo Wales himself has expressed the opinion that any punitive action should not exceed one year. I personally think that 3 months at a time is adequate, but there are still many admins and arbitrators who are dishing out indefinite sanctions. This needs to be stopped. Ironically, it was on this very issue that Proofreader77 spammed me out when I raised it on Jimbo's talk page in December. All Jimbo needs to do is set the software that blocks can't exceed a certain maximum length of time. That will remove alot of discord and alot of indulgence. A week long block in January would have sufficed, but instead they preferred to wind up Tombaker321, no doubt leaving him totally sour about the project. David Tombe (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please indent your replies so we know who you're talking to?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You "assure" us he'll get the message, huh? Forgive me for not being so naive. Indef is not this "ultimate insult" you claim it to be, and your indefinite rolling blocks are useless. Personally, I think we shouldn't have blocks that automatically release after 48 hours. If we're blocking someone for more than two days, something is wrong. An indef says, "we'll let you edit once you demonstrate an understanding of what a collaborative editing environment is." That's it. If you find that insulting, I'm not sure what to tell you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked sanction proposal

After tweaking Deadalus' proposal:

1. Any user who appears to be acting in such a manner as to circumvent the effect and/or spirit of the following restrictions may be sanctioned appropriately at the acting admin's discretion.
2. Proofreader77 is prohibited from
   1. asking anyone (on or off wiki) to act in a manner that would circumvent the effect and spirit of the following restrictions;
   2. threatening or alerting any user of "pending" or "potential" arbcom cases, except where notifying an user of a case that has already been filed.
   3. using his user page and user talk page for the purpose of diff gathering. Diff gathering, if any, may only take place on a subpage in Proofreader77's user space.
   4. linking such subpages anywhere on-wiki, or making any user aware of the existence of such subpages, on or off wiki.
3. Should the arbcom case in regards to such subpages not be filed within a timely manner, then the page may be subject to deletion.
4. Should any of these restrictions be violated, then Proofreader77 may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator, for up to one month in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.
5. Administrators are not permitted to reverse or modify actions taken under this set of restrictions without explicit authorisation to do so by the acting administrator, or a clear community consensus to do so. Taking action under this set of restrictions shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions.

I think that sums it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Number 4 is too bureaucratic (it could be completely eliminated), and number 5 is trying to take an opinion on the Gwen Gale/Tan issue and make a rule about it. Tan | 39 03:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't have any "Gwen Gale/Tan" issue in mind when tweaking this; nor have I ever wanted to add unnecessary bureaucracy where it's unrequired. This is simply a standard way many editing restrictions listed at WP:RESTRICT have been enacted, be it by ArbCom or the community. It's just a clear definition of what each thing means for the purposes of this restriction so admins are firmly acting within certain limits, yet are also given a broad level of discretion - leaving the definitions open to general site norms would simply mean more of the time and space taken to debate what means what as there is no set definition; I think one of the more useful points of having a restriction is to reduce the unnecessary time and space that would otherwise be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't think I really need to explain myself here. I have already done so several times above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to end this

Given the latest developments [246], he was indef blocked [247] by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Pcap ping 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be wise as long as action over there actually happens which we cannot force. Is there a means to track this to ensure it is sussed out there and if not addressed here? -- Banjeboi 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked by an admin, not by ArbCom. Pcap ping 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the issue is there right now and Proofreader77, IMHO, shouldn't have to defend themselves on two fronts when we have an elected body of generally dispassionate editors at Arbcom looking into the issues. My only concern is that if they don't take action it is revisited here to address the concerns raised. 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The community is sorting this out here so there is no good reason to close this off, particularly when ArbCom have pretty much declined the case. The above sanction proposal is for enacting, should Proofreader77 be unblocked again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think then that the above needs to be severely tweaked to take on board prior concerns not just the no legal threats parts. -- Banjeboi 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to continue tweaking with the community, though I'd need a concise list of the specific concerns that have not been addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the editing restrictions from last year remain relevant and some additional points may be useful here in one form or another. Not sure how all can work or - likely - simplyfying so everyone can easily digest these:

A. You are to follow the spirit of not Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, specifically admonishing the absence or encouraging formal proceedures, using legal language needlessly and conducting editing as if Wikipedia were a courtroom.
B. In the spirit of WP:Talk - "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." - talkpage posts are to remain clear, unambiguous and easily understood by all editors. Talkpage contributions should be no longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to gauge/enforce) and no more than 5 contributions per day to any one talk page except your own userspace. Any editor may use {{collapse}} or alikened templates to redact the breaches.
C. You are not allowed to use non-community standardized formatting anywhere but in your own userspace. Boke was an example of this which made normal editing nearly impossible. Poetry, specifically meta-discussions on other users seems antagonistic and unhelpful. Do this off-Wikipedia if it must be done at all.
D. If you seek and successfully obtain mentorship for help with evidenced idiosyncratic style and make meaningful progress improving your communication skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of editors.

I think that covers the areas I've seen. I'd like to ensure that the end product is easy understood by us now as well as the next folks who come new to the situation. -- Banjeboi 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This indefr block is as good as the last fucked up one. Who the fuck cares if Proof wirtes in Poetry. What policy did he violate by posting a idosyncratic post at arbcom. SHOULD HE HAVE GROVELED MORE? That's sure what it looks like from this end, indef blocked because he actually followed through and posted on the Board. Make up you fucking minds, first you say he shouild and when he does you indef him again. I wish to hell people, meaning blocking admin start laying off the block button for frivolous reasons. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing in poetry is, essentially, giving the middle finger to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So is borderline stupidity but it is tolerated in Mass Force here. This is a personal dislike not a detriment to wiki. 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC) comment posted by User:Hell in a Bucket

It depends on whether the "stupidity" is willful or not -- and even if it isn't, I'm in favor of considering serial incompetence to be disruptive. As for the current case: writing in poetry cannot be considered as anything but a willful act, a deliberate slap in the face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing in poetry is one thing, however, writing in poetry to specifically insult other editors isn't allowed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to answer HiaB's question, even if it means beating a dead horse. Nobody cares if another Wikipedian writes poetry as part of how she/he communicates with other editors -- in itself. (If you can write readable, or even entertaining, poetry, I welcome you to do so.) But with Proofreader77, the problem has been that she/he fails to respond other people in an understandable way, & her/his sonnets only compound the problem. It's the equivalent of an instance where you ask me why I made such-&-such an edit, & I start talking about the time I met Ward Cunningham. All very nice, you reply, but what about that edit I made, & I continue to talk about Ward, & you rant at me for being unresponsive -- at which point I post a sonnet. What you have is an example of dealing with PR77: she/he appears to have a valid point, but fails -- almost stubbornly -- to engage other users in a productive -- or even useful -- manner. At this point, I feel the best that can be said about this person is that PR77 suffers from Asperger's Syndrome; at worst, we have a troublemaker. If you disagree with my opinion, feel free to offer to mentor Proofreader77; but I think your time & energy would be better spent on anything else. -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything else aside, I find it hard to believe anyone could honestly argue Proofreader to be an asset to the aim of building an encyclopedia. There's no other way to see it – the vast majority of his energy here is spent engaging in abstruse rhetorical experiments on talk pages that, oddly, prevent any actual communication from taking place. He's obviously heard that this is a problem, but won't (or can't) address it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All that aside, I would rather keep this open in the event that he is unblocked, in regards to the proposed restrictions above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the block (as I did previously) and strongly enjoin other admins to not unblock unilaterally. The problem some people had with Gwen Gale's previous unblock (though an equal number supported it) was that it did not provide a significant rationale, and was essentially overturning the action of another administrator who had only blocked for 48 hours. Now that original blocking admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, has blocked indefinitely and provided a clear rationale. This action is fully within an administrator's purview and should not be reversed lightly. Of course if there is a strong consensus against it, or if the Arbs want to reverse it and have a case (which seems unlikely) that would be different, but this is not the kind of block where another admin can waltz by and say "I don't like that, unblocking." If there are not significant objections in the near future this thread should indeed be closed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Newman Luke

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke that Newman Luke (talk · contribs) is a problemetic editor on Judaism related articles. He is busy again with a sprey of major rewrites to Judaism related articles. When reverted he repeats his edits, in stated disregard for the repeated complaints, and without engaging in discussion. I propose a 24-hour block to force this editor into discussion. I have notified him on his user talk page. [248]Debresser (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser is attempting to Game 3RR (he's just made 3 reverts), and his "discussion" amounts to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newman Luke (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I made three different edits, which is not four identical edits as in the 3RR rule. But that is not the issue. And what about you, repeating your edits? Aren't you familiar with WP:BRD? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I posted a notification about this post on WikiProject Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

Luke, have a read here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Luke's edits. He has improved the article immensely. If there are certain statements that annoy Debresser, he should address them on the talk page.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is almost nothing good among his edits. And if there were major good pieces, I left them. This is precisely the reason that he was posted initially on WikiProject_Judaism. His points of view are so far removed from Judaism, that his edits disrupt the articles. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And please, this is not a matter of my personal "annoyment". Try and keep your language NPOV. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're so interested in NPOV, define "far removed from Judaism" in an NPOV way. Explain what you mean - specific issues. Newman Luke (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I could, but I think that the WikiProject Judaism discussion is the correct place for that. Here I posted only to ask for enforcement to force you to stop making disruptive edits and bring you to the discussion table. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to explain yourself here, or your claims of "disruptive edits", then you should retract this section. You are the disruptive one, as Gilabrand notes. Wikipedia is about building and improving a series of Encyclopedia articles, not about bartering with people who claim to own them. Newman Luke (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut the Wikilawyering, and start discussing your major and contestable rewrites before you make them. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism is where that usually takes place. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want Wikilawyering to be cut out, I suggest you retract this section entirely. As for discussion, if you actually care to point out specific details you think are somehow factually wrong, or inappropriate, then I may well discuss them. As for where discussion should take place, have you never heard of article Talk pages? Newman Luke (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are posted on WikiProject Judaism already (as you are well aware). Because the problem with you is your edit pattern, and not any specific edit, that is the best place to discuss them. If anyone should have used the article talk pages it is you, preferably before making complete revisions, but at least after you were reverted. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is you who claims that. Where have you mentioned a single set of specific edits that you regard as specific contradictions of fact, or otherwise inappropriateness? Mention one - or don't you have any evidence to back up this claim? Either back it up with specific points you think are factually erroneous, etc., or stop disrupting wikipedia. Newman Luke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I encountered this user a little while ago whe he had created a set of articles related to marriage in Judaism. On even casual reading, the content is heavily biased towards a source that is almost 100 years old and was regarded in its day to be biased and informed by radical scholarship. Otherwise he cherry-picks primary sources, many of which have later not been codified as Jewish law. Around these sources he spins theories that amount to original research, only rarely supporting them with appropriate secondary sources.

The user was challenged several times over this pattern of editing. He clearly has lots of time on his hands, and I have no energy to challenge every single huge rewrite of a Judaism-related article. The bottom line is that he engages in original research, which compromises the encyclopedicity of every article he touches. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

He still continues [249], in complete disregard of this discussion and the things pointed out to him, marking his major rewrite a "minor edit" with the edit summary "fix cites". I couldn't have made the point that this editor is being disruptive in a more eloquent way. I again request that this user be blocked for 24 hours, to impress upon him the necessity to change his pattern of editing and engage in discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a minor edit, some of the cites were slightly wrong, others were duplicates, or not as well formatted as they could be. You have already been cautioned for failing to use proper dispute resolution routes - like the article talk page, and instead escalating conflicts into incivility. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. I'm sure the rest of wikipedia would appreciate it if you started complying with that ruling. Now there's some sort of comment about whether you should be blocked there, but I'm not familiar enough to know how Arbitration rulings should be applied, so I'll leave it up to others to discuss that aspect of your behaviour.Newman Luke (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not poison the well. Debresser (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It concluded 2 days ago, and asks you to use proper dispute resolution procedures, but you aren't. I therefore think its extremely relevant here. Newman Luke (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. And what do you call Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and WP:ANI? 2. This is not a Chabad related article. But all of this it moot. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that the Arbitration Committee weren't saying "use proper dispute resolution processes, including article talk pages, on Chabad articles, but do what you like on the rest of wikipedia". Why do you have such aversion to (a) using article talk pages, and (b) pointing out specific diffs / content that you regard as factually inaccurate or inappropriate for the article? Newman Luke (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you completely rewrote the lede, other paragraphs, and the section structure [250], it was a very major edit indeed. See Help:Minor edit about what is a minor edit on Wikipedia. So now you are lying as well. Debresser (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't change the lede or structure - [251]. I just changed the format of a few cites, and combined identical ones. Newman Luke (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to admins to be the judge of that. I have on occasion misunderstood diffs. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My experiences with Newman Luke mirror those of JFW and Debresser. Newman Luke is relatively ignorant about normative Judaic religious legal practice, yet insists on creating, or unilaterally massively changing without any discussion, articles which are often filled with information from questionable sources, lacking in accepted normative sources, have subtle, or overt, points-of-view woven into the article based on cherry-picked quotations, and, almost always, are redundant to better sources, more neutrally written, more accurate existing articles. The experts at Wikiproject Judaism almost invariably are unanimous that his additions are misleading or plain wrong (for example, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Newman Luke and Luke's response Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#User:Avraham). At this point, I believe that an RfC with the intent that Newman should not create or make any significant changes to Judaic articles without discussion may be appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham, where is there a specific addition that's criticised? Point to SPECIFIC content you regard as factually wrong, or where others have stated the same. Because so far, you and Debresser (and Izak) singularly fail to give ANY specific examples. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid policy. Newman Luke (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI wasn't created to resolve content dispute. It is here to resolve behavioral problems of editors. Such as you. Go ask this question on WikiProject Judaism, or open up a talk page discussion as per WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its you who has the problem, so you use the talk page - explain what specific content you have an issue with and specifically why. Newman Luke (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification: User:Newman Luke has reported me on WP:ANI/3RR. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I reported you at 13:something (UTC), half a day ago. Newman Luke (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it my fault you didn't notify me? Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its your fault you reverted for a fifth time, after that - [252]-, and that you disrespectfully described the revert - which deleted 2/3 of the article - as removing vandalism. Newman Luke (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Debresser has explicitly claimed he has the right to ignore WP:OWN - [253] - the policy that forbids ownership of articles. One of the examples listed there of fobidden behaviour is:

"Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?" or "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."

Now that sounds exactly what Debresser is doing here. Newman Luke (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not owning anything. You have a pattern of editing against consensus. I am just the one who refuses to be intimidated by your refusal to listen to advice and to seek consensus, and decided to revert you. Then I took you to WikiProject Judaism, and you continued, so I took you here, and you still continue, so now I think you should be blocked temporarily. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a question for User:Newman Luke: did you notice that all outside editors here and on WP:ANI/3RR agree with my reverts and tell you to start seeking consensus? (Of course somebody will now come along and say that he disagrees with me.) Doesn't that tell you something? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus FOR WHAT? What specific content do you think is against consensus? Where has there been a discussion of specific content? And no, the editors there did NOT agree with your reverts. They concluded that you should present the specific content you thought was factually in error/inappropriate/etc., and that the article talk page should be used. Points I've emphasised above. Now point out to me the specific content you think is a problem? Newman Luke (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. NL rewrote the entire article to his taste. I posted on the talk page, and I have not received a single answer as of yet. (And believe me, I have more to say.) Is it or is it not Wikipedia policy to discuss before re-reverting? Debresser did nothing wrong; he was just trying to uphold collaboration.Mzk1 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that is ridiculous. You fail to mention that its also wikipedia policy for people to NOT do "Revert....Get consensus before you make such huge changes". And you've had your answer on the talk page, if you'd wanted one in a hurry, why didn't you mention it on my talk page?. I've repeatedly asked Debresser to point out specific issues and he hasn't. By contrast, this is the first time you've mentioned even somewhat directly to me that you've raised a question, and I've given you an answer before even writing this. A little even-handedness would be appreciated please. Newman Luke (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Newman, there is a difference between ownership and protection; in this case, it is abundantly clear that many, if not most, people believe that your edits, over a sequence of months and many pages, are more harmful than helpful and diminish the quality of the articles relating to Judaism in the wikipedia project. Our efforts to maintain a high-quality, accurate, representative, properly sourced, and consensus-approved version is exactly what should be happening. If anyone is having "ownership" issues here, it is you, who, for some reason, believe that your edits and point-of-view outweighs the numerous editors and existing consensus view otherwise. -- Avi (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham, protecting the version you like IS claiming ownership. It is not clear at all. No-one there yet has pointed to a single specific edit they take issue with for specific reasons, not one. All it is is general claims - massively lacking in actual hard evidence from diffs. You're just poisoning the well there. Have you read WP:OWN? I suggest you read it again, particularly this bit:

“ Examples of ownership behavior... "Get consensus before you make such huge changes" ”

Something can only be against consensus if people have already massively disputed it. Now can you point to where the specific content/edits that I have made, or similar, were discussed before I made them and declared to be against the consensus view, because I can't see any such thing. Newman Luke (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And this bit of WP:OWN as well:

“ The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. ”

Now when are you going to address the topic - point to specific content that you have issue with and specifically why. I have repeatedly asked you to do so - multiple times even here, so when are you going to? Newman Luke (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be forum shopping Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Debresser_.26_Avraham_.28.26_me.29 Gerardw (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Piano non troppo removing references

Recently User:Piano non troppo began going into articles and removing any citation that used Amazon.com, claiming it was "spam". Another user and I have tried to explain to him how references are needed for things such as DVD release dates, and how retailers are not spam and are in fact sources used in numerous featured articles that require information such as release dates. However, he continues to remove them. He also insists on deleting references for airdates, even though FLC/FAC sometimes require them, as I explained to him; he argues that "there's no reason to provide a link to every single fact in an article", which goes against what Wikipedia is based upon. I do not want to start an edit war with him, so I would appreciate some help from an administrator. Thanks. Ωphois 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's better to use some other type of source, like the studio site, a review, or even IMDB. Amazon is full of errors, it gets its info from the same place as any other retailer so it shouldn't get preferential treatment, and having so many retail links undesirably turns WP into a shopping portal. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how policy comes into this. I'm sure it is discouraged, but as with youtube not entirely banned. It depends on context of the amazon link, I'm sure. Could you supply some diffs? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if another source has the information, then that one should be used. Often, however, Amazon is the best source, and has a precedence in FAC's as a RS. It would be one thing for the user to be replacing the Amazon links with a better source; instead he is just going through removing the refs, leaving the information unsourced.

Here are some of the requested diffs: 1 2 3 Ωphois 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Amazon is a reliable source, or that it establishes notability. If the information can't be documented by more suitable than Amazon, consider removing it. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, Amazon and prominent retailers have been established as a RS in numerous FA articles (which strictly follow wiki guidelines). Ωphois 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the examples. I don't want to get involved with those articles but I think the stuff about the DVD/Blueray releases should be removed completely on notability grounds. Amazon might be ok as a source for some info whose notability/relevance has been established in some other way, but no such relevance is documented in the examples 1 and 3. For example 2, sourcing those dates to NHK seems preferable than sourcing them to a retailer. It could also be that some of the Amazon citations in the other FA's you mention should be cleaned up. If you have some examples I'm willing to take a look at them. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense at all. DVD's are an important aspect of television shows, and one of the things needed for an episode list. No offense, but those comments and your suggestion of using IMDb as a RS hints that you don't have much expertise in this area.

