Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Light current

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here[1] is what we're dealing with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's assume the following facts :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next step?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call your attention to LC's block log,[2] and especially the comment from the blocking admin: "Has exhausted community's patience, per multiple AN/I discussions, and is now creating a series of sockpuppets to try to vandalize us into submission." Does that complaint sound familiar? It's from February of 2007, long before I had any dealings with that user. The "ignore it" theory does not work. And as long as guys like APL insist on arguing about it, the troll will continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement from User:Glitch Turner

Copied by request from User talk:Glitch Turner

Statement:

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

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

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

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

Lifting of ban of Light current

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edit by banned user removed]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[redacted edit by banned user]

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

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

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

(changed my mind) (redacted per JB Watson diff — BarkingMoon (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let's have a go - per WP:PRAGMATISM Egg Centric 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

New proposal: Return with mentoring/probation

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

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

I'd propose:

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

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

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

• Tentative Support The diff above JBW concerns me. I'd certainly not care to be held hostage by anyone — Ched :  ?  12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I was, I think, one of this editor's strongest supporters, until I saw the edit I have linked to in my last comment, and I also believe have a history of frequently being willing to give blocked editors another chance when others are saying "no". However, I really cannot see my way to supporting removal of a ban from an editor who has publicly declared an intention of trying to hold us to ransom, especially after just a month. After two years perhaps, maybe at a stretch after six months, but not after one month. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• One more comment. Even as we discuss this, the user is continuing with block/ban evasion and trolling: [3], so the likelihood that he/she will be a nice cooperative editor and refrain from socking for a month looks thin. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The key quote is "I am not Glitch Turner, but as everyone seems to be usig this page to talk to/about me, I shall use it too" --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So either he is and he's lying...or he isn't and there is more than one troll at the party. Does it make a difference either way? Maybe they're both LC. Maybe the LC anagram is actually LC and the anon is the one pretending? Maybe neither is LC and it's just someone looking to have some fun with a banned editor's name? Whoever is or isn't whoever...have any of them shown that they want to edit productively, or are we just wasting time because a ref desk editor got sick of being questioned for removing a banned user's questions to the point where they suggested we just unban them instead? --Onorem♠Dil 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

That is certainly also appreciated, and I hope you will continue your efforts to help people. Personally, I just think this one is beyond help. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The "LC was banned over 4 years ago. He continues to sock relentlessly to this day" line from the beginning was all that needed to be said, as fair as I am concerned. Sometimes terrorists need to be capped rather than captured, sometimes baseball cheats don't get reinstated despite false apologies, and sometimes we need to stop spending so much time trying to excuse the behavior of bad editors. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Kudos Dweller, I agree that if an editor can be salvaged, it's worth a shot. The experiment can be terminated easily enough and I'm sure you'd be on the case. If you are in contact with this person, advise them that we need at least six months without even a sniff of Lc at all, and none of that's-not-Lc either. If someone is impersonating them, they're hanging out with the wrong crowd. Six months of total quiet will cover a few cycles of troll-urge, if they can get that far, I would be willing to look at your proposal favourably. Six months of total quiet. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose mentoring at this time. I have a lot of respect for the proposal (and the proposer), but this is a prolific long-term nonconstructive editor, and the rest of us only have finite reserves of time and goodwill. The simplest way forward for lc is simply to stop misbehaving. Mentoring is a bad investment decision: $(P^{reform}.W^{lc})-(W^{supervision}+W^{mentor})<-W^{RBI}$, where:
  • $P^{reform}$ is the likelihood that mentoring actually works,
  • $W^{lc}$ is the future good work done by lightcurrent,
  • $W^{supervision}$ is the time that people still spend looking over the reformed editor's shoulder,
  • $W^{mentor}$ is the effort by the mentor, and
  • $W^{RBI}$ is the ongoing effort of RBI in the no-change scenario. (And we treat the latter three Ws as negatives; they're time that good editors could spend doing something else instead) bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Glitch Turner is not Light current

People, we're wasting our time discussing this. A checkuser check would be required for conclusive proof of this, but it looks like Glitch Turner is indeed not actually Light current. IP edits which definitely are LC are saying that he isn't Glitch Turner[4][5][6], and Glitch Turner overwrote one of those statements, presumably to hide it.[7] Glitch Turner's writing style is also different from LC's. It appears that someone other than LC is checking to see if it would be possible to get LC unbanned by pretending to be LC and acting contrite. That's why LC is continuing to troll as we speak, in contrast with Glitch Turner's above contrite expression of a desire to be reformed. Red Act (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, bullshit. LC is not above fucking with us in this manner. I have seen nothing in the behavior of either Glitch Turner or of the IP edits by LC recently to indicate to me that they are not the same person. Even if what you say is 100% true, I am unconcerned with that. So we have two indef blocked trolls instead of one. Does it really matter? --Jayron32 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the statement of contrition was or was not actually written by LC isn't what I consider to be the important point of my post. The intended point of my post was to argue that Glitch Turner's statement of contrition should not be taken as a sincere offer by LC to turn over a new leaf, and hence there is no reason for us to even consider unbanning LC. That intended point of my post, that there has been no sincere statement of contrition from LC, is a valid point either way, whether it's because Glitch Turner isn't even LC, or because the Glitch Turner posts are a part of some kind of LC mind fuck. Red Act (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit by banned user redacted]

I'm not in contact with LightCurrent, but would like to be. I suggest this conversation is shelved for the meantime. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777