Can an experienced admin please give their input on this? Ωphois 00:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is almost assuredly a press release or something on an official website for some stuff that new to show when they were released.--Crossmr (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

as a side note you really shouldn't have the seasons linked to the same page that they are on like that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to get you started, here is the first one, Smallville, season 1, happy hunting [254].--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Season 8 from the official distrubutors of the 8th season DVD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source such as that saying when it was released in Europe or Australia? Ωphois 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Have not been able to find much of anything other than commercial sites or blogs. Honestly, what you should do is replace all of the Amazon links that you can with other sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before, replacing Amazon links is fine if a better source can be found. But in cases such as the one I just explained, non-commercial sites do not have the needed information. Ωphois 01:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If a link to Amazon is serving as a reference for some fact in an article, it should not be removed, in my opinion. DVDs are one topic where an Amazon link may be the only source for some bit of information that editors believe to be significant to the article. It is often not easy to find reliable DVD information from non-commercial sites. Some might argue that the information is not important enough, but that's a matter for local consensus to decide. Amazon can be treated as a reliable source for what the publisher asserts about the DVD. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank User:NeilN for alerting me to this ANI. Editor User:Ophois has acted a less than straightforward manner from the start. His opening statement on my talk page was incorrect, that sites such as Amazon "are used in every featured article on television subjects".[255] I demonstrated by lengthy example that it was not the actual case, but he didn't bother to reply to this.

Editor User:Ophois did not simply revert edits to a TV article. In a space of 5 minutes, he entirely reverted edits made to 8 articles. I had examined the references before removing them, and questioned whether he had been "considering the content at all." It appeared not. After explaining at length, presenting various issues, I quoted WP:REF ("The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."), suggesting that past air dates are rarely questioned or vandalized, and therefore do not need references. User:Ophois answered — without providing support from Wikipedia guidelines — that "dates and publishing details should always be sourced".

User:Ophois reverted several of my edits in a few minutes, apparently without reviewing the articles or the references, but apparently in response to changes to List of Smallville episodes. This is an article that User:Ophois has edited for some time, and seems to have protective feelings. A quick example is his Jan. 18 edit, removing a cleanup tag, with the Edit Summary "revert unexplained tag".[256] I've been citing examples and guidelines. User:Ophois is making unsubstantiated claims about what "should" appear in articles, yet does not appear to be even examining the material, but applying a pseudo-rule mechanically, that "Amazon links are always allowed to establish dates". Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, the fact that Ophois is an editor of the List of Smallville episodes page is irrelevant. Your example of him removing a cleanup tag that was issued by an IP is rather irrelevant, since there is clearly nothing that required "cleaning" on the page at that time. The fact that an IP chose to vandalize a page by pretending to cite some issue with it doesn't negate the fact that it's vandalism. As for your edits, I've reverted you as well. In the case of Smallville, you removed every source that verified the release date of a season on DVD. I'm not sure if you think they don't need to be sourced, or that the source isn't good enough as your previous response here doesn't actually address either of those. I agree that if "more reliable" sources (i.e. less commercial) can be found, then they should be used, but the dates must be sourced. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You cannot claim that something was released on say August 23, 2001 and just expect people to take your word for it. The sources need to be there, and blanket deleting them simply because you might not think they were necessary. Sorry, but they are. So are sources for previous airdates for a TV show, because who is to say that ALF aired one whatever day it's Wikipedia article claimed it aired on? I don't remember seeing it on that date. The only time you don't need a source is when the information is obvious (e.g., the Sun is yellow, grass is green, etc.), because anyone can verify that (ignoring the exceptions, like sunsets and winter time).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at one of the articles in controversy, List of The Fairly OddParents DVD and VHS, I'm not sure what to think. That article looks like it's from Wikipedia Shopping. What to do about such articles? --John Nagle (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And I thought VHS was a dead format. Anyways, some of the articles will not be like Smallville and will just flat out suck. Each article is different. I remember having to remove links to a website from the Flag of Japan article even though it serves as an English translation for some sources and some do include other sources. It is always a hit or miss on here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the List of The Fairly OddParents DVD and VHS article isn't very good and probably shouldn't be there. However, that's an issue of whether or not to delete it. As long as it is there, sources need to be provided to verify the information, which Piano non troppo either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore. Piano non troppo feels that episode airdates don't need to be sourced, but is instead using that as an excuse in his edit summaries that in fact remove many more citations such as for DVD release dates. As for airdates themselves, as Bignole and I have already pointed out, they, too, need to be sourced. I have seen multiple FAC/FLC's which require them to be so. As Bignole and I have already said, non-commercial sites are preferable, but in some cases (especially foreign releases) that is just not feasible, leaving retailers as the only option. Ωphois 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd take a moment to consider Piano's comment that he researches before removing: His edits, and justifications for removing references to Cheating in video games showed that he didn't really check them at all.Cheat page talk. Not sure how to link to specific revisions - sorry - the link to the talk page is the best I can do. a_man_alone (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing references to Amazon that are being used to source release dates and replacing them with nothing is not helping the project. While better sources would be, you know, better, in the absence of same the Amazon references should not be removed. Removing them and not bothering to replace them is degrading the value of the articles, and any action that degrades the value of an article is not an action one should undertake. I do not care about whether or not "Amazon links are 'allowed'" to support dates. While I do care whether or not they are "allowed," I do not see any reason to across-the-board DISallow them. This isn't a Copyvio or BLP issue. It's not black-and-white, and drastic measures are not called for. Deleting things outright is the right call only when the content being deleted is either a serious violation of serious policy or is something which is going to be improved in the same stroke. In the absence of better sourcing, we should use what we have and attempt to improve. Having release dates sourced to Amazon isn't destroying or degrading the project, nor is it turning Wikipedia into a "shopping portal" (reality check in aisle 1, reality check in aisle 1). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I proposed deletion on List of The Fairly OddParents DVD and VHS. It's product catalog information, which Wikipedia generally doesn't do. I have some misgivings about deletion, but I'm sure we don't want a large number of similar articles. --John Nagle (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest we focus on the issue at hand and not have this turn into a debate over whether or not that article should be deleted. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911: disruptive user

Tao2911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having trouble with a tenditious user who is becoming disruptive at Adi Da.

Trying to avoid 3rr, Tao 2911 inadvertently pastes the article into itself creating a doubled article. [[257]]

After several attempts to fix he inadvertently erases a paragraph in the lead. [[258]]

Later he discovers that the paragraph is missing, opens yet another discussion thread titled "David Starr vandalism" [[259]]

Replaces the paragraph citing me as a vandal in the edit summary [[260]]

Tao2911 was warned by admins about this behavior here:[[261]]

Wallpapers my talk page with warning templates [[262]]

Tried to report me for vandalism here: [[263]]

Removes POV label from article without consensus, proclaims me a vandal in edit summary [[264]]

And then proclaims that I am not useful and wishes I would just go away [[265]]

Says "(Starr) is coming around and stirring this crap" [[266]]

Would it be possible to block this user? David Starr 1 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the name of the user to this report, and I'd note that of their 1477 live edits, 1383 (93.6%) have been to the Adi Da article or its talk page. [267]. Their 787 edits account for 26% of the article's 3025 edits. [268] Superficially, without evaluating the edits, or those of David Starr 1, whose 204 edits are the third-most to the article, it seems possible that there are ownership issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For background, see this previous AN/I thread from a couple of days ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed been heavily invested in working on the Adi Da page in past weeks, quite collaboratively with other editors until David Starr 1 reappeared and without discussion or notice placed a POV alert on the page, with the comment "Sorry to spoil your fun". He proceeded to attempt dozens of un-consensual edits to the page, removing reams of sourced info, changing phrasing to biased POV, and trying to remove or downplay all mentions of this controversial figures "controversial" activity - mentions that are in all cases heavily sourced and cited and phrased to reflect context and qualify source POV. He has failed to cooperate or acknowledge attempts to meet his POV, adn has generally been completely disruptive. Due to his activity, I have actively sought out hard copies of many of the texts (encyclopedic and NPOV authoritative sources) that had previously been cited by other editors, but in many cases only parts available online. Having these sources has allowed me to fill out, cite, and footnote many areas previously left vague at best. I have, with the help of other editors, written the majority of the curent biography of figure profiled, and again, with other editors, significantly increased thoroughness, readability, and accuarcy of page. Simply look a version from 3 months ago to now. I have been the only active editor without admitted pro-Adi Da bias, and have been active to maintain the neutral POV of the material, which Star in particular has a history of slanting radically to biased POV. I encourage anyone to simply compare versions of the page and see for yourselves.Tao2911 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If the above statement is true, why are there no diffs to support the claims? This is a campaign by one user to completely shut-down another users participation. Is this going to stand? David Starr 1 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

the record shows the cooperative involvement of many. I don't know what "diffs" are, but if mean a lengthy list of links showing you to be an obstreperous and uncooperative editor, I don't have the desire, know-how, or time to make it. Again, I just suggest anyone go to page and review, talk and history - past versions of the page and current. The page is balanced and well sourced, with hundreds of citations and dozens of footnotes.Tao2911 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock

I'd like to request some form of draconian measure be taken against an individual who is hopping from IP address to IP address causing disruption and attacking me personally. I am not certain if this is a full list, but these are the IP addresses that have been troublesome to date, along with some example diffs:

• 142.68.92.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Soap boxing
• 142.177.214.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.68.165.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.177.62.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Repeatedly reinserting material removed by WP:RBI - diff, diff, diff, diff et al (received short term block)
• 142.68.164.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Continues (evading block)
• 142.68.220.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - More soapery
• 142.177.158.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Personal attack
• 142.68.171.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.68.220.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.177.60.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandalizing an article with a personal attack
• 142.68.218.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Personal attack
• 142.177.211.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Soap boxing

• Related discussion, Related discussion, Unsuccessful request for help at WP:SPI.

Some of these IP addresses received short-term blocks, but these were ineffective. I understand that rangeblocks can be difficult, with consequences for other anonymous users, but the constant disruption, vandalism and personal attacks surely makes this a viable option. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia needs to be more proactive in filing abuse reports with ISPs instead of playing these endless blocking games and allowing good contributors to be wikistalked. How much longer is this "overhaul" supposed to go on at WP:ABUSE? And how can people file abuse reports otherwise? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One week range blocks now in place for "142.177.0.0/16" and "142.68.0.0/16". Fences&Windows 03:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep you posted if the problem returns after the blocks have expired. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this post, I tried to edit from an IP address today but couldn't and it said it was due to vandalism, but I didn't vandalize the articles, and there were no edits in the edit history from the IP address I was coming from, so when I came on here and saw this post, I understand why the block is there now. Abby 96 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the inconvenience this has caused you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Aye, the collateral damage is potentially 64,000 addresses. Any admin wishing to may tweak the blocks to be more tightly focussed. Fences&Windows 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive signature

see the related thread a bit south at #user talk:Jack Merridew

Jack Merridew has brought to my attention that Jack "Red Hood" Napier has been using a template for his signature — it is User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig. As Jack M. has pointed out to me, this is a clear violation of WP:SIG#NoTemplates, so I've protected it after Jack M. changed it to make it simpler (there is just no way I can delete it, it's been used too often to remove it from all the discussions).

I'm bringing this here for review. If anyone objects, please feel free to change my decision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with: User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier and have subst'd some of the usages; there are not many as this user showed up just a few days ago. See the thread at the bottom of tbsdy's talk and note that I refactored some there. The other Jack's talk page, too. There is also the fact that I just changed my userpage to use some dynamic behavior and this new user immediately took some of the techniques used in inappropriate directions. I've little doubt that this is no innocent noob. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the signature, and the way I was presenting it was disruptive. I complied with Jack's initial request to refactor the sig and began substing it. I also expressed intent to refactor it again if it was still unacceptable. Instead of commenting on the refactored sig, Jack changed the entire template to a basic sig, and Tbsdy protected it. Not sure if thats standard operating procedure around here, but it seems kinda wack. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 08:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing thirty or so edits to Wikipedia and user talk space. Why can't we just delete this? AniMate 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It can, and should be deleted ASAP; do your own checking and go. ;) Jack Merridew 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:DUCK. Your refactored version that I replaced was no better, just fewer alternate names in the loop. The significant usages have been subst'd and the further subpages that the thing used need to be locked down. I'm off; I'm sure this will all be properly sorted when I next look. Folks, look at the history of the sig and all of our talk pages, and both jack user pages (and I mean the implementations, not the 'look'). Jack Merridew 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And why cant the subpages just be deleted and allow me to make a normal sig in the main page? {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. Now I can't even use the basic sig. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the sub-pages and if you want to personalize your signature, go to the "My preferences" button at the top of every page. There's an option for signature design on the very first page. AniMate 08:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. And thank you AniMate, for being (fairly) reasonable. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Try and edit more in article space. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not our user pages. AniMate 08:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this look like GRAWP under a new name, after all, he came on and did a lot of vandalism with "BATMAN - The DARK NIGHT" themes about it. His webpage has just the same theme on it, two quotes from the joker greet you on the front page, the name Jack Napier is the name given to the Joker, and the colors are purple and green, Joker colors.

No, I'm not GRAWP. If a CU is required to prove that, fine, I voluntarily submit to CU. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not; you're User:John254; Grawp's just being a /b/tard. Jack Merridew 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I call a huge Feathered animal on this one. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not resolved, he's now signing with no links to either his user or usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

He needs to open his prefs and do a normal sig; if he's skilled enough to repurpose my code as he has, he's up to this, so omitting it is willful. And someone will have to fix the bad sigs he's leaving about. All amount do DUCK-sign. Jack Merridew 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not willful, I was just being lazy. I've fixed it now. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

and the litter you've left about? and note that I just fixed the above; don't use the character entities; they clutter the wiki up. Jack Merridew 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to leaving a bunch of the {{SUBST:… "sigs" about, he's changed his sig in a new pointy manner. His username includes two quotation marks (allowed, but unimpressive). The sig he is posting with now is:

• [[User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier|Jack "Red Hood" Napier]] ([[User talk:Jack "Red Hood" Napier|talk]]

which snots up the editbox and the database. A more courteous sig would be:

• [[User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier|Jack "Red Hood" Napier]] ([[User talk:Jack "Red Hood" Napier|talk]]

The character entities are for html, not wiki-text; MediaWiki will handle the conversion for generated pages. "Red Hood" has demonstrated sufficient skill to be aware of this issue and I see this as him seeking to maintain as disruptive a sig as he can. As backstory, my editing history show a lot of cleaning up of this sort of thing, so this amounts to deliberately doing something that he knows I will notice and be inclined to clean-up. Jack Merridew 02:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack I was using the more courteous one until you yourself pointed out that you had to fix it. That is when I changed to the one with the "'s in it. Which one would you like me to use? Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My fault. I misread the diff above. Will switch now. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

fixed.
note to posterity; the take-away from this silliness is that the wiki-code underlying this demonstrates how to properly encode character entities in examples of wiki-text given in discussions; it also illustrates how to better present examples of wiki-text using the html tt-element and the wiki nowiki-element in monospace (as opposed to the page widening technique of using the pre-element; we now return to our regular programming;)
Jack Merridew 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

eh? My "take-away" from this is that as long as we continue to allow vanity-sigs, we'll have problems like this. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree ;) Equazcion ^(talk) 20:38, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: enough is enough

That SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors is uncontested: at 100k+ edits she currently ranks at about 65 in the all time list. She is not an admin (one wonders what might come out of the woodwork if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia were turned blue), but she is known by many for her involvement in Wikipedia:Featured article review.

I had rather promised myself that I wouldn't edit until at least March, having been driven into semi-retirement [269] by SandyGeorgia's campaign of harassment involving misrepresentation, manipulation, serial accusations of bad faith (User:Rd232/Notes) and even, increasingly just before I declared semi-retirement, insinuations of advocacy-based COI editing (eg at the top of this User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela_BLP_problem page about me). I've managed to avoid editing for a week now, but I have on occasion logged in to check my watchlist, and have observed Sandy's behaviour with increasing dismay, and ultimately feel forced to do something.

Background: Sandy is an editor with links of some kind to Venezuela, and a point of view that strongly supports the Venezuelan opposition. This is fine, but hand in hand with that has gone an attempt to smear sources that comment on Venezuela in terms she disagrees with, by insinuating connections with the Venezuelan government. For these purposes, Sandy applies standards of sourcing which she would not accept in any other context. I could broaden this point, but it's taken my 1.5 hrs to write this, and will limit myself to the CEPR/Weisbrot issues.

Issue 1:

• on 23 Jan the biography of living person Mark Weisbrot looked like this. It included, as the second-to-last sentence, sourced to the New York Times, that "He is a broad supporter of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez' economic policies."
• after an enormous flurry of edits by Sandy, by 25 Jan it looked like this. At this point "He has been described as an adviser to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and supporter of his policies." was the last sentence in the lead. The sources supporting "adviser to Chavez" are i) a minor Spanish source which described Weisbrot as the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South and ii) infoshop.org, "An Anarchist At the World Social Forum". One of these sources does not support the claim made, so the definitive statement he is an adviser to Chavez (not "some sources say" or "X claims that" - authorial claim of fact) rests on a single source. Is it a trivial claim, and a really good source? No, it is a massively significant claim, and an incredibly poor source: yet stated as fact.
• the second part of the new 25 Jan sentence is "who is described as supporting Chavez's policies". This is now sourced to two footnotes. One is the original NYT source. the other footnote is a composite of a number of sources (SYNTH alert!). Let's look at these sources. The first is USA Today, claiming (without explanation or detail) that Weisbrot "has supported Chavez's policies." Possibly WP:BLP demands better than a vague passing remark in a short news piece to stamp someone as a supporter of someone the US more or less considers an enemy, but let's leave that to one side. What other source delights await to support the claim? Some statements of Weisbrot's perhaps? A paper or two? No, in fact we have a remark in The NewStandard (a minor now-defunct online news service); a Miami Herald op-ed (I thought op-eds were frowned upon as sources for controversial statements in BLPs... cough), a Washington Post blog entry, and a magazine and website published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Fantastic sources for contentious BLP material.
• attempts to discuss these issues in detail, using WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Mark_Weisbrot) and other dispute resolution, were shut down aggressively by SandyGeorgia - possibly because she knew her work would not stand close scrutiny.

Issue 2:

• Sandy's 24/5 Jan flurry of edits also resulted in a transparently WP:SYNTHy attempt to smear Weisbrot by linking him with the Venezuela Information Office, relying on a poor source of debatable relevance (National Review, making merely the vague and unsourced claim that VIO "coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research") and a Center for Public Integrity report which mentions neither CEPR nor Weisbrot. But the Center for Public Integrity did feel the need to publish a response from a number of people, including Weisbrot, in response to the various allegations of people being associated with VIO. Unbelievably, Sandy summarises this as the letter "saying that their [Center for Public Integrity's] statements about the VIO were "highly misleading"." The letter is not about the VIO, it is about the people smeared by supposed connections to VIO - and Sandy seeks to use this to smear Weisbrot and CEPR, neither of whom are mentioned in the original piece!
  • The text was eventually removed from Mark Weisbrot after intervention via WP:BLPN; the same text currently remains at Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Issue 3: misleading SPI report leading to unjustified block:

• these edits come to the attention of User:Scalabrineformvp on 9 Feb; it subsequently becomes clear that he is associated with CEPR. He edit wars unsuccessfully to try to remove the problematic content. Of course the flip side of Scalabrine editwarring to remove contentious, badly sourced BLP material is that others were edit warring to reinsert it. Scalabrine was blocked on 11 Feb for supposed socking to skirt 3RR. The blocking admin appears not to have noticed that the first edit of the supposed sock (User:Constitutional1787) is 24 hours after the last Scalabrine edit. Constitutional1787 violated 3RR and was indef-blocked as a supposed sock, in addition to Scalabrine being blocked temporarily for socking. No-one seems to have noticed that the subsequent SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp concluded Constitutional was NOT a sock!
  • SandyGeorgia's evidence at the SPI on 10 Feb declares that "Constitutional1787 is a new accounts, just created, that continued blanking the article when Scalabrine reached three reverts." This despite the fact that Scalabrine's last edit was 21.15 on 9 feb; Constitutional's first at 21.53 on 10 Feb [270]
• Scalabrine is blocked 31 hours at 02.51 on 11 Feb.

Issue 4: OTRS ticket

• At 17.13 on 11 Feb an OTRS ticket is announced at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Important_OTRS_ticket_related_to_this_article. It does not take a genius - now that we know Scalabrine is CEPR-connected - to see how Scalabrine's unjustified block led to this, in an attempt to deal with the problematic content.
• SandyGeorgia's response to this probably speaks for itself [271] in terms of the transparent attempt to further smear Weisbrot.
• Scalabrine makes no further article edits; he comments on the talk page, explaining somewhat the OTRS issues - without, it must be said, clarifying the COI.
• On 12 Feb user:Kriswarner turns up, editing the related article Center for Economic and Policy Research, attempting to remove the problematic content. He doesn't declare COI other, but he is using his real name (there is a Kris Warner at CEPR). His edits do not overlap with Scalabrine's, who last edited that article in November.
• On 14 Feb User:markweisbrot turns up, making some comments at Talk:Dean Baker (Dean Baker being the other co-director of CEPR). Neither Kriswarner nor Scalabrine ever edited this article.
• Sandy re-opens the SPI on 12 Feb, adding Kriswarner and then Markweisbrot. Checkuser concludes (apparently) that they're editing from the same location, and as a result they're both blocked as socks. The fact that two of these are real names (one obviously so) of people from an organisation with an open OTRS ticket does not seem to have factored into the equation. Additionally, Scalabrine, the supposed sockmaster, is idef-ed for socking. (None of these 3 accounts, incidentally, received the relevant user talk block notices.)
• An unblock request from Scalabrine clarifying the IP issue and declaring "We are not interested in editing the site but it seems unfair and counter-productive to exclude us from at least providing information in the discussion, with our name and affiliation openly stated." is declined, on the basis that "you have enlisted to assist in both swaying WP:CONSENSUS, and emphasize WP:OWNership over an article. The only possible way that you would likely achieve an unblock, considering the above, is to never edit related articles again." This makes no sense to me in terms of the edit pattern noted above (accounts NOT supporting each other), as well as the clear recognition that discussion should be preferred to editing. The other "socks" remain blocked despite the new information.

Result

1. highly problematic, badly sourced BLP-related content remains, with an open OTRS ticket
2. An account cleared of being a sock remains indeffed as a sock
3. 2 accounts using real names of individuals remain indeffed as socks
4. supposed sockmaster remains blocked
5. the organisation/individuals who submitted the OTRS ticket cannot fully explain their concerns onwiki (and OTRS team does not seem to have done anything at all based on the ticket itself)

The COI issues remain, of course. But I submit that this smear campaign of SandyGeorgia's has gone far enough in how it is impacting on actual living persons; and that in addition SandyGeorgia's campaign of bullying and harassment has gone far enough. See for example her addition of a number of editors to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp; and her continuing personal attacks on me (even in my absence in the last week; cf Talk:Mark Weisbrot). !Ya basta! Rd232 ^talk 09:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional parts of Sandy's smear campaign, which I forgot to note:

1. Re-inserting long-deleted content at Venezuela Information Office, listing personnel associated with it.[272] The primary reason for doing so is to link VIO with CEPR. The content was long-deleted because organisation articles do not normally record past employees unless there is some particular significance or notability. There was a talk page discussion about this in March 2009, which sort of ran into the ground in a "no consensus" situation, with an RFC proposed but never done, and the content staying out until Sandy reinserted it without discussion on 9 Feb 2010.
2. Giving undue, unsourced prominence to the role of Weisbrot in Just Foreign Policy, with this 10 Feb edit [273]. He was the founding President, yes, previously mentioned well down the article. Sandy promoted that to "founded in January 2007 by economist Mark Weisbrot...", in the lead sentence. The source relied on is the same source previously used; and it is currently a dead link, so Sandy made this substantive change without even looking at the source relied on. Archive.org gives us this, which gives a letter from the Board of Directors with Weisbrot 1 of 13 signatories, and no mention of Weisbrot's role beyond what was previously said "founding President". Rd232 ^talk 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this one, reading through it. Do you have a specific remedy in mind? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, mainly (1) fixing the problems created (further discussion may of course lead to changes, but BLP caution should be applied, and contentious content removed until there is a consensus that is reasonably sourced and given appropriate weight). Also (2) unblocking the inappropriately blocked accounts, subject to warnings of how to behave appropriately when there are WP:COI concerns, so that they can elaborate onwiki what their OTRS concerns were/are. However, in view the concertedness of Sandy's activities, and the vociferousness with which she has defended these BLP violations through edit warring and bullying, I think something more is required. At this point I know not what that might be. Perhaps simply (3) lots more people being aware of her intentions and behaviour would be a start. Inevitably, she will want people to put more eyes on my edits too - I'm fine with that. I've said all along in the recent Venezuela-related disputes that "more eyes are needed". Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused also. I just reviewed two of the articles, but I got confused as they have some of the most excruciatingly constructed sentences I've ever had the privilege of reading! However, that's a content issue. I also read this diff, but I'll be honest and this just seems to be Sandy's considered opinion. Without specific examples of the issue at that point, I'm not sure what could have been expected of Sandy? I'm not familiar with the conflict and have only reviewed the examples you've given, but I can't really see a smear campaign from Sandy, though it is evident that she doesn't like Weisbrot, but that's not actually a crime.

The only actionable thing I can see here is that two editors were blocked as socks when it's quite possible that they were from the same organization. But I'm afraid here too there is an issue, because if they are who their usernames and location suggests, there is a clear conflict of interest for them to be editing this article.

I am uncertain what is required of admins here... I can't see an ongoing edit war and I don't see any gross incivility or disruption. This looks like a content dispute. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1) I've made the blocked "socks" issue perfectly clear. Unblocking should be subject to warnings about appropriate COI behaviour. Is the fact that there is an open OTRS ticket compeletely irrelevant? Do we have a policy of blocking people trying to explain why there are serious problems with articles about them and their organisations, without a history of actual problems being shown? Try and look at it from their point of view, and imagine it's you and your organisation being accused of being linked to a government that your home country considers a virtual enemy. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well... have the accounts been confirmed to operate as individual people via that OTRS ticket, and is Markweisbrot really Mark Weisbrot? How can we be certain - is there some independent evidence or does the OTRS ticket confirm his identity? If so then I think we probably should unblock that account, but make sure that they are aware that they should restrict their commentary to commenting only on the article text and they should not edit the article. That's probably not an issue if they are who they say they are as this diff is the only edit to their page they've made, and that's to the talk page where they make it clear they've not edited the article.

I'd like to note that I went through the entirety of Sandy's comments on Talk:Mark Weisbrot and the only even slight claim you might have to a personal attack was when she said "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come?" Aside from that barely incivil comment, Sandy has admirably kept on the topic itself - as have you Rd232 - but she's never made things personal. I think that she's got as forceful a personality as myself and a similar arguing style, which is relentless and forthright, which can definitely cause upsets unnecessarily. However, I don't see one actionable personal attack, nor do I see that she injects her dislike of yourself into her commentary on that talk page. If anything, I see that at one point you apologised for something and she quickly accepted this. I just don't see a problem Rd, sorry. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well she is fairly subtle about it; it's not so much hysterical swearing as a grinding, constant background hum of bad faith accusations. Things like "NYT and USA Today are good, unless the tendentious editors scream. " (from Talk:Mark Weisbrot). I can find lots more examples if I'm willing to put in hours I don't have, but I'm far more interested in somebody waking up and smelling the malicious editing coffee. Nobody of 100k+ edits can do everything outlined above in good faith. Combine that with the harassment campaign noted (perhaps insufficiently explained; notes were for myself) at User:Rd232/Notes, and you have an editor who is willing and able to bully other editors into submission in the service of her goal of perpetuating a real-world political crusade to discredit anyone who comments on Venezuela and does not meet with her approval. That discrediting crusade, as the SPI shows, covers Wikipedia editors she disagrees with as well. Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some fairly clear statements from her recently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SG is not operating in a vacuum; having followed this, I notice lots of other regular editors involved, and quite a few seem supportive of SG's position. Therefore I don't see this an SG issue, but a normal and proper Wikipedia process to find the proper balance point in a contentious political issue. I don't see room for admin intervention at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Others may have supported her, but it is her who is operating a campaign seeking to smear individuals whose views and activities she approves of by virtue of linking them to a foreign government. She has done so based on bad sources, misrepresenting sources, and using synthesis, and edit warred to support that. She is too experienced to have done all this - elaborated above - in error. These edits are, to be blunt, malicious. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, calling a fellow editor (or their edits) "malicious" requires a very good proof. Can you provide a diff to such behavior? None of the material you provide above comes close to it, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Between her campaign harassing me (User:Rd232/Notes) and her misleading edits noted above (an editor of her experience could not make this many mistakes in good faith), I consider it proven. If you know her not from Adam - or know her only from other topics, where she may be angelic for all I know, this may be hard to accept. Take another look in detail at what I laid out above, and ask yourself if a 100k+ editor can get all that wrong in good faith. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do care a lot about proper sourcing and BLP, and that's my focus. Her contributions to the project add an extra burden of proof for any allegations of malfeasance. In the your set of diffs, I find your characterization of USA Today as a "poor source" troubling. Crum375 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What I said right up this thread was "The first [source] is USA Today, claiming (without explanation or detail) that Weisbrot "has supported Chavez's policies." Possibly WP:BLP demands better than a vague passing remark in a short news piece to stamp someone as a supporter of someone the US more or less considers an enemy, but let's leave that to one side." Rd232 ^talk 15:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer checking in here: I think the issue that needs to be rectified is the "sock" drawer rather than the editing by SG. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

• Did you all check the Checkuser request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Shes accusing me, Rd232, Off2Riorob and further down, JRSP and John Z of being socks of each other and CEPR.net editors. Shes got absolutely no evidence. I haven't even edited any of the articles, just talk pages. Off2Rio arrived to investigate the OTRS complain and she accuses him of "sundenly" appearing. Do you know what we all have in common? At some point one or the other disagreed with Sandy about something related to the Venezuela issue and sundenly we're all Socks. Shes claiming to be cleaning up Venezuela related articles, and I'm the first to admit they haven't always been examples of NPOV, but shes adding POV material of her own. And if you try to point it out, you get added to the Sock list. Its ridiculous. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Outside eyes at Talk:Mark Weisbrot would be welcome. I share some of Rd232's concerns about sourcing, and have explained there; see Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Comments and sections following.
• Basically, Weisbrot seems to be a well-respected US economist and columnist. He regularly contributes to the New York Times, and is widely quoted as an expert, on a whole range of topics and countries.
• About a quarter of all google news articles mentioning Weisbrot's name also mention Venzuela in one way or another (see: Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Additional_sources). So Venezuela is evidently a major part of his work, while not representing the majority of his work, and he has been described as broadly sympathetic to Chavez and Venezuela in the New York Times.
• The matter of potential concern is that there has been a clear effort to make his BLP mainly about his views on Chavez. This would be okay if his views had somehow caused widespread controversy, and his reputation had suffered as a result. But I have so far failed to find, and have not been shown, any sources to indicate that there is any controversy surrounding Weisbrot's views on Chavez. As far as I can tell, he is just a well-respected liberal commentator whose comments are sought by a wide range of top class sources (e.g. BBC). I gather the OTRS complaint makes broadly the same point. Some of the sources used about the Venezuela issue are distinctly not top drawer: Línea Capital, The New Standard, discoverthenetworks.org, and Front Page Magazine.
• On the blocks: I do not think it is a good idea to block editors from the subject's research organisation from contributing, at least to the talk page. Clearly, COIs have to be acknowledged, and there should be no need for socking, but it is very poor public relations for Wikipedia to have questionable BLPs and then block BLP subjects (or their representatives) when they come to complain about our work. Given all the recent discussions about BLPs an OTRS complaint should be greeted with a clear presumption in favour of the BLP subject and meticulous scrutiny and article rebuilding afterwards. --JN466 13:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute which requires no administrative action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a mere content dispute. More evidence of Sandy's continuation of her malicious smear campaign: reinsertion of disputed BLP-related content, without discussion never mind consensus: [274] [275] A nice example of her serial evasiveness of difficult questions pops up too: adds COI tag [276] which is ludicrous since no editing of the article by any COI accounts has taken place;[277] on this questioning of relevance of the tag, says merely "I'm not the author of Wiki's COI tag; feel free to fix it yourself if you think it's poorly worded."[278]. This is not good faith debate. Rd232 ^talk 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting Checkuser procedures against everyone that disagrees with her and getting the subject of a BLP blocked cannot be considered to fall within the realm of content disputes. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the SPI clerks will handle it eventually. No need for this big drama on ANI. Oh, and if anyone feels that any blocks I made in relation to this incident were unwarranted or unnecessary, feel free to overturn them without asking. NW (Talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• COI is allowed. It only becomes a worry (and may be cited as such) when edits by someone with a COI become unencyclopedic or they stray beyond policy bounds such as edit warring or PoV flogging. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional: Sandy today creates Francisco Rodríguez (Venezuelan economist), an economist who almost certainly fails WP:PROF, but has debated Venezuela economic issues with Mark Weisbrot. To reduce the risk of deletion, she puffs him by misrepresenting the man's own page: 3 published articles is not "numerous"; 8 media interviews is not "numerous". This is clearly intended to ensure that if the debates with Rodriguez are removed from the Weisbrot page as UNDUE, they have a home on Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Additional: Earlier ANI detailing Sandy's efforts to derail dispute resolution on these issues. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The block of Markweisbrot

I think we probably need to look into the block of Mark Weisbrot. It's bad form to have blocked him if we can confirm he is who he says he is. Is his account identity confirmed? I think we had better start from here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the sock drawer needs to be identified and unraveled before we can go much further. It's difficult to take any of these complaints at face value until we know who is socking. Blocking of the CEPR people aside, we're still staring at a series of accounts and IP addresses that all have startlingly similar patterns of editing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This just shows how much you bothered to actually inform yourself of the situation. The "series of IPs" are one and the same user: Me, as I've said more than once on the checkuser page. The others are long established users. There is no sock drawer. Sandy is just trying to discredit people who disagree with her, thats the whole point of that Checkuser charade. I wanted that RFCU thrown out on principle since she didn't provide any evidence whatsoever, but now I actually want to see it go throu. And when the result comes, and it confirms that none of us are socks of each other, then what exaclty will happen to Sandy? I can answer that myself: Absolutely nothing. She used RFCU for her owns purpuses, to discredit opposition, which is exactly the opposite of what RFCU is intended for, but nothing will come of it. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another inconsistent understanding of Wiki; what would you like to see happen to me for requesting a checkuser with ample evidence? We have, if not sockpuppetry, evidence of coordinated editing and meatpuppetry, with striking similarities between the editors, and some editors suddenly disappearing while others appear. Asking for a Checkuser is not a crime; it's business. If I'm wrong, you're happy, you're all exonerated, and we can all go about editing. Being checkusered is not a big deal if you're innocent; I've welcomed the times it has happened to me. Of course, I'll go about editing under the onslaught of personal attacks, failures to AGF, and misrepresentations of my edits to which I've been subjected by multiple editors now, but I'm tough :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of anything, you saying it dosnt make it so. There is no coordination, no shared Ips, no nothing. I don't know Rd232 and never had contact with him other than to inform him that you included him in your little RFCU charede (wich you dindt have the decency to do yourself), the same goes for all the other users. All we ever had in common was that we disagreed with you, and a couple of days later we're all lumped toguether in your baseless accusations. As I've repeatedly told you before, if you enjoy being falselu accused thats "your" problem. You expect me to AGF after you started a bad faith RFCU against me? wow! just wow! 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I know they are "you", what is your point, exactly? CheckUser is for discovering abusive use of multiple accounts and IP addresses to avoid scrutiny or create the appearance of support, and there is plenty of evidence of that. All one has to do is compare a list of your contributions against that of any of the other named editors. An editor might be warned for using RFCU spuriously, but the rare times I've seen Sandy use it, there has been cause. If the CheckUsers decide there is not sufficient evidence to investigate, it will be closed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My point, exactly, is that this is a spurrious, bad faithed request. There is absolutely no evidence of anything. All I have in common with the other users is that at some point I disagreed with SandyGeorgia. Thats it. She didnt start taht RFCU to get to the bottom of anything, she did it to discredit, tire, and wear down anybody who disagreed with her on any Chavez related articles. And that is not what RFCU is for. But of course arguing with you is not gona be of much use, shes obviously your friend and you came here with your mind made up. 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 continues misrepresenting in his campaign against me, frequently accompanied by personal attacks and failure to AGF;[279] TLDR. On the Weisbrot issue, I don't believe the block was heavy handed, as we have long term COI, sock and meatpuppetry going on there, and we need to get to the bottom of it. It wasn't just a sudden thing; those articles have all been created by CEPR symathizers, employees, socks, or whatever they are, and now they are being aided by pro-Chavez admins in censoring the articles. It would be good to have Weisbrot's input into his article (for example, no one has written anything about him and other Latin American countries, and I'm not familiar with his work there), but given the long-term abuse already documented, he could provide that feedback on any one of the sock talk pages, even if blocked. It remains unclear why so many pro-Chavez editors are suddenly so invested in covering Weisbrot's connections to Chavez; is there a law being broken or something that is going over my head? I can't understand why this molehill has become such a mountain, and why it is so important to remove his well-sourced connections to Chavez from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is good. His campaign agaisnt you??? He had stopped editing, untill you dragged him into the RFCU mess (and you really expect AGF after that? its not an unlimited credit card), along with me and others. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well. Besides sorting the Weisbrot block and sock drawer, getting to the bottom of the serious whitewashing across all Venezuela/Chavez articles should be another big priority here. We have essentially no Venezuelan articles that aren't POV, looking like Chavez propaganda, and ownership on all those articles. I'm the only editor attempting to neutralize them, and one person can't do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the problem, User SandyGeorgia has a very strong anti Chavez POV and is on a campaign to have any article associated with Chavez reflect her POV, any editor that is at any other position is a sock, or has a coi or some other wiki lawyering. The whole sock drawer story is all part of her campaign that look at all these socks and all these articles are pro Chavez and it all adds weight to her campaign that she needs to neutralize all these articles so they reflect her very strong anti chavez pov, I am afraid that in user SandyGeorgia's case this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Right, well, more unsubstantiated attacks and bad faith assumptions from an admin; seems to be my lot :) By all means, let's look at my editing in relation to y'all :) It's most troubling that we have so many admins who don't actually seem to have read or understood WP:NPOV. Anyway, based on something Rd232 just posted, I think I see now what this is about. The concern seems to be whether Weisbrot or CEPR or someone is actually acting as an agent for a foreign government, and that might be the urgency behind removing well sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  That precise concern was discussed at Talk:Mark Weisbrot as long ago as 27 Jan, when I said " You must understand that VIO (Venezuela Information Office) is a registered agent of the Venezuelan government, and that associating Weisbrot with them directly serves to discredit him. The source doesn't permit any actual conclusion to be drawn on the nature of the relationship between VIO and CEPR - it could easily be merely information exchange; or it could be a financial relationship. The reader is left to read between the lines, and when Weisbrot's signing of a single letter is thrown in (WP:UNDUE much? as John Z notes), it's either intending to insinuate or unintentionally leaving dangerous ambiguity that Weisbrot is a paid agent, indirectly, of the Venezuelan government." Sandy replied to this serious BLP concern with "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come? There's nothing like that in the very neutral text. I have a hard time imagining how you came up with that scenario." The discussion then trailed off, largely - I think - because Sandy then accepted the removal of that text from Mark Weisbrot, seemingly because of accepting the validity of these concerns. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, well now I see where you were heading with all of this; perhaps if you weren't so sarcastic and attacking in all of your posts, that message would have come through sooner. At any rate, Wiki is not censored, and we report what reliable sources say. If that leads some to conclude that Weisbrot is acting as an agent of a foreign government, I don't think Wiki can be responsible for what very reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  There is nothing attacking or dismissive in the quoted post making this important point; yet you dismissed it without substantive response. Your dismissive response here, implicitly claiming sarcasm as a reason for not getting the point, is typical of the way in which you constantly misrepresent and evade. Rd232 ^talk 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification note: Off2riorob is not an admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• User SandyGeorgia has such a strong anti Chavez POV and has herself declared that she is on some kind of campaign to neutralize a whole bunch of articles to reflect her POV that it would be better if she did not edit articles related to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sir, your jabs are contributing precisely nothing to this conversation. It should be our goal to neutralize articles that display a POV; that does not mean we're trying to insert our own POV. But I suspect you know that and are just trying to stir up trouble. Please disengage from this thread if you have nothing of value to add. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• They are not jabs, they are the exact issues as I have found them to be true, my comments are constructive, User SandyGeorgia has conveyed these opinions and I am stating nothing that is not correct and as I have been involved at more than one location with this User, I will add my comments as I see them, you may not like them but they are indisputable and totally correct.Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Eliminating the only Spanish-speaking editor apparently on Wiki and knowledgeable of Venezuelan history and politics from Chavez/Venezuela articles would be quite a coup for the pillars upon which Wiki is based, such as WP:V and WP:NPOV :) I will say that standing up to all of you is time-consuming, but I suspect you'll gain more sympathy if you actually look at my edits in relation to policy, demonstrate an understanding of policy, stop misrepresenting my edits, and hold off on the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions. Separately, I would note that something should be done about the extreme WP:OWN and WP:BITE that has contributed to the whitewashing of every Chavez/Venezuela and now CEPR-related article on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There it is again, your very strongly held negative POV that is verging on a conspiracy theory regarding chavez and CEPR, and more wiki lawyering, claims that something needs to be done about all these articles to save the world from this whitewashing of wikipedia articles. Sorry SandyGeorgia but IMO you should take a step back from editing articles related to Chavez, at least for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There's something to be said about the corp group of editors who agree with you, and the number of uninvolved editors who don't :) But it would be quite a WP:NPOV coup if y'all could eliminate little ole me from Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR articles. Rio/Rob, the gentleman doth protest too much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The gentleman doth protest to much, what rubbish, more of youR obsessive conspiracy theories. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And there she goes playing the martyr - another favourite Sandy tactic. Anybody actually bothering to use Wikidashboard will see that on rather a lot of Venezuela articles, it is actually Sandy who leads in number of edits. eg Hugo Chavez Also instructive is looking at users' top 20 edited pages: Sandy v me. I have 2 Ve pages in the top 20 (3 if you count RSN which is there because of one single enormous Venezuela-related hooha) - both talk pages. Combined Ve edits in the top 20: 263 (=1.7% of total). Sandy has both Chavez and Talk:Chavez in top 20, totalling 1800 edits (also 1.7% of total). Since Sandy inter alia claims that I don't create content, last 100 articles I created. Rd232 ^talk 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack; and please read WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and consult anyone about my famously inefficient editing style :) Now, as to the way we really examine articles, an in-depth look at all of the POV Chavez articles will reveal that WP:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:TEND contributed to two editors only POVing every Venezuela/Chavez article on Wiki in the several years I stopped following them, and now we see same on CEPR/Weisbrot, where CEPR.net and Venezuelanalysis.com are frequently used to present one-sided articles. And now it's more than one Spanish-speaking editor can clean up; yes, my edits on these articles have been high since I observed what was happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very good at making unsupported claims. You do it a lot. I must avoid the temptation to respond every time; but it does mean the constant unsupported claims accumulate. Like the claim that CEPR is "frequently" used for anything other than the CEPR articles. Or the claim you've made several times that there is any connection between CEPR and Venezuelanalysis other than you hating both of them. Rd232 ^talk 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Famously inefficient or not, the substantive point about the proportion of Venezuela edits remains: both of us 1.7% going by the top 20 edited pages, which sadly is all wikidashboard provides (anyone know a better tool?). Ooh, found a better tool, which with a bit of Excel calculation gives me Rd232 14% venezuela-related edits (in top 100); SandyGeorgia 21%. This permits some conclusions about relative involvement and WP:OWNership. Rd232 ^talk 19:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See continuation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPI_followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate admin question