This user has been chucking out her usual disgusting 'British nationalist' invective masquerading as comments about NPOV and how it's achieved here or not tonight [8][9]. She's inviting flame wars and then some with analogies of the Union Flag to the German Swastika, and calling other editors brain dead or agents of genocidal empires. It's not even over an article, but a poxy talk page banner. She's not just crossing the line with this shit, she's bulldozing it frankly. Is it really too much to ask she be indef blocked until she gets it? A query as to her behaviour from another editor was unsurprisingly removed as "trolling" in her eyes. MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine#Sarah777_restricted specifies that Sarah may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. It was enforced once, for a week, [10] I noticed Sarah attempted to start a fight at British Isles and Talk:British Isles today. Whatever has caused her new lease of life for this anger, I think it best that she be banned from the relevant articles so that the question of a permanent ban for Sarah doesn't rise again (she is productive in some areas). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, at least. Separate realms. She's British, and she's the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sarah777 clearly doesn't like to think of her as the "British Queen", though that's the common usage. "English Queen" I'd think of as tendentious, but she is however definitely the queen of the the geographic region known as England. At a guess, Sarah777 uses "English" rather than "British" because Ireland might at a stretch be called British (the British Isles include Eire) but the Irish might well object. How far should we go in accommodating people who want to bring old wars to wikiediting? Sdoradus (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fully support Future Perfect's actions, and agree that her rhetoric is hate speech. I also want to note she has removed the notification of her ban from her talk page[11]. Is this logged at WP:RESTRICT or WP:AE so that others can enforce it?--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Ah thanks for the link. BTW I just noticed this lovely diff[12] wherein she infers that both of us (2 sysops) are trolls (this is her second removal tonight the other being your edit). With all due respect Future Perfect you might be prepared to allow Sarah to vent on her talk-page while blocked but I'm not. Any more flame edits while blocked and I will extend that block and revoke talk page access in line with WP:BLOCK & WP:CIVIL. She's had years of warnings and lesser remedies being tried and in my view, at this point she is stretching community patience--Cailil ^talk 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 indef-blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support infinite block Wikipedia shouldn't be used for disruptive ultra-nationalist activism. Comments like '"British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide, not least in Ireland.'[13] tell us pretty much all we need to know about this user. Chester Markel (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef blocks by an involved admin, done in the heat of the moment, reflect badly on the admin and on the admin community that subsequently rallies around one of their own. Sarah777's behaviour was already being dealt with using common sense. An indef block immediately after Sarah comments on the blocking admin should be overturned. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Sarah777's edits to British Isles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a quick Google search for something like "use of flags for language choice" shows, using flags to indicate languages is not a generally accepted idea at all. This is problematic even for country pairs with no violent history, such as Germany and Austria. [14] The discussion at Template talk:British English followed the usual pattern in which justified Irish sensibilities are painted as eccentric, disruptive and against common sense. Both extreme sides are at fault, but the situation is unlikely to improve while we don't take serious measures to ensure that the concerns of the side that is numerically much weaker get adequate attention. Hans Adler 09:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that using flags is sometimes not very useful. However, in the present case it appears pretty clear that the "British English" tag was added to the talkpage as a mere routine maintenance thing, by an editor who had otherwise no involvement in related ideological conflict as far as I can see, without any ideological motiviation, and most likely – and understandably – without any thought at any possible hypersensitivities. It was factually correct, because the article is in fact written in that variety, just as it should be. And the flag had been on the tag since age immemorial [15], without any objections ever being raised. So, your initial description of the case, that "some WP:POINT violators insisted on putting the Union Jack on the talk pages of Ireland-related articles", seems not very apt to me. Call the use of the flag an unthinking bad old habit if you like, but if Sarah objected against it, she could have easily raised that point in a constructive manner and at the location where it belonged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring at Template:British Isles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strange Blocks on Sarah777

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A substantial minority of Irish seem to share Sarahs anti British POV" - I really doubt that. And a large part of my problem with Sarah777 is that she continually writes her anti-British invective as if she spoke for the majority of Irish people, let alone a "substantial minority". The most (only?) "anti-British" party got less than 10% of the vote in the last election. The fringe dissident republicans didn't run any candidates. A substantial minority of "British" people are of Irish descent, they're our biggest trading partner, and when Irish people go to watch soccer down the pub, it's the English premiership teams they support. (Proponents of "anti-British" positions may protest at "foreign games" being held in Croke Park, but they'll be wearing Celtic jerseys when doing so. Go figure). We don't want to be mistaken for English/British when we're on holidays, we'll delight at beating England on the sporting field, but ultimately the attitude of most Irish people to Britain is, I would say, indifference.

"when she tries to make our Irish articles NPOV" My last interaction with Sarah777's edits were on Legacy of the Great Irish Famine, where she had greatly inflated the support for the idea that the famine was genocidal. One source, a librarian, became "many historians", the NPOV heading "Suggestions of genocide" became the POV "Genocide" (seeing as the vast majority of historians, including all of the Irish ones in the article, disagree that it was genocide). So no, I really don't think she's been making our Irish articles more NPOV. Quite possibly the opposite. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (with Bastun). I'm afraid the idea that we in some way need to accommodate an extreme view of reality because a number of activist editors here in Wikipedia have that POV in REAL article text is a profound misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It's a common one, but it's still a misunderstanding. We are not here to reflect the POV of editors in articles. They are about balancing, reviewing, writing text on and contextualising SOURCED material of an ENCYCLOPEDIC nature. The long-running difficulty here is that the latter two points essentially come bottom to a determined group of editors - they see this essentially as a battleground between them and the evil Brit oppressors in which they game long term to "win the battle". In contrast, apart from some fairly nutty unionist editors from north of the border who get regularly blocked only to reappear a bit later in new guises, most mainland English editors don't care and are almost totally uninvolved, highlighting the deep nuttiness of the "national fight for Ireland on Wikipedia" battle they feel engaged in. When even slightly thwarted the nationalist editors from over the pond in some extreme cases (Sarah being a notably egregious and long-running prime example) throw their toys out of the pram and shout oppressed Irish in all directions, recruiting support from both gaming proxies and clueless followers. Well here we are - many years of this nonsense and still rolling. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of toy throwers from the "mainland" (where's that France?) also. The issue of Irish-nationalism on the 'pedia is really one of British-Irish nationalism (and "intra-British" nationalism) and of managaing contrasting (sourced) POVs on a whole raft of issues.

In doing that, the most damaging thing about the behavior of editors such as Sarah (and others) is that they atually undermine minority POVs. When I say "minority POVs" here, I mean with respect to the number of editors who represent those view in discussions about the NPOV in an article, not the weight that individual POVs should carry. In the case of managing British-Irish discussions, "Irish" POV on an issue is typically the minority POV (i.e. less editors) and the "British" POV is typically the majority POV (i.e. more editors). Regardless of the number of editors, however, both (sourced) POVs need to be integrated fairly into an article in order to achieve NPOV.

Behavior like Sarah's has a terrible spiralling effect by creating increasingly bad blood between editors of opposing POVs. It convinces majority editors that the minority view (regardless of sources) can only be the pervace of a few derranged hard nuts. Even in discussions where the likes of Sarah are not involved, experience of her kind ensure that majority editors are wary of POVs that sound like her. As a consequence, it becomes even harder to fairly integrate both (sourced) POVs into articles and attain NPOV.

Why this matters for us all is because the consequence is less NPOV and so it reduces the potential of the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, editors representiving minority POVs typically need to be much more civil in their behavior and come with many more sources under their arms to discussions. That's just a case of systemic bias and it is not an insurmountable task (and in fact, it is something that is required of all even if is not equally asked of everyone).