RegentsPark, thanks for pointing out that Off2riorob is not an admin; that mitigates part of my question. His persistent misrepresentations of my editing notwithstanding, Rd232's involvement here is a concern. Several of the editors participating here have evidenced a lack of understanding of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Rd232 has frequently personally attacked me, failed to AGF, failed to engage in meaningful attempts to resolve disputes with me via either ignoring or removing my good faith atttempts at discussion, refusing to discuss because he's "going on WikiBreak", or ignoring direct questions put to him, and we've seen all of these editors removing text well sourced to The New York Times, USA Today and other AP sources, removing POV tags, edit warring, ignoring consensus, and claiming BLP vios where none existed, yet engaging in egregious BLP vios.

My question is-- and since I'm not an admin, I make an assumption-- is it not time to formally establish that Rd232 and John Z should not use admin tools on any Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR-related articles? User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles

I need to check out of my hotel soon, and don't know when I'll be able to resurface; hopefully I won't find more attacks on me when I do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of User SandyGeorgia's modus operandi wikilayering and accusations of being attacked, there are no attacks here, just people that have issues with your stated editing objectives. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Considering your (mis)understanding of several Wiki policies, I'm relieved to know you're not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, actually the fact that you weren't aware or were unable to discover this simple point says more about you than it does me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I wasn't interested enough :) Or too busy chasing my tail across all of the policy violations across numerous articles ... But while we're on the subject, could you explain why you-- a prolific contributor at WP:BLPN, didn't engage when Mark Weisbrot was raised at that noticeboard-- and chose to do so much later, after it was all settled? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Do you see some conspiracy in this deviousness? Everyone is a Chavez spy out to whitewash all the articles related to him and you are the wikipedia Saviour that is going to save the world from this conspiracy, hello? Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would certainly consider Rd232 an involved administrator for this topic area, but I trust that he himself knows that and will refrain from using the admin tools. John Z is not an administrator. NW (Talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm obtuse (x 2); I should pay more attention to the admin corp :) Anyway, that gives me some reassurance about the lack of understanding of policy that has been evidenced across all of these articles, and Rd232 remains the only admin concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ecx4) 1) I've never used tools where I'm involved - that's Admin 101. Thanks for asking! User:John Z is not an admin (doesn't even have rollback).

2) I have not failed WP:AGF. I assumed good faith for a long, long time. Since you ask, the point where AGF (which is an assumption, not a dogma or a collective suicide pact) crumbled for me (having been weakened previously) was the Thor Halvorssen incident, which I eventually concluded was the most obvious part of a campaign to smear me. Even after that, I tried to keep my concerns to myself, hoping to talk it out. Never happened - because you constantly evaded questions, sought to shut down dispute resolution, constantly claimed tendentiousness (is that not breaching AGF? what exactly is tendentiousness?) and made COI insinuations, and constantly brought up old issues (it's hard to convey just how constantly; cf Earlier ANI detailing Sandy's efforts to derail dispute resolution on these issues. ). (eg "but not feasible with so many editors spreading only these sources across so many articles (Venezuela Information Office?)"[280]) In response to this I elaborated my involvement with Venezuela articles (somewhat pathetically, really, I should have known she wouldn't dignify it with a response) how ridiculous that is.[281]

2a) Quoting Sandy, just before I started giving up on AGF for her: "You were quick to cry "BLP violation" on Weisbrot when there was none, yet you saw no problem on Halvorssen and don't seem to see a problem on Chavez, which is contradictory editing and appears tendentious. You are quick to revert accurate changes to inaccurately sourced text (four times, without checking the sources yourself, on the Coup article, even though *everyone* who has dos dedos frente a la cara knows that reliable sources do not say Chavez was illegally detained), but slow to remove a simple POV heading from a short article, that would have taken you one second, because you were editing that section anyway. Your method of editing is revert, revert, revert anything that isn't pro-Chavez, but you rarely seem to build content or neutralize content. In other words, what I see is an editor showing all the signs of tendentious editing. Your bite-iness and ownership tendencies chase off other editors, because your edits support JRSP's POV, so it's usually two against one. Now, JRSP clearly has a POV, but he's not hard to work with; when policy is pointed out to him, or sources are supplied, he backs off and doesn't edit war to enforce his POV; he does discuss, is not rude, and I've collaborated with him successfully on several articles, where between the two of us, we were able to respect each other's work and balance articles. You, on the other hand, have edit warred across almost every article where I've observed your work, have practically forum shopped when you didn't get the answers you want, harrassed with me the "libel" statement, don't seem particularly aware of policy or guideline or willing to read sources, and are quite a bit ruder than JRSP (undue much? is a sarcastic edit summary, and not conducive to collaborative editing, but that's your style ... noting that JRSP has a POV, but doesn't edit like that). In other words, I see an editor who edits Venezuelan content not to build articles, but to impose a specific point of view ... classic WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)"[282]

In quoting Sandy here I unfortunately repeat another misrepresentation ("revert accurate changes to inaccurately sourced text"), the details of which are at the top of User:Rd232/notes - for those who have far more interest in this than can possibly be good for their health. Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

2b) For those who care, the Thor Halvorssen incident played out like this. i) At Thor Halvorssen Mendoza I move a paragraph from one place to another. In response, Sandy makes no edit, nor discusses on talk (merely posting a reference to WP:BLPN), and at BLPN declares "Rd232 again (see Mark Weisbrot thread above). In this edit, Rd232 repeats selective info from Thor Halvorssen Hellum, (Sr. vs. Jr.) in a BLP that now reads as an attempt to smear Thor Jr. with allegations about his father, Thor Sr., although the Thor Sr. article is already linked and info about Thor Sr. belongs in and can be explored in more detail in his article."[283] Despite repeated requests on her talk page and at BLPN and elsewhere (eg RSN), Sandy never explains the alleged "smear", but repeatedly brings up the issue later (eg at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis [284]). Whatever it was was apparently fixed by another editor (Sandy declined to fix the "smear" herself - an interesting approach to handling alleged WP:BLP problems) moving a few phrases aboutSandy then keeps bringing it up as a stick to beat me with, still not explaining the supposed problem: mentioning again, in unrelated thread, 31 Jan yet again not explaining and finally some explanation, 2 Feb. The explanation (apart from being wildly implausible) in typically misrepresentative fashion draws on a comment I made [285] the day after the edits were made which she later declared had fixed the problem.[286] Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another TLDR misrepresentation, taking over in a separate thread. I've got to check out of my hotel; please don't let me interfere with the mischaracterizations of my edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume you will come back when you have time and address the unsupported claims of misrepresentation. Because I would totally expect you to just never bother coming back to it and hope that everyone around forgets. This is one of your various tactics (I should number them for convenience, perhaps) - simply not responding to issues you have no answer for. Which is part of the pattern demonstrated above! I'll perfectly well allow that you can't respond now; but so very frequently you simply do not respond at all to issues you have no answer for. Feel free to make an exception here, when you have the time. Rd232 ^talk 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback by Rd232

I am wondering if this rollbacking follow the guidelines of WP:ROLLBACK. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would. But there is no need to come running here first. Could you please discuss this with him on a talk page somewhere? NW (Talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking with him doesn't usually work; he claims BLP vios where none exist, and uses that to revert well sourced edits. Rd232 is now edit warring at Venezuela Information Office and Center for Economic and Policy Research (maybe others). In the Manuel Rosales egregious BLP vio, he's already demonstrated a less-than-firm grasp on BLP, and doesn't respond to consensus on these articles. Additionally, very well sourced text (New York Times and USA Today) has now disappeared from Mark Weisbrot, in spite of no consensus to remove that text. WP:TEND is everywhere here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's compare notes on the handling of Rosales and the handling of the other BLP issues. i) Did I declare contentious claims as fact, as you did? No - it was written as "X reported that Y claimed Z", not "Z". ii) did I edit war to include the material when it was challenged, as you have repeatedly done? no. iii) did I seek to shut down debate/DR on the issue, as you have done? no, I sought it out by posting at BLPN. iv) did I bang on about your misrepresentations (User:Rd232/notes) at every opportunity, regardless of relevance, as a stick to try and win unrelated arguments? no. Finally, as to the egregiousness of reporting the Rosales claim (which incidentally I avoid repeating here - you were so concerned about the egregiousness that you repeated it at RSN...), you claimed at RSN not to able to find any reliable mentions; you can't have looked very hard because in seconds I found the claims were reported by the Miami Herald; [287] (El Mundo), and, er, that bastion of Chavismo, El Universal [288]. The egregiousness of the text should also be contextualised by noting that the claim lived unchallenged from October to January, and that it was added to the German Wikipedia entry in September (not by me - I pop by occasionally but hardly ever edit) and remains there to this day. Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Both the New York Times source and the USA Today source, and the information cited to them, are still in the article; they are refs 10 and 11. The wording implemented is one that you did not object to when I proposed it to you earlier today; you just thought that the "other camp" would object to it. That has not happened. Otherwise, what I have taken out is a bunch of primary sources, mostly from Weisbrot's website, a point that was discussed as well: "Then the reference to his Senate testimony should also be removed, under the same criteria, unless secondary sources mention it." In an article as contentious as this one, it is best to stick to mainstream secondary sources, such as the NYT and USA Today, as much as possible. --JN466 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I did in fact immediately afterwards move the material to talk - despite it being so obviously unsuitable. If you want to discuss it further, the talk place is the place to do it. If you think I'm going to be unreasonable, that's what dispute resolution is for. (If there is one really consistent pattern in these conflicts, it is that I am always willing to talk more and to pursue dispute resolution, whilst others - let's identify them as those who falsely label me "pro-Chavez" - generally are remarkably eager to close down debates, end discussion, walk away from discussion, undermine content dispute resolution by complaining at length about unrelated alleged behaviour and content issues, etc. Rd232 ^talk 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Success of Wiki pillars

Wiki is censored, and cleansed, WP:V and WP:NPOV are thrown under the train, and Wiki is censored. Mark Weisbrot is now "neutral" according to someone, but not Wiki policy. All well sourced text is now gone, along with all mention of the numerous publications for whom he writes in this cleansed version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• See the article talk page. --JN466 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• SandyGeorgia had inserted, last month, the information that Weisbrot

  "has written for and been interviewed by online magazines such as SocialistViewpoint, Solidarity, a "an independent socialist organization", and Alternet."

• I think the subject could be forgiven if they felt here that Wikipedia was trying to tar them with the socialist brush. The evidence that Weisbrot writes for SocialistViewpoint and Alternet boiled down to the presence of the same article by Weisbrot on both sites: "Labor Day 2003: Nothing to Celebrate". According to [289], this was published through Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services and appeared in the San-Bernardino Sun, August 30, 2003, as well as the Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) on September 1, 2003. It is still present on the Sun Sentinel website today: [290] (albeit with a different headline). So Weisbrot wrote for a syndicated news service, and these websites picked the article up from the news service. Now the evidence for "Solidarity": The interview on the socialist Solidarity site begins "Suzi Weissman: And Welcome back to BTS". It did not originate on the Solidarity site either but is a transcript of an episode of this radio show broadcast on KPFK radio.
• That is why I removed the information that Weisbrot "has written for and been interviewed by online magazines such as SocialistViewpoint, Solidarity, "an independent socialist organization", and Alternet." I think that was the right thing to do, especially given that the subject had complained of unfair coverage. --JN466 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the many irritating things about ANI is the propensity for someone to shut down a thread just after one of the main participants has stated s/he won't be available for a bit. So, I'll post my apology to JN here anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread was archived, then unarchived, so I've moved the above post to the correct section. Additionally, the issue of organizations for whom Weisbrot writes has now been cleared up on article talk (after another good dose of bad faith rants were aimed at me for implementing a consensus change to the article about the organizations for whom Weisbrot writes [291] -- thanks JN for reviewing old threads and clearing that up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator viewpoint

This needs to get toned down and a liberal dose of AGF applied to all parties, about everyone not already confirmed by CU to be a sock. SandyGeorgia smelled socks, asked for SPI/CU, got same, which found some sockpuppetry. There's no sign so far that the other long term editors/admins involved are involved. This also is apparently a content weighting issue, which would seem (absent a clear policy violation by either side) to be an Article / Topic RFC problem rather than ANI. Please take the rhetoric down a few notches, and consider what a more appropriate venue might be to continue this away from ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp cleared one editor of socking (User:Constitutional1787); for some reason this editor remains indeffed. The SPI concluded that one editor (User:Scalabrineformvp) had created two socks, User:Markweisbrot and User:Kriswarner - an excellent example of naive use of checkuser. What kind of sockmaster creates two aliases using the real names of people associated with the relevant articles (hence COI issues), and uses those socks entirely independently of each other and of the "sockmaster"? It does not take a long look at the edit histories to divine 3 people in the same location. (Given that the accounts have not supported each other in any way, claims of meatpuppetry are so far equally off base - though this would need to be monitored in future.) User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, the situation being acknowledged; the other "sock" and supposed "sockmaster" remain blocked. Does anyone feel like, at some convenient time, unblocking these 3 accounts? One exonerated of being a sock by CU, one clearly not a sockmaster, one clearly not a sock and also the author of an OTRS ticket. Anyone? Rd232 ^talk 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the other issues - it's true these cannot really be resolved here. It would need at least an WP:RFC/U and probably an arbcase to deal with Sandy's behaviour. I have neither the time nor the stomach for that, so if the OTRS issues are seemingly being addressed - unblocking of the related accounts would help, with whatever dire WP:COI warnings may be required - then I'd be happy to fade back into semi-retirement. Rd232 ^talk 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

An involved editor view

Sorry I don't know if I can write here. But I would like to say that I have been surfing and trying to edit pages concerning Venezuela. The situation is simple: anybody a bit objective can see that Venezuela pages are incredibly POV. Why is it so? Mostly because of the actions of a few editors like Rd232. And when anybody tries to resist this, Rd232 reacts by attacks like this one. This is just how it is and it works very well for him. Voui (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful. Most of our interaction is at Talk:Human rights in Venezuela, and I leave it as an exercise for the disinterested reader to judge who is attacking who there. Rd232 ^talk 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

This isn't really going anywhere, is it? Especially now the ongoing sock issue has been split into a separate thread (due to this thread's temporary closure), it might as well be put out of its misery. The issues are too complex to handle here. Rd232 ^talk 09:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's too complex for ANI, then the next step would be ArbCom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I really don't have time for such a next step. It's a timesink in which I could probably produce an entire paper! Rd232 ^talk 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the next step would be a content and/or user RFC. ANI is not dispute resolution. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first step is one Rd232 has avoided, which is user talk. He has attacked me endlessly across multiple noticeboards and on my talk page, but removed my conciliatory posts from his talk page and refused to discuss items with me, saying he's going on a Wikibreak, then constantly re-appearing and not dropping issues. Rd232 has never engaged the first step in dispute resolution, which is AGF and discuss with me, not rant at me. His refusal to discuss, continue attacking, and then ask me not to discuss because he's going on break doesn't help. If he is going to continue these attacks on me across multiple noticeboards, at least he should decide if he is or isn't retiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's too complex for ANI, going to an RFC isn't going to get us anywhere either. I'm not fond of process for process' sake. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree-- RFC/U is broken for situations this complex, but a good first step might be for some admin to get Off2riorob and Rd232 to stop the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and engage in the first and usually most productive use of DR, which is editor talk pages. The personal attacks are turning into a separate matter that probably do warrant admin attention. [292] Other than that, I would suggest archiving this thread again, and someone doing something about the personal attacks and onslaught I've been enduring quietly for a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Request from Chuck Marean for review of ban

Banned user Chuck Marean (talk · contribs) has asked for the following to be copied from his talk page:

Please move this appeal to ANI for consideration. I understand why I was community banned and I’ll do constructive edits instead. My community ban was because I did some major edits without a consensus and sufficient preparation. For example, I reworded a Current Events blurb to say the victims of the Madoff investment fraud had not received a government bailout (when the references merely stated they had lost a lot of money). I’ve been thinking of ways to find consensus, such as working in my user space and getting my edits reviewed, looking at edit histories to try to find out who wrote what I want to edit, mentioning the edit idea on the article’s talk page, and putting forth more effort when reading sources and writing. I apologize for editing Current Events without knowing for certain I had a consensus. Rather than asking, I supposed everyone would agree with my edit. I believe it is uncivil to call people disruptive or vandals or uncivil or stupid or not neutral or bad editors, and so forth, although I can understand a writer being upset when someone else edits or corrects his writing. So, to improve my editing, I could ask if I have a consensus and I could read the policies I haven’t read and I could find and read a book on how to find sources and so forth. I think my community ban is no longer needed, as I’ve just explained. Chuck Marean 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the most recent AN/I discussion seems to be here. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the guy who thought it was a news item that the European Union existed. Also, the issue with Madoff was nothing to do with bailouts - the user thought it was 'biased' to report that Madoff had pleaded guilty to criminal fraud by running a Ponzi scheme, and been sentenced to a lot of years in jail for it. Marean thought the article should only say that Madoff had somehow managed to accidentally go bankrupt. Basically, he did a lot of edits that inserted utter nonsense (or possibly an alternative reality of some kind) into articles, causing a lot of time end effort to be wasted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Unban request does not show that he understands the problems with his edits, and as Elen states above, it also misrepresents the proximate reason for the ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Yes, I was the Admin who blocked him. However, reviewing the WP:AN/I thread that led me to this sanction, I find that he simply didn't get it then & I have to wonder whether he even gets it now. (WP:NPOV doesn't mean that if someone confesses to a crime, experts have verified that he did the crime, & a legal court found him guilty & threw the book at him for the crime, Wikipedia must say something a lot less definite & incriminating.) But if he can find a mentor who will help him understand the actual problem, I'm willing to withdraw my objection. But according to the earlier thread, he already burnt out one mentor by that point. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No per that AN/Bernie Madoff thing that got him banned in the first place. I'm sorry, lack of clue is one thing, but complete and willful ignorance is another. –MuZemike 18:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But enough about [personal attack on politician redacted]. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMPETENCE. I remember the ban and this editor just isn't able to be productive. I think he actually means well, but as mean as it is, even well-meaning people who harm the encyclopedia can't be allowed to edit it. -- Atama頭 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose after reading the long AN thread; I think he still doesn't get it. There's a large gulf between being bold and being completely wrong. Mr. Marean was completely wrong, to the point that not even the person whom he cast in a better light Bernie Madoff would agree with his edits. Big deal; revert and move on; except that Mr. Marean didn't get it at that point, and continued on AN to insist he was correct in his edits. Even in this unblock request there is an undercurrent of 'you just didn't understand my edits'. Further, that he wants to be unbanned and read policies is again, wrong. Read the policies first, understand them, and (now that his talk page is unlocked), try proposing edits there. If he can propose constructive edits that actually line up with reality for a while, then ask to be unbanned. Until he proves he can make constructive edits, I can't help but think this request is putting the cart before the horse. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Quite simply put, I believe he is simply saying what he thinks needs to be said in order to get unblocked. He still has not admitted that he made any mistake, simply chalking up this to 'not having consensus'. I'd like to say that a mentor could help, but if he can't understand what was wrong with the edits by now, I don't think a mentor will be much of a help. Sodam Yat (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember him, oppose, as mentioned above WP:COMPETENCE. One doesn't get community banned for a minor disagreement on the rules. A willfully ignorant and incompetent person, who I thought quit possibly was just a really clever troll playing Forrest Gump.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[293]I think this article should be called Elizabeth II of England, because whoever heard of the United Kingdom? Everybody knows what England means. It’s the southern half of one of the British Isles. I know which one my money's on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

'Whoever heard of the United Kingdom'?! You're shitting your Uncle HalfShadow, right? That's Newfie joke dumb. HalfShadow 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, he's either too incompetent, or a plain ole garden variety...... you get the point. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody lost money underestimating the intelligence of the US public," to quote one of our sages. We have people who doubt Hawaii is part our nation, so I'm no longer surprised at the ignorance of my fellow citizens. (I don't know what those eople think the 50th state is in that case. Canada? God, if that were the case, I hope those 34 million people would rate more than 2 senators & 2 representatives.) -- 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reject appeal; he still doesn't get it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Oh sweet Jesus, oppose. This is one we do NOT want back. --Smashville^talk 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose He's either monstrously stupid or a clever troll; either way, we can do without him. HalfShadow 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Storm/teacup

It seems User:Jonny7003 has some issues. I made what I felt were some inconsequential changes to The Wave 96.4 FM, which mostly amounted to cleaning up the references, trimming some inappropriate bits (a cite to Facebook, and links to probably-unauthorised downloads of copyright material). They didn't like that, and put their material back in. They were reverted twice - by myself and User:Welshleprechaun. After reverting the material, User:Jonny7003 saw fit to drop a block warning on my talk page - I removed it as blatantly inappropriate. User:Rodhullandemu dropped by and reinstated it, chastising me, and even going so far as to defend User:Jonny7003's links to copyrighted material by suggesting they counted as "standing on the shoulders of giants". User:Rodhullandemu would later admit that they'd not actually bothered checking the edits in question because they were "too busy".

I have since received {{blocked}} {{uw-block2}} on my talk page by User:Jonny7003, who is presumably not an admin (since evidently I am not blocked). The edit that user took issue with this time? This. I'm now being accused of "removing suitable references and links", though when you actually study that diff, you'll find it does exactly what the edit summary says it does - it removes a cite to Facebook, it combines duplicate references (using <ref name="...">), and tags a couple of items that didn't appear to be supported by the sources - in other words, even less contentious than the original.

I have little patience to deal with this right now, so while I step out into the Big Blue Room to cool off, I'd appreciate some outside input on the matter. Here or on the relevant talk pages is fine. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide links for the edit differences in order to support your claim please? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu has not been notified of this discussion. Woogee (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have notified him Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It was late; I saw this diff, a removal of references without explanation- I later saw that there had been an invitation to discuss on the Talk page, which had not been taken up at the time of this revert. An edit summary would have been helpful, especially to an outsider. I now see that this is not the first time 81.111.114.131 has been warned, and blocked, for edit-warring; s/he should know by now that (a) edit summaries are recommended and (b) jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Unless there are any particular problems, that should be an end of it, since the Talk page is open to all. Rodhullandemu 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably should end here, but it is worth noting that the IP, User:81.111.114.131, was providing good edit summaries - except once, when reverting back changes - and was mistakenly accused and warned of vandalism when the edits appear to have been made in good faith. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So when can I expect the apology that's clearly due? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Request urgent move reversal and move protection

Resolved

 – moved back and protected, discussions can continue on where it should be. GedUK  13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a little bit of discussion yesterday about the correct article title for the article about the Belgian rail crash, currently the top story on ITN on the Main Page. After a short discussion on the talk page, the consensus was that Halle train collision was a reasonable title, at least for as long as the story is a current event.

This morning, Westermarck (talk · contribs) moved the article to 2010 Buizingen train collision, and then delierately edited the redirect to prevent the page being moved back by any other than an admin. This without any discussion on the talk page on the part of the editor concerned.

Could someone move 2010 Buizingen train collision back to Halle train collision, a title that had been stable for most of the articles history, and move protect the page for one week? I'm asking here as the article is currently prominently placed on the Main Page, and so shouldn't really go dancing around all over the place when the current title is both accurate and the most common reference in the media. Physchim62 (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have normally move-protected on whatever current WRONG version I found, except that I strongly dislike the use of the disruptive technique of redirect-scorching that was applied here (apparently deliberately), so indeed I moved it back before move-protecting (for 48 hrs, which should be enough to work this out on talk.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Westermarck has a long, long history of unilateral and disruptive page moves, including such scorched-earth tactics. I believe he has never been given more than a warning (but a great deal of them at that), aside from the fact that he's banned on the Dutch Wikipedia. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Take Chris Rush - please!

Resolved

 – Blocked and salted by LessHeard vanU

You may remember User:Fred1296 from such classic ANI comedy bits as this one. Fred1296 is a single purpose account whose single purpose seems to be very very strongly related to Chris Rush. Despite previous discussions, they have once again reverted redirects of non-notable Chris Rush albums ([294] [295] & [296]). Can someone please inform them that their set is over and perhaps protect the redirects to prevent future Cris Rush fans from doing the same? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Account indef'ed and redirects low sodium salted (there may yet be reason for articles, so autoconfirmed accounts can edit - and Chris Rush fans will need to mature their socks...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lifting community ban on Petri Krohn

This user has been banned for a year from Wikipedia as a result of a community ban, imposed, as it was discovered later, as a result of wikistalking campaign by the so-called EEML cabal group. (see this evidence: [297]. The only his guilt was that he suggested that the recent creation of the so-called Historical Truth Commission by the Russian government may be in part, triggered by the Digwuren's group (later discovered to be EEML conspiracy) activity in Wikipedia.

He also has been previously banned as a result of WP:DIGWUREN case which was also abused by the EEML group by demanding the remedies were "symmetric" and accusing the arbitrator Kirill Loshkin of ethnic prejudice towards Russian cause. Petri Krohn was completely irrelated to the cause of that arbitration (which was good article promotion shopping in IRC by Digwuren), other than being political opponent of the EEML group. He was inactive in political topics for 3 months by the time of the arbitratiuon.

It was discovered lated that hounding political opponents and driving them off Wikipedia is a common tactic of the EEML group, other case being Russavia (see evidence here:[298]).

It has been suggested by the Arbitration Committee members that the victims of the group (Russavia and Petri Krohn) to apply of lifting of their respective bans, Russavia already did and the ban has been lifted.

I personally know no Wikipedia's rule Petri Krohn ever broke and suggest him to be unblocked.--Dojarca (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that the Arbitration Committee's one-year ban on this user was imposed in 2007 and expired in 2008. According to the block log, the user is currently blocked/banned as the result of a different discussion. Also, before spending time on this discussion, do we know whether Petri Krohn actually wishes to return to editing? Not commenting on any other aspect at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just re-read my post. Second time he was "community-banned" by the Wiki-stalking campign by the EEML members which is evident from their mail archive:[299], submitted to the Arbcom. There are posts where they discuss how to better drive him out of Wikipedia and how to better vote on his ban to avoid suspicions of stalking. The formal reason for the community ban was his mention that Digwuren's group behavior in Wikipedia maybe played role in the creation of the Historical Truth Commition by the Russian government. Currently he is under this ban which was clearly discovered to be canvassed.--Dojarca (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no canvassing was discovered by the ArbCom, which was the reason why ArbCom did not remove his ban. Also, I believe that the current ArbCom needs to be notified in this, as there may be a separate issue with Krohn's ban not being lifted. --Sander Säde 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing was discoverad by the Arbcom.--Dojarca (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, can you please link the relevant (about Krohn's block) finding of fact by ArbCom and not delusional musings? --Sander Säde 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - If we are chiming in to determine if Petri Krohn is to be unblocked and allowed to return, I support that. Looking at the thread in his block log, it looks like he was blocked very soon after coming off his 1 year ban for allegedly making threats [300]. I don't really see a direct threat though, it looks more like a misunderstanding blown out of proportion... the editor even apologized and removed the alleged threat but was blocked anyway. A number of EEML partisans pile on at that discussion, which kinda makes it seem corrupted to me. PK was active at his own talk page as recently as last January, so it's safe to assume he is checking in now and then and perhaps still interested in participating. He has something like 27,000 live edits, which is fairly prolific... I say let him come back and contribute. Additioanlly, the ArbCom ban was over long ago, he is currently community blocked and can be unblocked by consensus, as noted at the bottom of the block discussion from last May. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The admin that decided the ban is apparently not around, having invoked the right to vanish renamed his account and retired (see User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired). I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal. Pcap ping 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - well-worth giving another chance. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• "It was teh Cabalz!" is not compelling when considered in the context of an editor who has already been banned once by ArbCom. I think an independent review of the evidence is indicated and would suggest that if this user wants to return to editing then they should contact the ban appeals subcommittee, who will judge the case dispassionately on its merits. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

speedtrap.org

We don't have an article on this website, but we do have numerous city articles with reference to this website. The website claims to be a source of speed trap information around the U.S. In theory, just about any city article could contain a link to this website. Thought the site uses the "org" top level domain, it's a commercial site. In my opinion, this looks a lot like link spam to a non-notable website. Cleanup, however, will require significant effort and it may rouse a few questions, so I thought I'd seek an opinion here, first. Linkspam to be removed - or not - or some other recommendation? Rklawton (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam. I don't see what encyclopaedic value linking to a site with a list of speed traps holds, especially from city articles. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Canterbury Tail here. I see no encyclopedic value in the site, and would not be opposed to its being place on the blacklist --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, it might be of value to speed trap, but I'm not about to add it as an External link, nor am going to remove it from the blacklist. (However, if it is already linked at that article, we may need to discuss this matter further.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not even in speed trap really. I wouldn't be opposed ot blacklisting it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the website in question (maybe to come up with a witty & elegant response to NF), only to find it, well, underwhelming. All of those links & if there is a speed trap listed there, I couldn't find it. (So much for passionate arguments. Oh well, next time I'll just uncritically agree with NF before she/he posts & save everyone the work.) Now having examined the article in question, I'm more concerned with the lack of sources there than any external link -- & am amazed that the speed trap in Coburg, Oregon isn't mentioned, especially since it's so well documented. :-/ llywrch (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The website isn't blacklisted that I know of, and it has been listed in the Speed Trap article as an external link. So there's the question. Is SpeedTrap.org linkspam? I checked Alexa. SpeedTrap.org got a bump once it was added to Wikipedia a few weeks ago, but the bump is gone, and visitor rates are lower than ever (low). Oh, and assuming we agree it's linkspam, what's the process to get it blacklisted? Rklawton (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• speedtrap.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Taking a look at this one, we have some suspect referencing and linking by:

• 70.113.40.110 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 70.183.5.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 70.241.167.93 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.56.44.247 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• StuffStuffer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Make of this what you will. (Usage info can be found in the COIBot report.) MER-C 02:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:WPSPAM is the canonical place for this type of issue. Yes, extlinks of that type are bad. I'm behind the times but if there are a lot of them to remove, maybe there are some bots that can help. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic admin

Resolved

 – frivolous complaint. WP:DRV is that way. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:PhilKnight this admin persists in deleting my page, refusing discussion on notability. Wikipedia is based on consensus and this acts of arrogance shouldn't be tolerated Di Natale Massimo (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah-Jane Hilliard Di Natale Massimo (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on Di Natale Massimo's talk page explaining my concerns. If another admin wants to restore the page, that's fine with me, but I honestly feel any article about this person is covered by WP:BLP1E. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus in Wikipedia is that admins are permitted to delete blatant attack pages, and he did a pretty good job of explaining his concerns with the article on your talk page. He probably would not have deleted it when you recreated it again if you had followed his advice by making it more neutral on your second try. --otherlleft 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Di Natale Massimo is obviously a new editor and not familiar with BLP or Notability. The article was deleted appropriately and should remain so. Rklawton (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a legitimate application of WP:BLP1E by PhilKnight. This appears to be a single event involving otherwise non-notable individuals. Wikipedia is not intended for tar-and-feathering. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know she's not notable. I asked why other not notable people are present on Wikipedia, but he didn't answer me. He deleted page talk page and ignored my question in his talk page. This page can't be created? Well, but give me an explanation about Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not any admin's job to explain why other articles exist on Wikipedia, just because they've made a decision regarding a particular article. If you see another article whose subject you don't think is notable you can nominate it for deletion -- however I'd suggest seriously considering whether you're completely familiar with Wikipedia's article standards yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:27, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight is not a problematic administrator, neither is he arrogant. Placing a report on ANI using incivil and slanderous words is not a wise decision. The article in question was created twice by Di Natale Massimo. The first creation was a blatant attack page, which went as far as calling the subject of the BLP "a criminal". PhilKnight correctly deleted the attack page, and placed a friendly and informative message on Di Natale Massimo's talk page. The content of the second page was identical to the first with the exception of the word "criminal" which was not included. I tagged the second page with CSD#A7 (due to WP:1E). Issues like these happen when new and unexperienced editors start creating their first wikipedia article without acquainting themselves first with basic Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Amsaim (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Criminals. All this are attack pages, then. Frivolous complain? Incivil? Are you joking? Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An attack page isn't one that describes a notable person using facts backed up with reliable sources, even if the information is largely negative. If you require more explanation than that, I'd suggest taking this to WP:Helpdesk; or WP:VPP, if you really think people will seriously consider prohibiting all articles on criminals. As far as ANI goes, the matter appears to be resolved. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:40, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

ok Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

This is a formal written complaint about on-going harassment. There is at least one editor whose political agenda is attacking and disparaging me, and invalidly calling for sanctions or other actions to be taken against myself. Let me state for the record here that I am a good faith editor with a long history of contributions and civil collaboration. The latest example of this inappropriate, uncivil, and anonymous harassment is from a user who is almost certainly a member of WikiProject Mathematics logging on anonymously: Special:Contributions/71.139.28.90, and trolling at Talk:Rule of inference. My request is for an investigation as to the identity of this person, and some form of written reprimand.