The likes of Sarah do nothing to help matters. They only hinder it. As someone who often represents the minority POV on British-Irish articles, I am glad that Sarah is gone. Her kind of editor only makes life harder for those of us who want to see minority POVs represented more fairly on British and Irish topics (and not alway where the minority POV is the "Irish" POV). --RA (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair to Sarah and others, part of the underlying problem and a major running sore and bone of contention (hope I've thrown enough metaphors at it - Ed.) is the tendancy to think that "votes" are a valid solution to long running content disputes, especially the totemic and serial ones like the naming usages of BI and Ireland, etc. This causes a "minority feeling" and a "clueless majority" and we need to keep pushing against this tendancy. We really can't "solve" this with either offerings to deeply held and doubtless sincere editor-POVs or simply giving in to the "majority" - which is of course not a real "majority", just a majority of people who can be bothered to involve themselves in that exercize. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need help to geo tag the villages. Each village is having approx. population more than 1000 people. Help in expanding the village topics can be taken from google. eg. for village Parwala google returns a good info that can be used for that particular article. [16] . I am not having enough time to add content to each village article. The persons belonging to those villages are not internet savy and cannot create the quality of stub i have created for those villages (aprox 250 something), but they can improve the stubs i have provided. If the stubs are removed, it might take 5 years form most of articles to come again of wikipeida, but if they are left and improved with geotags and other data, within 12 months they can start growing. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article creation ban proposal

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Indef block

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

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

I feel the need to contribute to main space with creation of new articles and redirects, But as i have promised that i will not create them till this discussion is finished. I request to conclude and close the discussion. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have learned the way of working here in last few days, and would incorporate that in my working. I assure i will not create unreferenced village articles, like that of Panchkula. I will keep trying to improve the quality of my edits. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you creating the articles in your userspace. Your impatience is bordering on bad faith, coming so soon after being unblocked. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"In the last few days?!?" You have been editing this site for several years! Lots of us have tried to help you and you just go on your merry way. I am within a millisecond of reinstating that indefinite block and deleting these doggoned substubs in one swoop. I had hoped that you would have learned from your mistakes, but you just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But don't, please don't. I wish that someone would consider something stronger but you shouldn't because you were involved. A nuisance sometimes, I guess ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why I haven't done so yet. My first encounter was over the 472 orphaned village rubber-stamped nanostubs and I've been getting a headache over these shenanigans ever since. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Maheshkumaryadav - multiple copyright violations

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

While reviewing this user's articles (listed here), we have encountered and documented a dozen or more cases of copyright violations in the form of verbatim copy/paste of content.

Despite multiple notifications regarding this on his talk page, this user has not acknolwedged or addressed this issue. This user was previously blocked for this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the times the content was from Wikipedia only, and was taken from parent articles, and the bot marked it for copyright violations. In few cases it was re-written by me, in others the content was removed. I haven't knowingly fetched it from outside violating any copyright. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Still i would like to take extra care regarding copyrights in future. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sure, but I am also sure that you have said this before. Many of these violations have occurred after your last block. As with many of your actions recently, it is not enough to say that you will adjust your editing habits. You actually need to do it. This continued failure to put your words into action (except when it suits your own purpose) forms a large part of the problem that people have with you. Even today, you have been blithely rewriting history with regard to your interpretation of the above closed discussion. I must say that I am not the only person who has reached the end of his tether regarding these issues. You should count yourself lucky, I feel, that you have not been indefinitely blocked from editing here. Take advantage of that luck, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, my comment above about your interpretation today refers to this comment, which you subsequently removed after I asked you to confirm that you understood it to be incorrect. I am still awaiting the confirmation, Mahesh. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Personal attack on user:maheshkumaryadav: In last few days, user:maheshkumaryadav and his work is specifically being attacked by User:Sitush. Not all but some of the acts of User:Anna_Frodesiak are also not neural. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, have been reviewing the contributions of Maheshkumaryadav and can confirm multiple copyvios from non-WP sources. Maheshkumaryadav is correct to say that he has performed some bad splits & lost the CC-BY-SA license info as a consequence, but the issue goes way beyond that. I am becoming tired of his recent spate of borderline personal attacks on me, also. I am one of several people trying to clean up a problem which he still seems not to recognise. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Maheshkumaryadav's definition of a neutral person, btw, appears to be "someone who agrees with me". - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral, non-admin observer who's been following this thread with interest, I believe that with the latest developments, it would be appropriate to indefinitely block Maheshkumaryadav for the copyright violations and a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:CCI. - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and more

Bill Huffman appears, from his own admission to be operating multiple accounts. He appears to be using the Bill Huffman account to collect what he feels to be negative information about yours truly. In doing so, he appears to watch conversations that take place on my talk page, then goes to the other editors and tries to recruit them into collecting negative information [17] [18] [19] [20]. I was responsible for highlighting to ArbCom that Huffman, who operates an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart was trying to get negative information on Smart placed in the Wikipedia article by making suggestions on the article talk page as well as operating multiple accounts see here. After being asked to leave the Smart article alone, Huffman announced that he was abandoning the Huffman account. As his contributions show, he has not done so. This diff appears to indicate that this user may be maintaining this account simply to focus on me. Since admin Atama was also involved in this last year, I'll also ask him if he has any comment. Admins, please resolve the situation. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

To confirm, I have never edited that article. I will never edit that article. At one time, I occasionally edited the talk page. In early 2007 ArbCom reviewed my talk page edits to that article and didn't have a problem with those edits.[21] I was more recently, May 2010, asked not edit that talk page any longer by ArbCom. I believe this request was made based on the reasonable more recent abundance of caution approach to BLP's, not based on my edits specifically. I have not edited the talk page nor anything related to that article since then.[22] Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

• The SPI has been closed after finding that Huffman is operating only one alternate account. Since the Huffman account is only being used as a "bad hand" account to hound me, I request that it be blocked indefinitely. I have some questions about Orlady's past involvement in dealings with these socks, but I'll take that up with her. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In what respect is it a "bad hand" account? Diffs? The user is concerned that you are hounding him. Mabyue it'd just be best if you both avoided each other.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree. If any action is necessary, maybe an interaction ban. But I don't even think that's necessary, is it possible for you two to just leave each other alone? -- Atama頭 22:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
      • If he is using another account for building the 'pedia, then why shouldn't this one be closed down? It doesn't meet the exceptions allowed for alternate accounts. Anyway, if I see a single other edit like this one, this one, this one or this one, I'll be asking again for the account to be blocked. If you think I have a case, then let him know to knock it off. If not, then we might be back here again soon. In the meantime, I have an RfC on a separate matter that I need to get finished and posted. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree that Bill isn't 100% in compliance with our policy in how to use an alternate account. But there's a difference between that, and abusing multiple accounts. The only abuse I've seen was a misjudgement that happened a year ago, and that misjudgement along with some other circumstances (such as the outing of the alternate account and resultant uselessness of it) led to the blocking of that alternate account (by me). All of the disruption that you point to in regards to the "bad hand" is only in relation to your actions. So why don't you just ask Bill to stop collecting lists of your activity if you agree to stop trying to get him blocked for abusing multiple accounts? -- Atama頭 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