However, in addition, I would like to take this opportunity to propose a new practice of group sanctions. This is to say that most likely that this person is known by others within Wikiproject Mathematics, but the group takes no action to discipline its members, and therefore deserves to be held responsible collectively for creating a shark tank culture, not conducive for civil collaboration. I think if all members of a project were blocked from editing for 24 hours when these rouge situations turn up, that we would see a concerted effort to find, identify, and correct uncivil editors. When a troll like this shares the same biases as a prevailing group, they look the other way because they manifest a consequential (political) rather than principled ethic. We need to create a sanction for these situations because they haven't taken the high road of their own accord.Greg Bard (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. No way. You can't sanction WikiProjects for actions of their members.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, well, ordinarily I would agree with you that individuals are individually responsible. I am very much a humanist and libertarian, and that is how it should be in governments. However, when it comes to situations where there is a lot of conflict, there is a need for more rules. This isn't a congress or a supreme court, it's more closely analogous to a high school club. We can institute any strange rule we want, (like requiring funny hats, etcetera) --if you object, go somewhere else, and nobody cries about it. If a group is sanctioned just once, that will be enough to change the culture immediately forever. So, um, yes we absolutely can and should create a higher standard of civility with appropriate sanctions against the whole group. You seem to forget, nobody has to edit the Wikipedia, it's a hobby. If sanctions are some major rights violation, there really is no crying about it under those circumsatnces. Certainly military schools have no problem sanctioning a whole group for the action of one of its members. They sure do emphasize honor and decency too don't they.Greg Bard (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe that a military school is a reasonable analogy to Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is a far better analogy than a kindergarten, which also needs a lot of rules because the people there are very immature. Greg Bard (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Military schools are designed to turn out people who will work well within a strictly structured and tightly disciplined hierarchical organization, because that type of organization is necessary to conduct wars and othe military operations, where the inherent danger and chaos can be (somewhat) held at bay by the group's unified and coordinated behavior. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a collaborative endeavour to assemble an encyclopedia, which requires neither the structure or disclipline necessary in the military -- in fact, such qualities may well be detrimental to it, as they inhibit free-wheeling behavior, serendipity and casual investigation, all of which play an important part here. Given this, I would disagree that a military school is any kind of model to follow for Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What say we avoid WP:NPA violations for the rest of the discussion, tally ho, pip pip? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? My comments where addressed to the idea, not to the editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I detect no personal attack at all. Beyond my Ken and I are having a wonderful and civil discussion as far as I can tell.Greg Bard (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't you I was referring to, BMK -- it was the implication that Wikipedia editors lacked honor and decency that I was addressing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry -- and thanks for the explication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a terrible idea, and an explicit denial of good faith. I recalled a discussion that may be some of the background to this that we had last year - see [301]. I know nothing about the current situation, just that I hope we would never use blocks to punish all members of a Wiki project on the assumption that they are responsible for one person's actions (and of course, we aren't supposed to use blocks to punish in any case. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Who would you punish? All the members of a project, including those not currently active? Just the active members, even those that didn't participate in the particular discussion in question? Only those involved in the discussion, including those who agreed with you? No, you just want to punish everyone who disagrees with you. Not just a "terrible" idea, a truly awful one.

I propose that all editors who bring up truly awful ideas on AN/I be "sanctioned", which'll be beneficial in preventing others from suggesting other truly awful ideas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes all members of a wikiproject. And, NO, it's not about "disagreeing with me." It's about demonstratable harassment. There are cases where it would be reasonable, and cases where it would be unreasonable. I think we are perfectly able to figure these things out together. Since the so-called "harm" is that some poor Wikipedia addict can't edit for 24 hours, well like I said, there's just no crying about that. There is a way to avoid it, by demonstrating a commitment to civility. To say that the benefits would outweigh the "harm" would be the understatement of the year. Perhaps instead of sanctions, some leaders in the admin could take it upon themselves to show some leadership by speaking out on these types of situations on the appropriate project page. Your counterproposal is silly and entirely political, whereas mine is not.Greg Bard (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects are loose associations based on interest that allow for coordination on specific topics. Nowhere is there an administrative or judicial role in their definition - resolution lies thoroughly outside WikiProjects. Allowing, asking, or expecting "them" to "discipline" their "members" (all of these terms are poorly defined, at best) would be the very definition of bureaucracy and cabalism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because "cabalism" isn't a problem at all now. My goodness. All I am asking is for some moral leadership. Greg Bard (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyheyhey. The first rule of the Wikipedia Cabal is you don't talk about the Wikipedia Cabal.

...

...

...

Oh shit... HalfShadow 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a project to build an encyclopedia, not an exercise in creating the best possible on-line community (which is good, because it ain't). "Moral leadership" is not a relevant concept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. In that regard the kindergarten analogy is more apt that the military school. Let's strive for civility at least.Greg Bard (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A kindergarten has no overall goal aside from starting the social training and education of children. A lot of rules are needed because ... well, because they're children. Here, there's an overriding purpose, and it's not to turn out better Wikipedians. As far as the project is concerned, as long as the encyclopedia gets better, it's almost irrelevant what happens to the participants. "Almost" because complete chaos is not an environment conducive to attracting people to work on the project, or keeping them on it once they're there. The trick, from the project's point of view, is to maximize the (positive) output of the editors by providing just enough structure to keep everything together and running (relatively) smoothly, but not so much as to stultify the participants or so little as to drive them away. But the project's interest in the members of the community is, strictly speaking, "selfish" (in the Richard Dawkins sense). It could care less whether there's "moral leadership", as long as the encyclopedia keeps improving.

And, in any case, there's really nothing for admins to do here, is there? Shouldn't this be on the Village Pump? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP makes one talk page comment, and you want a whole WikiProject banned? 1. Without further evidence, I see no harassment. You'll need to come up with better than that for an admin to lift a finger. 2. Collective punishment is the worst idea I've seen raised on Wikipedia for a long time. Fences&Windows 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What a way for a troll to be efficiently disruptive! Pick a Wikiproject that's not terribly active, make a few harrassing edits in some dark corner, and wait for the system to spank everyone in the Wikiproject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects have certainly been sanctioned in the past for doing things like talkpage canvassing, but what Greg is asking is ridiculous. FWIW, Greg seems to think that 71.139.28.90 is Hans Adler[302] which I think is an unfounded suspicion (71's edits are not Hans's style). I somewhat doubt that 71 is a regular math editor. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those here would probably benefit from links to past WikiProject discussions of GregBard. Most recently, see:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_36#Linkifying (e.g. as in s/Consistent/Consistent/)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_37#More help needed with logic articles
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_37#"Theorem"?
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_37#Mathematics bias,
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_55#Formal systems again
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_55#Theorem
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_56#AWB linking to substitution instance

A few more older references to GregBard can be found by searching the project archives, but I think that skimming the above discussions will bring everyone up to speed. Ozob (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the immorality of Greg Bard's suggestion "... the group takes no action to discipline its members, and therefore deserves to be held responsible collectively ...", it is based on a false factual premise that the Mathematics project could discipline its members. Most of us are ordinary users and do not have the power to punish others even if we wanted to. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that Greg Bard feels someone is trying to punish and there is a math cabal. I found a quick look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 37#More help needed with logic articles helpful where it seems one of those cabal theories apply - when a user starts accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, he or she is typically surprised if you, the more established wikipedians, band together against them. If someone is socking or harassing that should be stopped but I don't see evidence presented as yet. I'd like to see some of the alleged members of the math editing cabal (which certainly could not exist) offer up opinions on the matter and possible ways forward. -- Banjeboi 10:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I move that we establish a WikiProject where all members be held responsible for their misdeeds: WikiProject S&MB&D! We'll send all of those bad little editors there where they'll be kept in line by a MOTAS attired in black leather, who will abide no misdeeds & harshly punish any misbehavior! (Yes, I am being sarcastic. No, I will not help establish this WikiProject.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time for editing at the moment and only found an ANI notice by accident when looking something up while still logged in. I don't even have time to read this tread, but here is some information in case it helps:

• The last time I edited without being logged in was a long time ago, probably much more than half a year ago.
• I have nothing to do with the IPs that were mentioned in the ANI notice. They are from AT&T and geolocate to California. I am currently in Vienna.
• There is an anonymous editor who occasionally stirs shit in relation to mathematical logic articles and especially likes to provoke Gregbard. I don't know if this editor is from California and is behind these IPs. The admin who normally monitors this problem is CBM. He might have important input.
• I see Gregbard as generally a problem for Wikipedia, but if he caused any recent incidents other than this ANI report itself I am at least not aware of them.
• This report indicates that Gregbard is now resorting to a conspiracy theory in order to explain why WikiProject Mathematics generally tries to contain the damage done by his well-intentioned but clueless editing.

I will notify CBM of this thread. Hans Adler 10:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC) PS: In addition to the links above about Gregbard, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547#Background information on Gregbard. Hans Adler 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I'm in California, have been editing math articles from IP addresses since forever, and have had a few not-exactly-positive encounters with Greg around logic articles, so it's sort of possible that Hans is referring to me. But I've never provoked Greg or "stirred up shit" on purpose and 71.whatever is definitely not me. I did start an ANI thread about Carl Hewitt a couple days ago but I felt it was very justified and not done lightly (and the remedies that resulted from it were way too weak IMHO). I think Greg is well-meaning even though his lack of clue can be annoying at times. I would support a topic ban or mentorship for Greg towards mathematical logic articles (talkpage participation is ok). Hewitt on the other hand is a real abuser with an arbcom ban and a long history of block evasion, who should be dealt with sharply. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

break (71.xx)

I'm commenting here on Hans Adler's request. There is someone, most recently IP 71.139.28.90, who uses IP addresses to make edits to provoke Gregbard. It's completely inappropriate, and I wish that person would stop doing it, because it doesn't help the situation. This isn't the first time it has happened; for example see the contribs of IP 67.118.103.210, which is in the same city as 71.xxx

I'm not a checkuser, but based on geographical location and editing style it seems very unlikely to me that the IP in question is Hans Adler. My suggestion would be is for a checkuser to look at the 71.xx IP address and go from there.

IP 66.127.55.192 has been editing for some time on the same IP address in a different city than 71.xx, and I don't think there is much reason to think they are the same person.

As for the math project: even the math editors who are admins don't have any way to force the other math editors to do anything. There's a phrase for this: "herding cats". — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy

Problematic administrator destroyed valid references and valid disambiguation entries, see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VRML&action=historysubmit&diff=344452957&oldid=344432273
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X3D&action=historysubmit&diff=344452798&oldid=344434739
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iota&action=historysubmit&diff=344451726&oldid=344441827
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yot&action=historysubmit&diff=344452272&oldid=344449865

In this way he by restoring of old sourcing requests and removal of current valid sources seriously violated Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Please restore directly preceeding state of these pages. 95.211.129.248 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, you know, he could be reverting due to the fact that you're a banned editor. --Smashville^talk 20:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem. Content is content. If it meets our standards, then the editor is irrelevant. The appropriate response would be to immediately block the banned user and review the edits on a case by case basis. In this case, valid edits were removed. Rklawton (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are free to review the edits and restore what you find worthwhile. But this banned editor has been too much of a nuisance for me to check all of it, especially not in articles whose topics I don't know well. It's part of this banned troll's mode of operation to make a mix of good with bad edits, editing with several different IPs successively, changing or even partially reverting their own edits, all with the express purpose of creating as much confusion as possible. Longtime experience shows the only clean solution is to roll back all of it on sight, as quickly as possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen this pattern before with other banned editors, and except where rolling back might create a BLP violation I think rolling them all back is probably appropriate. Letting this banned editor enjoy this ANI discussion is, however, not appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits recognizable as being from banned editors are deletable on sight, regardless of whether they are "good" or not. Banned means banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fut. Perf, Dougweller, and Baseball Bugs. Banned means banned, and the best way to discourage this kind of time-wasting gamesmanship is to revert all edits on sight, unless such a reversion creates a BLP violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Deleteable on sight" doesn't mean "must be deleted on sight", it just means that we won't get in trouble (say with 3RR or a 1RR restriction) for deleting them, right? Aren't we allowed to use our discretion and judgment about the edits, and keep those that improve the encyclopedia (our continuing goal), while ruthlessly deleting those which aren't helpful or borderline? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that yes, they should be deleted on sight. Regardless of the content, we're just borrowing trouble if we weigh every single edit made by a banned editor who is only here to mess with legit editors. As Jajjg said, it's just letting someone play games with us and waste time. After it's been reverted, if you feel like any of the content is worthy of addition, you can add it yourself under your own ID. That way, a legit editor is responsible for the addition. Most of the time, it's not a problem. Dayewalker (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's reasonable - if I'm certain that the information is clearly beneficial to the project, then I should take responsibility for it. Thanks for clarifying that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that User:83.11.48.212 has requested on my talk page that I "take responsibility" and revert FPAS's deletions on VRML and X3D, but I've declined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) And that's where the problem lies with banned editors. They should be reverted and ignored completely, otherwise, they're still getting their jollies by causing disruption here one way or the other. I don't want one of these ^#$@heads to feel like he can leave me a message and give me odd jobs. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• If only we had a guideline about that :-) Guy (Help!) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Trollin'

• Falklands War
• Gulf War
• Vietnam War
• Korean War

Ryan4314 (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Only one of those edits is from today. The rest are from August. So, Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. TNXMan 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call some inappropriate (but topical) comments on a talk page "vandalism", and even if the purpose was trolling, it hardly seems worth bringing to AN/I -- just the kind of response a troll might want. Just revert and ignore, I'd say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can also suggest adding warnings to the IP's talk page as these edits occur. In this case it would be inappropriate use of talk pages. It is hard to a) help them become a better editor or b) block them if we haven't been informed why their edits are problematic. MarnetteD | Talk 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

False information on Gregorian and Julian calendars

62.31.226.77 insists upon inserting an incorrect procedure, based on original research, for converting between the Gregorian and Julian calendars into Gregorian calendar. The error is shown at Talk:Gregorian calendar#Novel conversion procedure. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This series of edits have extended to Julian calendar, with statements indicating that the USSR adopted the religious New Calendar despite the fact that the USSR changed calendars in 1919, four years before the New Calendar was created. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

After what period of administrator inaction may an issue be taken to arbitration? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The above claim is false.

62.31.226.77 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Have patience, I think going to ArbCom would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think it would help if you explained how the IP is being disruptive in more detail, provided more diffs. You're assuming that admins will understand this content dispute and side with you. Fences&Windows 23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In several edits including this one to Gregorian calendar 62.31.226.77 (who also edits as 156.61.160.1) added a method to find the difference in dates between the Julian and Gregorian calendar. It is well know that the rule is that centurial years (ending in 00) are always Julian leap years, but not Gregorian leap years unless they are also evenly divisible by 400. The years 1200 and 2800 are leap years under both systems, so the difference should not increase in those years. When 62.31.226.77's procedure is followed (and all divisions are integer divisions, remainders are dropped), the results are:

For 1199 and 1200:

((1199 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 6

((1200 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 7

so the difference increases, which is wrong.

Similarly, for 2799 and 2800:

((2799 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 19

((2799 + 300) / 100) * 7 / 9 - 4 = 19

As for the Julian calendar, 62.31.226.77 made a series of edits in which he mixed up the meanings of civil and religious calendars, and indicated countries adopted a religious calendar, the New Calendar, when that is plainly impossible. The most recent pair of such edit is here.

He/she changed

The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but it has generally been replaced by the Gregorian calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.

to

The Julian calendar remained in use into the 20th century in some countries as a civil calendar, but thirteen days have been excised to make the date the same as in other countries. This is described as the "New calendar". Research will be needed to establish which leap year model has been adopted (if any), but the civil calendar is identical with the new calendar of fixed holy days in Orthodox countries.

which is nonsense for several reasons, including

• If thirteen days are excised from the Julian calendar, it isn't the Julian calendar anymore.
• Russia retained the Julian calendar into the 20th century, but when the USSR took over, they certainly didn't adopt the New Calendar because it didn't exist until 1923, and the USSR government was hostile to religion.
• Civil calendars don't have holy days, so it is nonsense to say they the civil calendar and New Calendar are identical in this respect. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

I interpret the edit summary in this edit to be a legal threat. It states "(Certain individuals have been telling lies about me to the administrators and on talk pages. Be careful what you say as your remarks are disseminated worldwide and libel suits are not unknown.)." Jc3s5h (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A registered user would be indef'd for that comment, which is probably why some editors prefer to remain as IP's, as they can get away with more. An IP is seldom indef'd, but a lengthy block would seem to be called for. Possibly with a fitting comment such as, "Certain individuals have been making legal threats, and lengthy blocks for such threats are well known." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the same IP address for the last month, safe to say it's static. Say a 6 month block for legal threats? Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months, and neutral block comment and notice provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I would appreciate some advice on the following. If a user has named on their WP user page an external (personal) website that they set up, and has admitted to it in talk pages, is there any danger of me WP:OUTING if I post at WP:COIN and WP:RS tying said user with the website? Reason being, they are linking to it on numerous articles on Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) ps for any editor who sees my name and thinks this is relating to a discussion that has been ongoing, this is a different website, in an entirely different category to the one we were discussing

You can't out someone who has outed themselves. Rklawton (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What if the web page isn't really theirs? I suppose prove that the Wikipedia editor is also in control of the external web site could consist of announcing on the WP user page that a particular change will be made in the future to the website. Another form of proof would be if the Wikipedia user name is stated on the web site, as such. If the external web site says "I'm Jane Doe" that is not proof, but if it says "My English Wikipedia user name is Jane Doe" that's proof. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You easily could be outing the wrong person or someone wholly uninvolved. The issue is with the edits so I suggest WP:RSN if the website might be a reliable source, if they are clear it's not it should be removed and the user alerted not to re-insert it anywhere. If the link is sometimes reliable then COIN may be helpful if they are simply spamming it. -- Banjeboi 10:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

They put on their own WP user page that they registered it. They since removed that statement but it is visible in the history. Does that change matters? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is the links themselves? If so focus on that as the problem, if the miss the clue train that they are being removed per policy then a stern warning and then maybe blocks are in order. They actually may be misguided or they may not care. In either case the links are the immediate harm and the user can amend their ways or be given a vacation. -- Banjeboi 12:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the main issue is RS, so I will focus on that. The user can regretably be a bit misguided about sources and certainly will care - I can forsee harrassment accusations coming my way as well as protestations that it is reliable, so I'm sure this will not be the end of it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

Resolved

 – POV reverted, articles semi protected. --Atlan (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This article on the history book written by Sir Gavin Menzies is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57. Despite many efforts to explain the usage of non-POV and neutrality in this article and following two articles Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

This article on the history book written by Sir Gavin Menzies is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

Gavin Menzies

This article is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

This report certainly has merit, but it doesn't look like it got the culprits right. I was going to fix it, but I just ended up in edit conflicts with User:Gun Powder Ma. SarekOfVulcan, Dougweller and ClovisPt could have paid a little more attention while reverting the IP though. It doesn't look like they checked what they were reverting to.--Atlan (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did -- it was such a mess, that I tried to keep it down to small edits. In any case, semi-protected all three articles for a month, thanks to the IP-hopping edit warrior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Who submitted this report? Did they discuss it with the people they are complaining about? Did they report this discussion to them as is required? Have they read WP:NPOV and WP:RS? Woogee (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP who doesn't know the rules, give them a break. They were in good faith trying to clear a BLP issue, as it seems. Or adding the opposite POV, it wasn't quite clear to me either. Anyway, POV reverted properly, articles protected, problem solved.--Atlan (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an IP hopper, blocked 3 times under another IP, and way over 3RR

I'm really annoyed at myself for not seeing this last night. The IP reporting this is 98.71.0.146 (talk · contribs), who has posted similar complaints at AIV and the NPOV noticeboard. He is also clearly 98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 (talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 (talk · contribs). He is way over 3RR and I was going to report him this morning here as I couldn't protect or block myself being involved in the articles. As Sarekof Vulcan says above, this is simply an edit-warrior trying to game the system by using multiple IPs. He's also been hitting Republic of China with his IPs, which probably needs protection as well. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was hard to tell who was reverting to what on those articles, with 2 opposite POV's being pushed and so many ip's. I don't think anyone is going to hold it against you when you act against such blatant POV pushing and 3RR violations.--Atlan (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad Sarek looked a bit more closely though. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:RayGunsAreNotJustTheFuture

Resolved

 – Page has been deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RayGunsAreNotJustTheFuture (talk · contribs) has not edited anything other than their User or Talk pages since May of 2009, but yet they continue to edit their User page apparently for some non-WP purpose. Their Talk page was deleted in July due to it not having anything to do with Wikipedia. I asked on their Talk page what they were doing, but they ignored my question and continued to edit their User page. Woogee (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Page deleted, user blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit i'm curious what rayguns are if they're not just the future. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

user talk:Jack Merridew

see the related thread a bit north at #Disruptive signature

Someone please semi my talk page for a while, please? See the anon shite landing there; the fuckwits have lock the orange bar to 'on'. fyi, this may-well be related to the incident with User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier about 12 hours ago; it's discussed at #Disruptive signature, above. All the quotes are off his user page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

May be resolved; Seresin's semi'd and reverted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

per this, Jéské Couriano shares my suspicion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I saw a thread on /b/ specifically asking for your userpage to be hit. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not a big fan of Batman are you Jack? This guy thinks he's The Joker. The quotes are from The Dark Knight, and in some incarnations the Joker's real name is Jack Napier. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I recognized it. Guess who?; And behind door #2: another crab. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Aren't you the lucky one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do a CU. I'm not GRAWP or John254. I just liked the movie and wanted a cool userpage and sig before I started contributing. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 23:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will get around to it. Q: If you're really a n00b, how did you find my code on about your first day here? Not to mention your other other apparent prior wiki-experience… (fuck-me, i just mentioned it;) Jack Merridew 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I never said I was a n00b. This account is a legitimate sock puppet account of a user who hasn't edited in some time. When I decided to come back to WP, I decided it would be better to leave the old account behind. I will reveal the name of the account to any interested admins via email, but would like the account name to be kept off-wiki. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 00:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the mop-brigade to sort-out; they get paid for this sort of shite. Anyway, if you were to disclose to me and it was all-good, I'd apologize and keep my mouth shut. I'd also disclose the sekret of height; 1%; Jack Merridew 00:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't like me back then. ;) But it is tempting to learn what that height; 1%; does... {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So, we *are* acquainted. For what it's worth, I do get along well with some now whom I previously did not. As a sign of my good faith: it's an IE6 hack to make relative position work for bottom and right. Jack Merridew 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_alternate_accounts:

You should also not, as User:B, engage in disputes you engaged in as User:A—whether about articles, project-space issues, or other editors—without making clear that you are the same person.