My biggest concern with your actions as described to me are when you told IronDuke, "Anyway, I use this account only for dealing with Mr. Hyde." That doesn't seem to be a valid reason to use your Bill Huffman account. Why do you bother to "deal with Mr. Hyde" at all? If the reason is a crusade to get Cla68 sanctioned in some way, I suggest you stop, because that is textbook hounding. If Cla68 agreed to leave you alone, as I proposed above, would you stop that crusade? You could then both stop stressing out about each other, and you can go back to being productive on Wikipedia. And I know that the both of you make great contributions. Nobody benefits from a squabble between the two of you, especially not yourselves. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=24'Atama'頭 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The main use of this account is not really dealing with Cla68. Months ago I posted on Cla68's talk page to make some sincere suggestions. He was not in the least bit interested. Because he cannot AGF regarding me, it is likely impossible for him to ever accept anything I say. To try to state it more accurately, the main use of this account is to try to help Cla68 victims. I do not hound Cla68. I do not edit articles or article talk pages that Cla68 edits. I don't remember ever asking for Cla68 to be sanctioned. Last year I did ask you, Atama, to tell Cla68 to stop hounding me and to stop trying to get me sanctioned. You made it very clear that such actions were perfectly okay for Cla68 to carry out against me. He even told a total lie to ArbCom in an attempt to get me sanctioned! I agree that neither Cla68 or I benefit from the interaction. My hope is that the project will benefit as there may be some help provided to some editors that Cla68 can't AGF. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I told Cla68 to watch it with the outing, since you didn't want the account with your real name connected to your other account he shouldn't be publicly connecting them, and for the most part he complied with that. You're both hounding each other. It doesn't seem that I'm getting through to you. You say that you aren't just dealing with Cla68, you're also trying to help his "victims". That's a confirmation that your Bill Huffman account is a single-purpose account with the sole aim of opposing Cla68. Since you're unwilling to withdraw, I feel compelled to draft a proposal for an interaction ban between the two of you. That means that neither of you will be able to edit each others' talk pages, or reply to each other in discussions, make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, or undo each others' edits anywhere on Wikipedia (by reverting or otherwise). The only exception will be to ask about clarifications of the ban, or if you need to report a violation of this ban made by the other party (but normally no more than once per infraction), or appealing the ban for a good reason. I would have hoped that a mutual attempt to withdraw would be sufficient, but Cla68 has yet to respond either way and quite clearly you're unwilling. I'll draft a proposal later today. -- Atama頭 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban

I propose that an interaction ban be enacted between Bill Huffman (and any alternate accounts he uses) and User:Cla68 to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. The conflict between these two editors has lasted for more than a year, and has spilled onto numerous noticeboards, spurred sockpuppet allegations and investigations, arbitration requests, and has taxed the time of a number of editors who have been drawn into the dispute. It's my judgement that neither editor is particularly disruptive on their own, but they've made long-term efforts to hound one another in ways that include a cat-and-mouse game of undisclosed alternate accounts and outing attempts. This should stop, and this ban would follow the normal restrictions listed at WP:IBAN. -- Atama頭 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - As nominator. -- Atama頭 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello soapboxing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off topic discussion

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

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

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

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

“ Wheaton City Councilman Dan L. Fapp Jr. told the Chicago Tribune that , "It takes two police officers to get traffic in and out of there on Sunday." College wanted to enlarge its sanctuary space, and the town required that it provide parking to accommodate worshipers, many of whom came from outside of Wheaton. (cited Neil Mehler [23] "Churches` Growth Felt In Wheaton" in Chicago Tribune) ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Editing like this [24] doesn't seem helpful: almost all of the article was blanked with no explanation on the talk page. Is BelloWello following other editors around? Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He has certainly been following me around. From College Church over to this [25] and then to aAnna Rychter-May where he started an AFD [26]I.Casaubon (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Edit-warring on the article has led to full protection for a few days. There seem now to be problems on the talk page, with incivility (BelloWello telling other editors to "shut the f*** up"). The current section in the article on "ideology" [27] contains one wholly negative point of view: it seems unbalanced. Mathsci (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban proposal

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

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

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

• Comment - this is the most reactionist topic ban proposal ever. The thread that started this is unrelated to churches, but two editors who support above both clearly don't like that I tag unreliable sources (perhaps with a few mistakes here there, it happens when you go through an article with a lot of tagging needed) and nominate articles for deletion which do not meet the notability criteria (take a look at my current nominations, the majority of them have the majority for deletion). Furthermore, a lot of my editing is related to churches. Two articles that I started (Heather Knight (educator) and Larry Geraty) are both church related were recently moved out of project space. I am currently working on more similar, well-sourced, articles in project space (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that are church related. Furthermore, I would note that I.Casaubon has not been without spot here. If you review the deletion nominations, you will clear assumptions of bad faith and incivility. bW 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems nobody but yourself thinks that "a lot of tagging [is] needed" in those articles, ergo WP:DE. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Oppose - I'm not opposing because I don't believe there is a problem here, but I don't know that a topic ban on churches will be a help. What indication do we have that BelloWello's contribution to church-related articles is an issue? Is it a hatred of churches? What anti-church or pro-church bias is preventing him from editing constructively only at those topics? If anything, it seems that there might be a bias regarding the US conservative movement, and that's a big maybe, I'm not sure about that. But if you think a person is disruptive at church-related articles, and most of their edits are at church-related articles, isn't an editor just being disruptive in general? I just don't see that a ban on church topics will be effective in any way. -- Atama頭 17:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't care or want to know what his bias is. I only evaluated his edits in relation to WP:V in general and WP:ABOUTSELF. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • He does seem to care a fair bit about articles in this area, to the point where posts on facebook about them. See SPI link below. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay fine, if there does seem to be some kind of a single-minded focus on churches that's driving this behavioral problem, to the point where he rants about it on off-wiki pages to inspire meatpuppets (intentionally or unintentionally) and causes other conflicts, I'll change to support. -- Atama頭 19:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• I am confused. BelloWello has now withdrawn an AFD he started on a recent article of mine [28] But the article Anna May-Rychter still has an AFD. Was his closing of the AFD perhaps done clumsily? Usually, the AFD template disappears and a note about it appears on the talk page.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• Support Edit warring. Filibustering. Tag-bombing. Profanity. Incivility. Gaming the system. Filing numerous reports on noticeboards. He is impeding editing on these articles, and attacking editors who disagree with him. If there ever was a case for a topic ban this is it. Hopefully this will send a message that his behaviour is unacceptable. If he continues, more stringent measures may be necessary.Lionel (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - an article I wrote in the suggested topic area is currently undergoing good article review: Talk:Larry Geraty/GA1. Another one is waiting review. Four others are currently still being worked on in project space and will soon be moved to mainspace. Two others are still in preliminary stages. Do we really not want these articles to be improved? bW 02:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that you are the only editor on Wikipedia who can promote a church article to GA. If you are topic banned your work will be continued by editors who aren't disruptive. Lionel (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not the one who called anyone a "nazi," that seems rather disruptive. I was not the only one who added the tags which seem to be your entire case (Hrafn added some as well). If you are complaining about the AfDs, about half of them have been successful so far. That means that non-notable content is being removed: GOOD! As Hrafn said, I would argue adding poorly sourced content is much more of a priority than whatever disruption is caused by tagging said content. Either way, I will return to writing WP:SDA/PUCPresidents. bW 02:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Question BelloWello is an alternate account. At SPI Bello stated, "This wasn't a clean start." This means that his behavior under the previous account can also be considered. Bello, were you disruptive under the previous account? Were you blocked? Topic banned? Lionel (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have disclosed my previous accounts to two admins. bW 02:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• You did not address my concern. Is the disruption being discussed here, under BelloWello, a continuation of disruptive behavior from your previous account? Since this is not a clean slate, previous behavior is relevant. If you prefer not to state, please name the 2 admins so they can address this issue. Lionel (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Breaking news Even as Bello was being discussed in this section he was busy edit warring at Southern Adventist Univ. His activity yesterday resulted in the article being protected for 7 days! [29] Unbelievably this is the 3rd time in as many weeks that his edit warring necessitated admin intervention on just this article. On 4/25 his edit warring resulted in page protection [30], on 5/2 he was blocked for 3RR [31]. Note: this account is not even 1 month old. How much more of this can the community tolerate? Lionel (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on churches, religious institutions, religion, persons associated with such, broadly construed. I looked at the edits. I normally oppose draconian solutions, but this case passes my limits. Collect (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This has long since turned into a toxic environment, and his uncivil behavior has fanned the flames. Although I am trying to assume good faith, it is also difficult to find ground for a sockpuppet investigation he requested against an editor with whom he had a dispute: [32] (note that the investigation was declined by HelloAnnyong due to a lack of evidence). Kansan (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Question - Can I at least finish working on taking Larry Geraty to good article (it's pretty much there) and Heather Knight (educator) whenever a reviewer shows up? I'd also like to finish the other uncontentious projects in project space... bW 02:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI

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

Borderline outing and battleground behavior by user Skäpperöd

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

I started my account in 2005 under a username which was closely based on my real name (i.e. it identified me). After some controversy, and after I was subject to off-wiki harassment, in November of 2010 I changed my username to my present one. I was not under any kind of sanction when I changed my username. I asked the editors that I often interact with if they could avoid using my prior username (for example here [33]). as I did not wish to have my real name linked to my account. All but one, including folks I have had disagreements with in the past (some were even courteous enough to ask on their own [34] [35]), had no problem with it.

The one exception was/is user User:Skäpperöd - I made the same request of him here [36] which he removed (along with other users' comments) in which he made a reference to comments being removed as "nationalist" [37]. He then used my old username here [38] despite being clearly aware of my request. I then repeated my request here [39]. He responded with belligerence and false accusations [40] (this was my response [41]).

Most recently, Skapperod once again used my old username [42]. I once again requested that he cease doing so and redact though honestly, at this point my patience is wearing very thin [43]. He once again responded with a belligerent comment, combined with personal attacks and more false accusations [44] (see here for the entire discussion [45].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by Skäpperöd

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

The incident that escalated into this very thread was such a situation: I had a dispute with VM on a talk page [46] [47] and asked for outside input at the 3O board [48] [49]. Then, someone provided a 3O, agreeing with VM [50], then removed my entry at the 3O board with the e/s "third opinion provided, the discussion is now between more than two editors-as per guidance on the start of the page I am removing the request".

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

Below, I addressed the allegations specifically:

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

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

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

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

VM's old username is not identifying him

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

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

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

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

In late 2009, EEML-member Radeksz was proxying for blocked EEML-member Molobo with this edit while the EEML case was being investigated. This case was basically about a small group of editors coordinating off-wiki to tag team, sway consensus, edit-war, get rid of perceived opponents etc [51]; it was opened in September 2009.

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

The cited line from the outing policy does not apply

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

As detailed above, the "old identifying mark" is oversighted [52].

Changing a username does not make the old name disappear

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

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

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

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

I did not remove VM's request

VM said above: "I made the same request of him here [53] which he removed (along with other users' comments) in which he made a reference to comments being removed as "nationalist" [54]"

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

Bottom line

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

Other than that, the above is the perfect illustration of Skapperod's continuing battleground mentality. EEML was long time ago and most people from both sides of that fracas have moved on. Hell, some of them are on friendly terms with each other. But Skapperod continuous to act as if he's still fighting some long gone battles, and in the process resorts to making false statements (such as above) and harassment (such as outing). It has to stop. It's deleterious in its potential individual consequences (i.e. for me personally in RL) and to the topic area as a whole.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Short response to refute the "brazen lying" allegation: I asked for a 3O [55] [56], then came Molobo [57] and removed my entry at the 3O board saying third opinion provided" in the e/s. I have provided more diffs in my response above. Molobo gave a 3O and called it a 3O, q.e.d. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And even shorter response to show that. this. has. been. explained. to. you. At least seven times. Yet here you are pretending it is something it's not. And here is the actual, edit summary, rather than the edited partial one that you put up above: the discussion is now between more than two editors-as per guidance on the start of the page I am removing the request. Contrary to what some people think, putting a (frankly obnoxious) little "q.e.d" at an end of a statement, does NOT magically turn false statements into true ones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your diffs only show that you and Molobo wanted to declare the 3O, which Molobo even explicitely called a 3O when he gave it, to not be a 3O anymore afterwards. I provided diffs of what actually happened, you provided diffs of how you tried to redefine this in hindsight. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they show that you are misrepresenting what happened with MyMoloboaccount. Which actually had nothing to do with me. BTW, allow me to commend you on th excellent job you've done at derailing this discussion. Executed like a pro. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that Skapperod's suggestion that If the EEML username changes were logged or applied to the EEML and DIGWUREN cases/logs was, if I remember correctly (it HAS been a long time), actually a proposal he made during the EEML case itself, which was shut down/ignored by the ArbCom committee itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Diff? I don't recall that I ever made such a proposal before. Let's just wait for NYB's and others' comments on this proposal. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What proposal? The only proposal here is the one by Newyorkbrad, made in this discussion and on your talk page [58] asking you to stop your behavior. The only question now is whether you're willing to abide by that, or is a block necessary to make you realize that outing people is not a nice thing to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...while I don't want to be dragged into another Skapperod dispute here, this is a bit dishonest. I have been active on Szczecin article and commented Skapperod edits 30 April 2011 (UTC), 22:57, 30 April 2011. I also made several edits on the main page like the one here on23:28, 30 April 2011 which Skapperod reverted on 1 May 2011 with rather battleground and insulting comment 1 May 2011 don't sell communist propaganda for real

I and VM than posted two comments about problematic content in the article on 9 May 2011 and 05:35, 9 May 2011

Instead of debating these issues Skapperod started a new section concerning basically the same issues on 9 May 2011

I entered the discussion(as it can be easily observed, I was already editing the article and was involved in numerous debates) on 10:12, 9 May 2011

I noticed then that 3o request has been already provided by Skapperod10:09, 9 May 2011 . The 3o request was noticed by only after I already made my comment. Since I entered the discussion on the article where I was already very active in debating Skapperod's edits I removed the request since it was clear to me that the Skapperod is debating several editorsmy edit on 10:28, 9 May 2011 In the hindsight,yes I should have been more clear about what was happening. My statment should have been that this a discussion between several editors.I clarified this on 22:27, 9 May 2011 "Clarified removal. The discussion and dispute on Szczecin discussion page are between several editors and thus fell out of scope of 3o as the discussion is not limited to two editors only" upon Skapperod's complaints.

I basically believed that since Skapperod is being discussed by two editors than 3o doesn't apply and he should use RfC. All in all this seems a bit tedious, I would rather edit articles than get dragged down into another of Skapperod's discussions that only distract editors from creating content.

I suggest to both Skapperod and VM to drop this uneeded conversation and concentrate on editing articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When you gave the 3O, it is very hard to imagine that you were not aware of what you were doing as you explicitely defined your action as giving a 3O, and you could not possibly have been unaware of you being a long-time tag team partner of VM and thus not in any way eligible for providing a 3O, which is for outside, neutral input. In the e/s of the same diff, you also said that the dispute were "now" between more than two editors, so you were fully aware that it was only your own "3O" as you called it that torpedoed the DR process. All your explanaitions now do not change that fact.

All this has completely buried my above proposal to log/apply EEML username changes to WP:EEML and WP:DIGWUREN, I hope there will be some comments to that rather than further distraction. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When you gave the 3OExcept I didn't Skapperod. Nowhere did I post on the Szczecin discussion page that I am giving a response to 3o request(and yes I wrote 3o provided in summary, because I meant that there are 3 editors involved-a statement which I clarified afterwardsremoval. The discussion and dispute on Szczecin discussion page are between several editors and thus fell out of scope of 3o as the discussion is not limited to two editors only). This was a long debate which I was part of, and hence 3o didn't apply because they were simply more than two editors involved in discussion. You are making a big affair out of technicality-I already explained that you can use RfC on that article. Now can we all go back to writing articles, or will you continue to drag this on? Anyway, I won't be dragged into this. If you want, restart your 3o process, even though you are discussing with two editors. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This debate over the formalities of 3O is another red herring. Whatever those instructions say, it was an act of disruptive WP:DICK behaviour to use your insertion on the talk page as a formalistic pretext to stop what had been a legitimate 3O request. As if you saw it as a legitimate goal to try to exclude third opinions as much as you could. And this especially since your contribution to the talk page had in fact been nothing more than a mechanical "me, too", and as such hadn't in fact turned the discussion into anything more complex than what it had been, a conflict between two editors' positions. And especially since you have a long history of colluding with V.M. in disputes of this sort, so your agreeing with him was of very little news value. And, most crucially, especially since you have a well-known common history of colluding to subvert dispute resolution processes together. You really should have known better than to stage this completely unnecessary drama over a piece of wikilawyering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FP@S, you are, willfully or not, helping Skapperod to derail the discussion from it's original subject - the fact that he is outing me, a much more serious breach of policy than any kind of imagined "wikilawyering" - to some kind minor side show where you enable his flimsy excuses for his battleground actions. But to be clear, what MyMoloboaccount did here was perfectly legitimate - 3Os are for disputes between two editors, otherwise the DR process to use is RfC. Skapperod seized on the fact that MyMoloboaccount's wording wasn't crystal clear to stir up lots of unnecessary drama. MMA explained to him what happened. Skapperod continued with his (pretend) IDIDN'THEARTHAT. If there was wikilawyering here, it wasn't by MMA. Skapperod then used it on this request here as a means of changing the subject and turning the light away from his own disruptive behavior. You are now helping him.

This statement: you have a well-known common history of colluding to subvert dispute resolution processes together. - is completely false. There's never been a proposed remedy, an administrative action or anything of the sort. In fact, MMA wasn't sanctioned nor reprimanded in any of the EEML decisions. Accusations which are not supported by evidence are a blockable offense. Even for admins. Anyway, even if somehow your claims were true (which they're not) that would in no way excuse Skapperod's harassment and outing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FPS-I was part of the discussion well before, hence 3o didn't apply. And I have already stated that if Skapperod wishes he can restore his 3o request, although it doesn't fulfill criteria. I am however forced to note that you aren't possibly a completely neutral party here, since part of the dispute in question concerns presenting Holy Roman Empire as a German state, something that you supported in past[59] and a proposal supported also by VM which I opposed (contrary to your claim that my edit was solely "me too" edit)be careful though about agreeing to name HRE a "German" state. It wasn't.

In any case, as I said let Skapperod restore his flawed 3o request if he desires so, and let us not continue derailing this discussion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Back on track

The above thread has moved into red-herring land.

• The issue here is Skapperod repeatedly violating WP:OUTING policy by referring to my past username (which was tied to my RL name) in situations where it's irrelevant. It's significant also that he was the one who re-posted my personal information on Wikipedia right before it got oversighted (which was clearly to be anticipated).
• I have asked him politely to stop doing this on three different occasions. Each time he refused and responded with personal attacks and false accusations.
• User:Newyorkbrad, an arbitrator has asked Skapperod that:

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

and on his talk page [60]: Skäpperöd, from now on please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username. This appears to be a reasonable request on his part given the history and circumstances.

Note the It appears to be an entirely reasonable request given the history and circumstances.

• Skapperod has responded to Nybrad in a similar way he has responded to my past requests; with intransingence. He is implicitly refusing to abide by Nybrad's suggestion.
• Skapperod's response above consists of trying to use completely unrelated issues to change the subject.
• Skapperod's response above is a pretty nice illustration of the WP:Battleground mentality that the user has. He still wants to fight some two year old battles. He is, once again (for like the 50th time in the past two years), trying to re-litigate the EEML case and is making roughly the same proposals he made over two years ago and which were rejected at the time. Everyone else has moved on
• Skapperod could not let it go even after his friend and ally, Deacon of Pndapetzim, told him: @Skapperod, my feeling is that if NYB insists you shouldn't use the name, it is almost certainly best for you if you don't. .
• This problem - outing, harassment, battleground behavior - is pretty much unique to Skapperod out of all the former participants in the EEML case. He just can't let it go, even when an arbitrator instructs him to do so. No one else has had a problem with granting my request not to use my old username. Just Skapperod.