Please enlighten us. Durova⁴¹² 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't. I was just setting up my userpage and sig when Jack came in all on his own. And, FWIW, I have no dispute with Jack. It always seemed to be the other way around, though I may be wrong. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

*Right* — I'm a serial-harasser, you're just a victim. Jeers, Jack Merridew 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Crazy idea Jack "Red Hood" Napier: Go edit articles. If you want all of this to go away stop posting here, stop posting at Merridew's talk page, and edit articles. You've wasted a lot of time for someone with 13 edits to the actual encyclopedia. AniMate 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A fine idea. nb: User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Mr. Rekoj was missed yesterday. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maaf

which is Indonesian for sorry — "Red Hood" is not Grawp or John254, my money's now on User:Drew R. Smith, who reincarnated and Grawp's /b/tards coat-tailed on it. Point for you; fooled me. Cheers, Jack Merridew

*Right* — I'm a serial-harasser, you're just a victim. Jeers, Jack Merridew 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC) - Yes you are, and you have been blocked for it how many times. Your like a cat, eventually your 9 lives will run out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.147.169 (talk)

old problem is back

Resolved

Caro 08 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)...no need to say more just see user talk page...I am wondering Y the block was not put back ..small over sight on admins part i guess...latest edit!!...tks again guys...Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That was fast thank you!!..user block again!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI followup

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents § The block of Markweisbrot

Since the thread above where this was previously discussed was closed:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp followup

The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp cleared one editor of socking (User:Constitutional1787); for some reason this editor remains indeffed. The SPI concluded that one editor (User:Scalabrineformvp) had created two socks, User:Markweisbrot and User:Kriswarner - an excellent example of naive use of checkuser. What kind of sockmaster previously operating with undisclosed COI creates two aliases using the real names of people associated with the relevant articles (hence raising COI issues), and then uses those socks entirely independently of each other and of the "sockmaster"? It does not take a long look at the edit histories to divine 3 people in the same location. (Given that the accounts have not supported each other in any way, claims of meatpuppetry are so far equally off base - though this would need to be monitored in future.) User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, the situation being acknowledged; the other "sock" and supposed "sockmaster" remain blocked. Does anyone feel like, at some convenient time, unblocking these 3 accounts? One exonerated of being a sock by CU, one clearly not a sockmaster, one clearly not a sock and also the author of an OTRS ticket. Anyone? Rd232 ^talk 00:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Very embarassing for Wikipedia.  :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think it more embarassing that someone can get their article cleansed by writing to Wiki OTRS, even though COI and meatpuppetry policies were violated. That would seem to damage Wiki's credibility more than blocking editors who violate policies. There are still outstanding meatpuppetry questions here, but that's for tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As Sandy states, very embarassing. I don't know the situation details enough to point out which act is the most embarassing only to know that Wikipedia is getting a black eye.  :( or x( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems unwise and uncalled for to block a renowned, international journalist, a regular columnist for The Guardian as well as a contributor to the LA Times and The New York Times, after he's complained via OTRS about the NPOV balance of his BLP here. It is not likely to enhance Wikipedia's reputation out there in the real world.

I would think differently if there were a pattern of longstanding abuse; but looking at the edits that the Markweisbrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account has made here, I don't see it. Assuming the IP checked out, it seems he used his RL name and sits in the same building as his colleagues, one of whom also used his RL name.

By all means, hand out all the appropriate warnings about COI and meatpuppeting and all the rest of it ... but let's also remember that we are hardly in a position to claim the moral high ground on neutral BLPs in general, and this one in particular. --JN466 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental understanding of Checkuser limitations here; Constitutional1787 may not have been editing from the same IP, but meatpuppetry is meatpuppetry, and they've admitted to that, as well as reverted other editors to add unsourced material to articles. Not to mention that all CUs haven't been run yet. On the other hand, I found it unfortunate that the Weisbrot account was welcomed with no mention of COI issues until I added it. And the fact that he complained to OTRS doesn't make the complaint valid; those articles have largely been edited by CEPR-friendly editors since their inception, providing a strange context for their complaints about the content. We still have Rd232 and JRSP disappearing at a time that Off2riorob and the Brazilian IP took up the same edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, they are newbies, probably three guys sitting in an office, and the term "meatpuppetry" most likely means nothing to them. --JN466 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and was troubled that editors welcomed them without explaining the COI issues, but the other problem is that this has been going on for a long time, they don't seem repentant, and although they've been editing the articles for a long time, they're still blaming Wikipedia for the content. Someone should explain to them that they should add suggestions to talk pages, and we should still get to the bottom of the coordinated editing across all of these articles. Checkuser can't catch everything, and the statements that Constitional1787 is unrelated demonstrate some lack of understanding of CU. The way the OTRS report has been used to censor content is alarming, and sets a bad precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Sandy, a glance through JRSP's contribs shows that he disappears for a week or more at a time not infrequently [303]. Also, if you're going to repeatedly raise suspicions, then do add him to the SPI. In fact, throw in Jayen466, User:Pohta ce-am pohtit (who AFD'd a Venezuela article of Sandy's); who else? Let's get some fire into this witch-hunt already! No-one who does anything Sandy dislikes shall edit unless approved by checkuser! (Which is infallible, because IPs are burned into our foreheads at birth...)
2. You know perfectly well why I tried to semi-retire - and not editing for a week was quite an achievement for me; I was hoping to avoid it til March. But this OTRS mess - including blocking editors from the OTRS ticket-placing organisation as socks, despite this being pretty obviously ridiculous - forced me to start again. The sooner this can be resolved, the sooner I can slip back into semi-retirement and not edit til at least March.
3. Claims that CEPR editors have had a hand in those articles ("this has been going on for a long time, they don't seem repentant, and although they've been editing the articles for a long time, they're still blaming Wikipedia for the content.") are without evidence. The only one of the accounts in question to have been around a while (User:Scalabrineformvp, March 2009) has a grand total of 30 mainspace edits. Looking at editor involvement at Mark Weisbrot [304] and CEPR [305] doesn't suggest major IP involvement or undiscovered sock involvement either.
4. "Someone should explain to them that they should add suggestions to talk pages" - Well that's all user:Markweisbrot did - and he's still blocked. User:Kriswarner managed to get unblocked, having agreed that. user:Scalabrineformvp said the same but is still blocked.
5. No evidence of meatpuppetry for User:Constitutional1787. The unblock requests from the Markweisbrot/Kriswarner/Scalabrine CEPR guys do not mention him; User_talk:Kriswarner is pretty clear in only referring to those 3 accounts. Constitutional made 5 edits to Mark Weisbrot before being blocked; those reverts came over 24 hours after Scalabrine's last involvement, so no impact on 3RR. This user was cleared by checkuser, and like all the blocked users mentioned here, has still not even received a block message such that they can properly request an unblock. Rd232 ^talk 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added block messages to the relevant user talk pages such that they can request unblocking. Rd232 ^talk 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, do you honestly fail to see how attacking, accusatory, assuming bad faith, and disruptive your posts are? Are you going to continue attacking me across multiple noticeboards,[306] are you going to retire, or would you like to stop attacking, start assuming good faith, and actually engage the first step in dispute resolution, which is your or my talk page, without removing my conciliatory posts from your talk page [307] or refusing to discuss with me because you're going on Wikibreak? [308] Your post above is full of bad faith and wasting everyone's time here, and you are misusing noticeboards to air your vendetta against me (although you don't seem to have noticed that no one else is buying your attempts to discredit me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Serbs75

Resolved

 – Serbs75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely by Tan. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Serbs75 only has a few edits, but they are exactly the same edits as User:68.100.94.183, which have been repeatedly reverted by a variety of editors. The nature of the edits is to rewrite a portion of the article (generally adding grammatical and/or factual errors, such as in one case ,"dead on arrival" became "dead at the scene") and then remove the source the original information came from. The IP was blocked earlier for 12h, and clearly the user creation is an attempt to evade a further block for a little while. Can someone take care of this? MSJapan (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Tan | 39 03:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jpatokal - racial slur and harassment

• Jpatokal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User talk:Gavinhudson, Talk:Joseon_Dynasty#Life_expectancy
• User talk:Jpatokal#Your slander

Although I've tried to resolve the titled matter at my best with great patience, I think this ongoing persistent harassment by Jpatokal (talk · contribs) needs to be administrative actions. I've requested admin, Rjanag (talk · contribs) first for intervention, but he is inactive. First off, a new user named Gavinhudson (talk · contribs) inserted citations to two Korean related articles. However, since it included a commercial link and unreliable personal site, I reverted the edit with an edit summary to request "direct quotation". The commercial site does not show anything about the book which seems to be written in Korean per the publisher's name and location, so visited his talk page to resolve the issue[309]. During the discussion with him, I apologized him for being hard on his sources[310] due to the history of two articles. I believe Gavinhudson settled down well on his sources[311][312]

The user did not restored his edit to one article, but the next day, Jpatokal (talk · contribs) reverted my edit which is fine with me since the source is clarified except his edit summary. He accused me of assuming bad faith and accusing of the source "fraudulent".[313] Another user reverted his edit, and Jpatokal edit warred to restore it.[314] The both did not seem to know of the yesterday's discussion. As Jpatokal opened a discussion with a scornful message,[315] I explained my stance and let him know of the discussion with Gavinhudson as well as asking for WP:AGF. Jpatokal's accusations are against his catch-22 for AGF.[316]

The matter only remains a minor issue, but Jpatokal suddenly visited Gavinhudson's talk page to bash me with a bogus accusation and racist slur like [a liberal dose of Kimchi]. The slander also has nothing to do with the discussion with Jpatokal and me. I took strong offense, not only because he has bashed me by linking the totally irrelevant case and lying about me, but also his mocking of me with kimchi, national food is used for smearing Koreans. It is the same as insulting people from Latin America with the slur, Banana republic. I reverted his inappropriate WP:CANVASSing comment to slander me. Then he reverted by saying that the removal is not my right.[317][318][319] I visited his talk page about his behaviors, but he was repeatedly bullying me there[320] as if he were a commander to me, or a holly Spanish inquisitor. Jpatokal absurdly has demanded me to apologize to him for calling his harassment "racist" and reverting the bogus accusation[321] and to Gavinhudson (I already apologized to him and that is not his business). He even mocked my English ability not understanding his pun.[322] He also determined to mark me with an unwarranted scarlet letter[323] even though he finally acknowledged his lying about me but still mocked me with a past irrelevant of him and of this issue.[324] I think this blatant harassment mixed with racist attacks warrant a block of Jpatokal (talk · contribs). As aforementioned, I've seen some troll blocked for the comment like Banana republic. I'm not sure why Jpatokal decided to attack me but the policies WP:NPA is clear. The user was also previously warned for disruptive edit warring to the questioned article which led a page protection and warning to him and his opponents. Thank for reading this.--Caspian blue 03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The entirety of the "racist accusation" in question here is "Please take any advice from him with a liberal dose of kimchi." [325] The grammatical object of the sentence here is "advice", and "with a liberal dose of kimchi" modifies the advice; ergo, Caspian blue is not being called anything at all here.

I stated that Caspian blue has "a history of bans for getting out of hand about Korean topics", and I stand by that statement (see [326]). However, while the original ANI was about edit warring between Caspian blue and Sennen goroshi on both Korean and Japanese topics, the eventual half-year topic ban imposed on Caspian blue was limited to Japanese topics. I have made this clarification on both my page and Gavin's page.

Incidentally, I would welcome views from ANI about whether removing another user's comments from another user's Talk page is acceptable behavior. As we all know, WP:UP#CMT enshrines a user's right to delete anything they like from their own page, but in this case CB repeatedly removed my comments from Gavin's pages without consent from either of us. Jpatokal (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing blatant personal attacks and harassment including bogus accusations are allowed and you broke all of them. You admitted you have lied about me that I've been topic-banned from editing Korean topics. Moreover, you who has a history of disrupting the article with muliple edit warring has no right to WP:CANVASS about my past irrelevant of you and the topic. The ban was originally proposed by me against Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs)'s Wikistalking and other all sorts of thing, not edit warring as you falsely accuse again. The user has used sockpuppetry and harassed me again, so blocked for one month. I have only a couple of interactions with Jpatokal outside the matter like regarding Comfort women at Prostitution in Japan and Wiktionary for Chinese cuisine subjects, so I'm really wondering why this user is harassing me.--Caspian blue

Personal attacks and other comments that grossly violate wikipedia rules are subject to removal from others' talk pages. A talk page is not "owned" by the user. It has some content restrictions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm guessing the Kimshi comment is somewhat like advising a black American to go eat some watermelon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do take a look at the comment in context [[327] -- do you really consider this a personal attack? Jpatokal (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ethnic stereotyping. Maybe you thought you were being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do think it is funny, but that's because the original bone of contention, namely Joseon Dynasty, is a Korean topic. I neither know nor care about Caspian's ethnicity, and I still fail to see how any of this constitutes a personal attack. Or how would you feel about "Please take any advice from him with a liberal dose of salt"? Jpatokal (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"grain of salt" is the base expression, obviously. About a Scotsman, you might say "dose of haggis". About an Irishman you might say "dose of corned beef". However, they speak English natively, in general, and would likely get the joke. You have to keep in mind that many of wikipedia's contributors are not native English speakers and might be inclined to take an intended joke literally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note I removed Jpatokal (talk · contribs)'s deliberate and more intensified gross personal attack as treating me like a criminal.[328] I wonder how come this kind of a verbally abusive editor have been allowed to edit. -Caspian blue 07:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My question has been rewritten to remove all reference to your name. Jpatokal (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • So you're removing my "valid" comment directing your ANI report due to your harassment without my permission. Isn't it contradictory to your insistence so far? --Caspian blue 12:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• After reading all the text here and links elsewhere, I see more insensitivity than harassment going on. Jpatokal, asking for a good faith contributor's "rap sheet" doesn't promote a healthy, cooperative working environment. Neither does making a joke that some would consider racially/ethnically charged. I think most of the drama here would end if you could just put yourself in somebody else's position and consider how you might feel if you were them, and act accordingly. Killiondude (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your opinion, but I'm a little befuddled at what you would have expected me to do differently. Caspian blue took offense at a throwaway quip of mine, partly since he is not a native speaker of English and seems to have misunderstood it as a personal insult. I attempted to explain several times that it's a joke and not even intended at him, and even apologized for not stating the scope of his topic ban last year more clearly; his response was to delete my explanation, accuse me of racist attacks, slander and even vandalism [329], and now escalate this molehill into a mountain here on ANI. And here we are, wasting everybody's time. Whee? Jpatokal (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Even if Jpatokal (talk · contribs) were a native English speaker (his English is not like ordinary English speakers'), that does not excuse Jpatokal's verbal abuses and poor behaviors. Two uninvolved editors here do not say that his comments are funny nor appropriate. The clearly targeted verbal attacks are not a throwaway quip and none of native English speakers on Wikipedia speaks like you except vandals and trolls. Jpatokal harassment and personal attacks have wasted everyone's time indeed. Jpatokal should apologize to me and people here for his ill behaviors. That comment accompanying with the mocking and interrogating is not an sincere apology for his vicious verbal abuses about me and spreading the false info to another editor. Perhaps, this incident is just a tip of iceberg about who Jpatokal is and how weak the Wikipedia system is by having allowed this kind of editors survived for years. So User:Jpatokal's abuses of Wikipedia are currently being "enshrined" at ANI as a [future reference]. From my observation, I've seen people like Jpatokal who always deserve what they deserve in the end, so I don't worry even if Jpatokal is getting out of any sanction at this moment. --Caspian blue 12:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OscarMilde

OscarMilde (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for POV pushing and disruptive editing on Same-sex marriage and other similar topics. Upon returning from a week-long block, his first three mainspace edits were blanking sections of the article [330] [331] and inserting the "homosexual agenda" [332] link to the article, which he's done at multiple locations before without consensus. Could an admin drop him a line, a trout, or a cluebat, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing a dead link is not "page blanking." If there are links to gay rights/equality and other pro-SSM arguments, why not for opponents of SSM as well? Isn't SSM a main agenda of gay activists? What is strange is that repeatedly, the majority of people world wide is opposed to SSM, (but not necessarily against gay rights or civil unions) but you would not beleive it reading this article. Seems that there are a group of pro SSM editors who act entitled to edit the article as their own turf. OscarMilde (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you've been blocked twice recently (and had your talk page disabled for comments in this same area), I've advised you to go to the talk pages first, rather than wade in with a battleground mentality. Dayewalker (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User needs to be blocked indefinitely for vandalism. CTJF83 GoUSA 05:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting tired of reverting this user's vandalism -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More edits from this user now on Marriage here [333] and here [334] where in spite of the comments directed towards them on the talk page, they claim consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Coming back from that block and having had his Talk page protected, to start editing like that now, should lead to an immediate indef. block. Woogee (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is bound to be another sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71. I've blocked for 2 weeks, but obviously concur with any move to block indefinitely. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would support doing an indef block. I won't take action myself since I issued a previous block for 3RR on 8 February. This editor views Wikipedia as a soapbox, and openly argues he is working against 'homosexual activists,' with so much enthusiasm that he used that phrase in an unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked and tagged them as a sock of DavidYork71, per WP:DUCK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnet.com (not gibnews.net)

• gibnet.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/gibnet.com

Following on from this discussion at the RSN about gibnet.com and this previous discussion here [335] about a different site this user is operating (gibnews.net), I would like to know whether gibnet.com should be blacklisted (as there is clearly some self-promotion and campaigning going on here) or whether I should just go around and clean up the links to it? Gibnews' claims that he wrote the code but not the content [336] clearly do not apply to this site, and he did not admit to that in the discussion above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You might check out Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. If you're willing to remove them all that would be quite helpful. A note to the user who added that they are all being removed per the RSN discussion is also recommended so if they insist on re-adding the next steps are clear to all concerned. -- Banjeboi 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Petronella Wyatt