Originally I asked for an indef block for Skapperod until he promises to desist. Of course, if he had just said at this request that he won't do it again, I'd be fine with that too (indef is not infinite). His response and way of conducting himself above shows that his desire to treat Wikipedia as a battleground makes him unable to agree to this reasonable request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to correct you, Skapperod and I don't know each other and I don't edit in his area of interest. I think you've said enough already VM; and, as one of the leading members of EEML currently going after Skapperod on this very page along with two other EEMLers, Martin and Molobo, you're not really in a strong position to criticize anyone for violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Pay attention to what NYB also said, parties should be able to disengage and to refrain from escalating this dispute. You need to think about whether or not pressing Skapperod on not using your old name is really worth the conflict, just as Skapperod has to reflect on whether or not co-operating with NYB is a good idea. The arbs are fed up with you guys, and if you go back before them you'll probably get cleaned out. It's in your interest to be nice to Skapperod (and vice-versa) and refrain from escalating conflict. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Deacon, we both the know the history here so let's not pretend and "correct" each other. I don't care whether and where Molobo and Martin have commented - I didn't ask them to, I have made no repy to them, I brought this request here myself because this is a very serious issue which affects ME. Normally this would either be a simple, polite requests, with a simple polite answer - as has happened with everyone else I've requested this of - or a very quick indef block for WP:OUTING violation. But here Skapperod has managed (with a bit of help from you) to turn it into some irrelevant drama fest.

I will happily "disengage" as soon as Skapperod ceases his battleground behavior and promises to abide by Nybrad's suggestion. Outing a person's real life name - which is what this essentially is, though one can wikilaywer it - is a very serious matter. So you yes, given that it has potential RL ramifications, I do want to press Skapperod to promise to stop using it. I'm sure you'd do the same where you in a similar position, rather than editing safely under a pseudonym.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So would you be happy if all the references to you, by your former name, in previous ArbCom cases and AE threads were systematically changed to your current name? That might allay Skapperod's concerns, as well as helping yourself retain more anonymity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as Skapperod makes it clear that he is not going to continue with this kind of behavior anymore, I actually think this is a good suggestion. I'd have no problem with it, and in fact I think I might actually prefer it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with your agreement to Deacon's proposal. I have no problem with using your current username when linking/referring to respective cases once this is possible. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what is difficult in not using an obsolete username. Why Skapperod cannot fulfill this simple and polite request by VM and simply refer to him using his new username? Why would anybody refuse such a simple request and turn this simple complain into a dramu? Why is WP:OUTING being ignored? Why this harassing defense of OUTING violation is allowed to happen at ANI, out of all places? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Skapperod, no, you need to be "happy" with not using my former username, regardless of whether this happens or not. While I will probably email ArbCom and inquire about making those changes myself, IF it DOES NOT happen, you need to refrain from outing people anyway. I mean, for chrissake, it's just policy, and one of the most important ones on Wikipedia. Your comment suggests that you just "don't get it".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A page move request

In Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog, someone please look at and if possible close, the move request "*'(Discuss) – Pro-life movement → Anti-abortion movement – *A more comprehensible name. And move the existing page Anti-abortion movement (which is a WP:Parallel version of page Pro-life) to Anti-abortion movement/version 2 to get it out from under the incoming page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)", which has run for 51 days. If I try to close it myself, I get complained at, because I started that move discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it appears this should be closed as No Consensus Lionel (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with other users who have stayed that Anthony Appleyard should not be making the close here because of previous involvement, but I also agree with him that someone needs to close it, and the votes seem clearly enough in favor of the move (given that Pro-choice was moved a little while back to Abortion-rights movement; some users' votes were conditional on parallelism, including my own). However:
  • The move discussion was whacked-out enough without reopening the previous move discussion, and I have no idea how we can get from here to a clean slate that will allow us to have real discussion on these pages (both at once), should we desire to continue discussion.
  • Lionelt, I agree with BelloWello that your post at Talk:Pro-life was inappropriate, but I think the issue doesn't need to go any further; you can just rephrase the post to inform other users that there is a discussion at ANI about the move, without indicating which side you think they should take.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear that the thread should be closed with No Consensus. The entire discussion was inappropriate as it was opened an extremely short time (about a month) after a consensus to keep the the article where it was. The discussion has been ongoing for about four months. People have tired of the conversation and only the editors who feel most strongly about the necessity to move the article remain. Allowing the move not only is blind to the fact that the new names would not be parrellel (something the people who want the move knew and planned when they changed the title of "pro-choice"), but rewards move requests made in bad faith (immediately after consensus) and fillibustering.LedRush (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here is what concerns me Talk:Pro-choice#move_2011. If people really think that pro-life discussion should be closed as no-consensus, I strongly believe the discussion that Anthony Appleyard participated in, and then closed in his favor as "page moved" should be re-examined by an uninvolved admin. I believe that discussion was also "no consensus". Or I feel that for similar reasons, someone could close the pro-life debate as "page moved" based on the weight of the arguments, instead of vote counting. I think both discussions should have similar outcomes, but since I participated and am biased, I'm not going to go any further on swaying which way. Read my comments in those discussion for that. Point being, it seems really, really, REALLY inappropriate to allow one side of the debate to use a term of self identity, but force the other side to use a seemingly more 'neutral' term that the AP guidelines suggest. Either use both self identifying terms, or use both 'neutral' terms. Don't mix it up. And based on both discussions, I feel they could both be closed as "no consensus" or, if vote counting is ignored, an admin could weigh the arguments and decide to move both... but I don't see how moving one but not the other is productive, fair, neutral, or in accordance to the outcomes of those discussions (and this whole processes has really made me jaded about what community consensus means, as it seems like the personal preference of a very small handful of Wikipedians, mixed in with the personal preference of biased admins is creating a situation where we DON'T have parity in the naming between these articles. It is very unprofessional to have lack of parity such as this).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody forced "pro choice" to change the title of their article. They did it, in part, as a back door to get the name of this article changed. As soon as that article name change occurred, everyone flocked to this one to reopen the issue that was closed just a month prior. It is gaming the system at its worst.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is really simple. We should just use "pro-choice" and "pro-life". These are a) very common descriptors used in reliable sources, b) acceptable as self-identification, and c) parallel to avoid charges of favoritism. For a long time, we just used these terms - even though they're not perfect - as a reasonable compromise approach, and I'm not sure why things have changed. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Things changed because a rouge admin who voted in the move discussion decided to close the pro-choice discussion in his favor, when there wasn't a clear consensus (12 support, 8 oppose). I guess he felt the weight of the support arguments were better than the oppose by a significant amount, and then tried to move the pro-life article to follow suit. Some users want the change because they feel the terms of self identity are not neutral, but because of Wikipedia's wacky voting system of 'consensus', we have a situation where there were enough voters in one admins eyes to make that change in one article, but not the other. I personally don't believe there are a majority of people out there who honestly think the current situation is best (except maybe a few biased pro-life Wikipedians who think there is nothing wrong with "pro-life", but something really wrong with "pro-choice", but perhaps I am mistaken). I see it two ways, either there wasn't consensus on either discussion, or there is for both. I'm a big parity person, and perhaps I am belittling possible arguments that there shouldn't be parity between the naming. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with both self-identifying (as that is the clearly preferable outcome, IMHO), but since pro-choice has a neutral alternative name and pro-life doesn't, it is simply not a parallel to force both to change names.LedRush (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You've been pushing this idea that "anti-abortion" is non-neutral across multiple pages, and it simply isn't true. In any case, this shouldn't become the place for more argument in what is already an extremely convoluted move discussion; now that uninvolved admins have been alerted to the presence of a move discussion that should be closed, there's no need to reprise all the arguments here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed this out a couple of times over two months ago on the article talk page, and now once here in response to a suggestion to keep both article names in "parity". Your mischaricterization of my contributions isn't helpful, and if you don't want to have arguments here, you shouldn't start them. Your hypocritical conclusory statements about my position is just the icing on the unhelpful cake.LedRush (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think frankly the entire discussion of attempting to tell the closing administrator how to close the discussion is inappropriate as they haven't closed it yet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think the closing admin needs to provide a detailed rationale of how they came to their decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• If I remember right, I started this move request not spontaneously but because someone asked me to move the article, and I decided to list it as a discussed move instead of directly moving the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• As I feared might happen, this discussion has got wordy and is acting as a continuation of the discussion in Talk:Pro-life movement#Move?, which has now run for 53 days. It is time that someone closed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Noone's made any comments for nearly two days, I wouldn't worry about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Flatterworld