Petronella Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is coming in for some stick from London singlespeed bike forum members after she wrote an anti-cyclist rant in the Daily Mail. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone has removed the section since this ANI posting, and there has been no further vandalism since the last protection. I would recommend discussion on the talk page to avoid a content dispute brewing up. Personally I wouldn't re-add the section yet, and wait a few days as this is a recent event. Criticism has not yet been covered by any of the major UK news outlets in a significant way yet, judging from a quick search. Consider requesting protection if the trouble restarts, or an edit war brews. --Taelus (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blatant BLP Violation - Wikipedia attempts to "Out" athlete who makes no public claim about his sexuality

This new edit: "LGBT newspaper Edge noted during the 2010 Olympics that "like Matthew Mitcham, [Weir] is a rare Olympic athlete who feels comfortable about being out even while his career is in full swing".[25]" As said elsewhere, BLP clearly states that: "This is a matter in which the Wikipedia rules applicable to articles about living people are especially relevant. Those guidelines specifically note that information about sexual orientation should be used only if "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life". Mr Weir is notable for his competitive figure skating." Weir has been clear that who he sleeps with is his private life, "Johnny has also said, "There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturizer I use."[[337]]

It's not a debatable question, the athlete has not stated his personal preference. 99.142.6.146 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from the article linked from the reference, it appears he has stated a preference. No admin action needed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote that, please?99.142.6.146 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On re-reading, guess I can't. The closest I can get is "I have no shame in who I am, and who I go to sleep with is a very small part of who I am."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean he's disclosing his sexual preference. Per BLP, it should not be stated or implied unless there are high quality references for it. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note. I have removed the sentence until the matter is resolved. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I stated on the talkpage that content on his sexuality should be shelved until after the Olympics but saw that the following had been inserted and was there for a few days:

“ Weir's sexuality is a hotly debated topic, with commentators such as Mark Lund and skaters such as Rudy Galindo wanting Weir to openly proclaim his supposed homosexuality. Right after his performance at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Weir replied to a blunt question ("Are you queer?") by saying "I am who I am, and I don't need to justify anything to anyone." ”

To me that had to be cleaned up. Wikipedia is not outing anyone, we simply are noting what a reliable source has stated. I'm sure there were many more but I was simply getting the atrocious stuff off quickly. This seems to be going the same route as Anderson Cooper

“ Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay,[22] and in May 2007, Out magazine ranked him second behind David Geffen in its list of the fifty "Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America."[23] When asked about his sexuality, he stated "I understand why people might be interested. But I just don’t talk about my personal life. It’s a decision I made a long time ago, before I ever even knew anyone would be interested in my personal life. The whole thing about being a reporter is that you're supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you’re in, and I don’t want to do anything that threatens that." ”

Likely Weir's article will go the same way as reliable sources have asked the question, done so clearly in the context of his skating, and he has been forthcoming with non-answer answers. I'm quite happy for it to stay off until after the Olympics are over as I suggested on the talkpage. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Benjiboi, that sentence you quoted wasn't there very long--I looked at the article yesterday and found some typically weaselish phrases there and a slew of URLs simply dropped in. I attempted to clean it up, and ended up rephrasing a lot of what there was (and I think I dropped one less-reliable source). I thought it was important, for instance, to name Lund and Galindo: those sources stated it as fact, and that they did is surely of interest (of enough interest, for instance, for the Washington Post to write about it). What I don't rightly understand is how this is encyclopedic: "Weir's sexuality has been speculated on likely because of his flamboyant fashion and more interpretive and sensitive skating." That doesn't even claim that this is someone's opinion; "likely because" is simply OR.

  If folks feel (like the IP below) that this is outing, one way or another, well, I disagree, but I'm not about to fight to keep it in. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How is imposing a sexual orientation, through the false device of "quoting" others speculating, encyclopedic?99.142.6.146 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Drmies, I had left the Galindo and Lund bits in; the phrasing I used was from telecast announcers who are trained in the field but I agree it was poorly worded, i was just trying to ensure it was discussed as part of his skating rather than kind-og plopped in there. I'm open to whatever works. -- Banjeboi 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't lead, we follow. The source stated it as fact and we reported that in context directly quoting and citing what the source stated. If you want to add something back in asap maybe propose it on the talkpage, I just don't see the need but others obviously do. After the Olympics a more thoughtful discussion on cleaning up the article including what to use about the gay question can ensue. I just don't see the rush and this is the biggest event in his life. -- Banjeboi 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that you're proposing that we institutionalize and perpetuate stereotypical labeling by calling someone a "fag" (Ahh, but for "good" reasons I hear you say ...) because of the way they act - and then justifying it by saying, "... well that's what someone said." As to the "legalism" of prefacing it with "some people speculate", is Wikipedia just a Gossip Repository in which we engage in the age old, "now I would never say this, but I heard "...? I prefer Ralph Waldo Emerson's take on this, "Why need you, who are not a gossip, talk as a gossip?" _99.142.6.146 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources say it, we say it. If they're speculating, we make it clear that they're speculating. No where in the article does it say "fag", or anything of the kind. The lead does not open with "...is a homosexual figure skater". It reports on what reliable sources have been saying about him later in the article. --King Öomie 17:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that there is a delicious irony in using as pious justification for the act - that well worn euphemism for gossips, the classic - "reliable source"?[338] _99.142.6.146 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no purpose for speculation on sexual orientation - even from "reliable sources" - in a reputable encyclopedia. If he is, he is; if he isn't, he isn't; and if no one but him and his know, then there's no point to speculate. Just because a "reliable source" speculates on something doesn't mean we have to care. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a part of NPOV, if multiple reliable sources interview him and ask "the question" and he answers all in context of his notability (his skating) and even more reliable sources do speculate and devote content to this issue, again in relation to his notability, then it reaches a tipping point where it's POV not to include something. The exact wording needs to be sorted out but Wikipedia remains not censored. He's been a worldwide celebrity for years now and this speculation goes back at least 5-6 years from what I've seen. In contrast, if he was never asked, never answered and no speculation existed in multiple reliable sources we wouldn't be discussing it. -- Banjeboi 18:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be kidding, "Weir's sexuality has been speculated on likely because of his flamboyant fashion and more interpretive and sensitive skating."[339] Can we get anymore stereotypically biased? Why not just say, "Look, you can tell he's gay, how can he not be?" _99.142.6.146 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being misunderstood, allow me to suggest that there is a purpose to these types of speculations or spreading of innuendo, which is really just another form of POV pushing. It's the same reason we have labelled Jay Brannan as gay despite his requests not to characterize his sexuality. It's the same reason we have labelled David Ogden Stiers as gay despite the fact that the only source is an interview with an obscure and unreliable blog. It is pro-LGBT advocacy of a kind that is carried out mainly, to borrow a phrase from Sister Kitty Catalyst, by "homo-propagandists" and should be viewed the same as any other type of POV-pushing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that speculations about someone's sexuality, even when reported in mainstream press, are not particularly encyclopedic and their coverage should be kept to a minimum, especially in BLP cases. However, I don't quite see what the point of discussing the issue at AN/I is. The proper place for this discussion is the article's talk page, or perhaps the BLP noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; and, in case things get out of hand, perhaps WP:RPP. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a fundamental question, does this institution condone using the 'politics of denial' to shoehorn bias and perpetuate sexual orientation stereotypes? ? _99.144.240.136 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the article talkpage likely is better as the main issue remains what do reliable sources state and how do we present those NPOV. The sources I was leaning on, including Wall Street Journal and The New York Times lead and we follow. That is not POV pushing as the rather WP:Baitey post by Delicious carbuncle suggests but using long-established community policies including consensus to find the best path forward. As the discussion at David Ogden Stiers demonstrates several of us actually called the actor's publicist over a week to sort out how to reconcile worldwide coverage of his coming out with unverified denials. Luckily we only had a few socks over there so the WP:Drama was minimal. I didn't get involved at Jay Brannan as far as I recall but there seems to have been lots of WP:Drama there as well. Accusing others of POV-pushing seems wholly combative but a visit to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard may be the logical next step. As for Weir, I recommended waiting until after the Olympics to avoid exactly this kind of nonsense, I still do. Whatever reliable sources stated yesterday will still be stated by them two weeks from now. There's no need to push to add anything and reasonable editors can sort it on the talkpage or in userspace if the drama can't seem to let it go. -- Banjeboi 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that since you're telephoning subjects and have a committed involvement with the goal of outing BLP subjects, this is best dealt with here. Your issue advocacy is a problem, as is your wp:original research and co-ordinating article coverage off-wiki with professional publicists. People with a "cause" are often naively blind to the effect it has on their ability to approach a subject in a disinterested, neutral and academic manner.99.144.240.136 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi appears to be setting himself up as Wikipedia's Peter Tatchell. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not need a Peter Tatchell. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of a similar discussion we had about Clay Aiken. Prior to his coming out, his sexuality was the subject of considerable speculation and he had been asked about it on a couple of occasions. We dealt with it by reporting his own comments on the matter.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Koavf - good intentions, maybe, but still uncivil and disruptive

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

This user is currently under an indefinite community sanction, including a topic ban for making mass catagory changes without seeking consensus. While the circumstances have changed, this user continues a disruptive editing pattern. His rationale is always that a particular template "demands" or "explicitly calls for" whatever changes he is making, and he interprets any attempt at first reaching consensus as rude and uncivil.

First of all, he continues to make page moves in violation of his sanction.

Recently he edit warred at Remain in Light, [340], [341]. [342], [343] and was told very solidly on the talk page to first get consensus for such a radical change to a well established article.

The user seems to have a fascination with endashes and emdashes, and has edit warred over this on several occasions: He moved an article without consensus, was reverted by an admin, reverted this admin without reaching consensus and finally relented when consensus was reached and the admin undid his reversion. He recently did some "spite editing" ([344]. [345], [346], [347], [348] in response to my comment at the Remain in Light talk page ("User:Koavf has a long history of rigidly adhering to template guidelines to the point of disruption, and should simply be reverted and ignored; if he edit wars, take it to AN/I."). I left a note on his talk page, and the response was predictable. If you'll look at a few of the preceding post to his talk, you'll see that the pattern continues.

Further, he can't be made to understand that it's not always appropriate to include "UK" or "United Kingdom" in infoboxes at articles about UK subjects. The long standing convention has been to include town, county and constituent country (England, Wales, etc.), but not "UK or "United Kingdom", just as one should not presume a UK citizen's "nationality" without a reliable source (as dicussed at WP:UKNATIONALS).

He also undid the formatting of ALL of the infoboxes at all of Beatles' record articles where a lot of time was spent sorting out the clutter of multiple studios and session dates just so he could tag "England, United Kingdom" onto all of the studio locations, citing "Template:Album Infobox", which, of course has no guidline regarding the country or nation where the record was made (eg, [349], [350]).

I originally posted this at the involved admin's talk; he didn't get a chance to read it yet, but User:Koavf did, yet he continues to edit war and to post uncivil rants on my talk page.

I'm asking that he be reigned in again, and that he be topic banned from any article to which I make regular or significant edits. Radiopathy •talk• 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil? I have to admit that this is surprising. I'll try to be brief, but I think that there is scant evidence that I have been uncivil or that anything that I have done has disrupted the ability of other editors to contribute to Wikipedia.

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

In October 2009, Radiopathy and I (amongst others) were caught up in a similar dispute about properly listing information in two different infoboxes: George Orwell's {{Infobox writer}} and Snow Patrol's {{Infobox musical artist}}. At the end of that back-and-forth, Radiopathy was blocked (and then semi-retired, retired, and came back.) He was blocked for edit-warring again in October and December under similar circumstances. Any user can take a look at his block log and the rationales for a better understanding. (Also, there are other warnings and incidents from 3RR, but they are not directly relevant to this case.) Cf. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Radiopathy.27s_inappropriate_use_of_Twinkle 1, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Radiopathy_being_uncivil_and_edit-warring 2, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive114#User:Radiopathy_reported_by_User:Dayewalker_.28Result:_Blocked_55h_.29 3, amongst others.

He has pleaded to be unblocked, taken off 1RR, and be allowed to use Twinkle again in spite of the fact that he doesn't show a sufficient change in behavior to warrant these restrictions being lifted. One of his blocks was lifted in good faith and reinstated again for edit-warring. In point of fact, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Restore_Twikle_and_remove_1RR_sanction. he is still under 1RR as far as I'm aware (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:Radiopathy_.26_User:Jojhutton original), and he broke it yesterday on Hollie Steel for exactly the issue which involved his edit-warring at George Orwell and Snow Patrol. Cf. 1, 2 (which he characterized as reverting trolling), and 3 (which he characterized as being merely a change to the content of the article, but not mentioning the reverting to the infobox). Note also that his changes break image parameter in the infobox in question.

Here are some of the most recent events:

• I edited several Beatles' album infoboxes to a manner that I think is more descriptive and useful. Radiopathy reverted all of these changes (including this edit, which inserts a spelling error and takes out an interwiki link.) I had no interest in edit-warring with him and left them as he wanted.
• I edited Remain in Light and found that another editor—User:Rafablu88—had a difference of opinion. After reverting one another, we both ended up posting on Talk:Remain in Light#WP:ALBUM and charts and we have stopped reverting; there is no edit war here, although Radiopathy's characterization of the events might seem otherwise. I have also asked for outside opinions and as far as I'm aware, Rafablu88 has no problem with my editing or civility. Radiopathy inserted a comment solely to criticize someone else's English and to tell other users to ignore me, adding nothing substantial to the conversation about the article.
• After we first started reverting on Hollie Steel, Radiopathy posted on my talk asking me to stop my "petulant, disruptive editing" regarding WP:DASH and asking me to seek consensus individually on every page to mention "United Kingdom" in its infobox (irrespective of the fact that the template's instructions call for it; again, this is exactly what we went through last year on George Orwell and Snow Patrol. Note that both have "United Kingdom" listed presently.)
• I responded, telling Radiopathy that his behavior was rude and that I had no intention of stopping, but that I was willing to discuss changes on talk.
• Radiopathy posted on an admin's talk to get a more restrictive block put on me. (This is not new behavior: 1 and 2) In that post, he claimed (among other things) that I was "rude and uncivil", I have been "edit warring" on Remain in Light (I was not), I have "edit warred" over ndashes (the only thing approaching that is on my talk and when the user asked me to stop or revert my changes, I did), most incredulously he claimed that I did some "spite editing." Frankly, his hounding of me on Wikipedia constitutes spite if anything. He has deliberately inserted himself into conversations with the sole purpose of having other users ignore or ban me and characterized my edits as trolling, edit-warring, pedantry, and vandalism when it's no such thing.
• Both that last post and this AN/I report make mention of WP:UKNATIONALS, which is an essay (not a policy, guideline, or even instructions) that mentions nothing about infoboxes. He claims that there is some convention to not include the UK infoboxes, but has never show me where/how any such agreement was reached. On the contrary, there are at least two instances of the opposite which I have pointed out above.
• I have already told Radiopathy that I would post to AN/I if he didn't stop his maliciousness and bad faith edits against me. I chose to ignore his post on Talk:Remain in Light and the fact that he broke his 1RR on Hollie Steel in the hopes that he would be reasonable, but this latest post to AN/I proves that he is not willing to talk in a civil manner and that he is more interested in "spite edits" of his own against me rather than having constructive dialogue aimed at making the encyclopedia better. In fact, I did nothing to warrant a post to AN/I since our last exchange on each others' talk pages. This post is entirely out of spite itself.

While I didn't want to come here to request actions against Radiopathy (rather, I simply wanted to defend myself), it seems clear to me that admins should consider sanctions against him for his rude, hounding, deceptive behavior. If anything I have posted up until this point constitutes anything uncivil, trolling, etc. please let me know. He and I can both agree on one thing; it is unfortunate that it even came to posting here in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Another example of "spite editing" aimed at getting me more restrictive sanctions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Question (and both editors above are welcome to answer) - is there evidence of a clear breach of the current editing restrictions on Koavf? The initial post is somewhat misleading; the editing restriction seems to be on adding, moving, or renaming categories, not page moves, as is cited. Tan | 39 19:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question Any case that was questionable or borderline I have personally posted on User talk:Hiding. (e.g. I made a new page, and consequently added categories to that: User_talk:Hiding/Archive_2010#Categories_again. Similar instances: merging two pages, removing a redlink category, creating a new template, etc.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

problem with bad faith editor

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

the user dapi89 is reverting everything of me. he has problems with my sources, because he thinks his single source is the best. while he is removing this content he is removing everythin else what i have done, hes deleting statements which are cited and even maps which i have created for the article, i search for intervention. i tried to discuss everything for more than one week, he dont responds if hes not correct. this is no good fait anylonger. dozen examples but here the last [[351]]Blablaaa (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa was instructed on his talk page how to pursue Dispute resolution: he chose to ignore it. Continuing to ignore it may result in a block for Disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete a page in userspace, please?

Resolved

 – Paul Erik got it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone kindly delete User:Buzzzsherman/monobook.js? He asked me to do so at User talk:Glenfarclas#Hello, which I can't do, and I recommended he just add the appropriate speedy deletion template to it, but the templates don't seem to function on that page. Thanks—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

tks guys that was fast!!....Love love hug hug!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor: BLP violation, removal of references, violation of WP:OWN

IP 129.171.233.78 is being highly disruptive on Langerado. They claim ownership of the page (sorry buddy, but i have personally kept the Langerado Wiki up-to-date for several years now, and I will continue to do so.), they blindly revert to a version they like better, thereby removing the only references the article had and ironically reinstating the tags that marked their version of the article as problematic (here and elsewhere in the history), and, perhaps worst of all, they keep reinserting that one guy is suing another over breach of contract--a BLP violation provided without any references at all, except for the injunction to spend 30 seconds and look it up. Its a fact. go to the clerk of courts website.

The rest of the edits made by this editor are also problematic--they make unverified and POVish claims about "unique products," unnamed fans who consider some change "selling out," etc. I've tried to explain on the talk page what the BLP problem was, and have added three reliable sources to the article that verify at least some of the information in the original poorly written and unreferenced article, but I'm tired of trying to explain WP:RS, WP:BLP, and all that jazz to this editor. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the editor. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And I have semi-protected the page, as he's IP-hopping and violating 3RR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dardani

diff, this is a prehistoric statue File:The_Goddess_Statute.jpg and does not belong in this article (would belong in some prehistoric article) and a sentence is being added "The Dardanian Kingdom [37] of 4th century was led by its first King, Longarus [38] after him came King Bato [39] and King Monunius [40]." Those individuals are covered in the article and the sentence is completely wrong. See Dardani#Dardanian_Kingdom . Megistias (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• You should probably take this to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. However, I did revert the changes--the image is a possible copyvio, and the added text was poorly written, placed in the wrong section, and not verified by the provided sources. I saw that you did not notify the editor.

  May I ask a passing admin to have a quick look and possibly check this as done? I don't think this belongs on this board. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i will use the right board next time.Megistias (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Megistias i see you have added this question on talk page and the User talk:Lontech page ..lets give both those talk pages time to answerer before you post it at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard... its there a dispute really ?? have you given him/her time to respond ?? ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Lontech (talk · contribs) is still within a 4-month topic ban on Kosovo-related topics per ARBMAC, so I think he should be blocked at least for the remainder of the topic ban. Thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

well that sheds light on things..so in other words Lontech has has this problem in the past with related articles !! ..can only admin see this or would i have to troll threw his talk page edits? ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Apcchart's talk page

Legal threat here. IP is obviously the same editor as Apcchart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 21:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan blocked Apccharts, LHvU got the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)