I began editing (diff) Bashar al-Assad on 7 May 2011 when, in the course of a discussion at another article, certain biographical details relating to the president surfaced that were not part of his article prior to my edit. There has since been a discussion ongoing about how best to handle the added content. Flatterworld (talk · contribs) joined the discussion here, with no valuable input other than to shoot bad-faith accusations from the hip. There is nothing necessarily uncivil about his language, but the nature of his comments undoubtedly runs counter to WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. The user's Talk page abounds with warnings against similar conduct in the past: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], and the list goes on and on.

I directed the user to WP:AGF here and here, asking that he strike out the bad faith remarks. He chose to disregard my advice. It is necessary for an Admin to involve himself in guiding Flatterworld (talk · contribs) in how Wikipedia envisions healthy interactions between contributors. A 48-hour block would not be an excessive response under the circumstances, though I am open to less severe alternatives.—Biosketch (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A 48 hour block for saying you cherry picked sources? Would you be open to the less severe alternative of doing nothing? It seems to me you are running into some opposition on the Assad talk page. Trying to one-up the opposition by trying to get them blocked is not the best way forward. I'd suggest you solve this dispute by continuing the discussion on the talk page. I note you also failed to inform Flatterworld of this discussion.--Atlan (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I was informed on my Talk page (which I clear after reading). Quite honestly, I have more important things to do with my time at Wikipedia than argue about this. It's not bad faith to address a serious issue with an article, and I will not be bullied into some sort of fake 'compromise' by any attempts at intimidation. Flatterworld (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you were informed on your talk page of this report at WP:WQA. This, however, is a different report at a different venue.--Atlan (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize there were so many venues. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Atlan (talk · contribs), thanks for taking the time to look into the incident and for leaving the updated notice on Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s Talk page. In answer to your question about the 48-hour block, of course it isn't simply for the accusation against me over cherry-picking sources. It is the broader tone of Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s comment, the fact that it attributed ulterior motives to me, and Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s ostensible history of similar such comments to others. Perhaps I am overstating the importance of WP:AGF, but the page does describe it as "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia," and it rather unequivocally requires editors not to "attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice" – and in this case no evidence of malice was indicated by the user making the accusations. Also, the suggestion that I'm trying to one-up the "opposition" – a label I emphatically reject, by the way – by getting them blocked frankly doesn't make sense. You'll see that the additions I made to the article have been embraced by the article's editors since I introduced them. They've even been expanded. The dispute on the Discussion page is therefore not about content but about a much more minor question of layout. If Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s contribution had been a meaningful one, elaborating at least a little on why he construes my additions as cherry-picking etc., there wouldn't have been a problem. It's the reality that in this user's first interaction with me he chose to assume bad faith that's the problem. I've had much more heated discussions with colleagues here, but they stay constructive because a mutual effort is made to assume good faith as much as possible. If WP:AGF is not considered a serious policy, then I'll concede the 48-hour block is excessive. But if WP:AGF is seen as essential to Wikipedia, it is not.—Biosketch (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are a preventative measure. We don't issue them as punishment for failing to assume good faith. This board is for incidents. If you want to address Flatterworld's long term behavior (which I doubt, even though you bring it up), start an Rfc. Usually, it is best to either prove the other side wrong, or agree to disagree and shrug it off, rather than run to the admin boards in righteous indignation.--Atlan (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, Atlan (talk · contribs), that you insist on shifting the focus onto me, first for "Trying to one-up the opposition" and then for "righteous indignation." The second idea is as bizarre as the first was shown to be, and addressing my concerns with less aggressive language would have reflected better on your judgment. It would have been sufficient to say from the beginning that "Blocks are a preventative measure" and that Admins do not administer them "for failing to assume good faith." That would have gotten the message across that WP:AGF is not strictly enforced, without the gratuitous calumnies vis-a-vis my motives. My pride is not wounded, but my confidence in you is.—Biosketch (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ken keisel adding unsourced material

Hi all -- User:Ken keisel has a long history of inserting unsourced or poorly sourced information into articles. He's been warned about this many times by many people. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

Things have been coming to a head over the last month or so, when Ken has been making a large number of such contributions to various aviation-related articles, for example: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

I've been working with him to get citations in place for as many of these claims as possible, with mixed results. However, even while working through this process, he's continued adding unsourced information, most recently to Yankee Air Museum.[82] I reverted that addition and warned him that he might not be able to continue editing if he continues this behaviour. His immediate response was to go on a rampage of adding {{citation needed}} tags to a variety of articles [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] until an admin warned him to stop

Today, he re-added the uncited material to the Yankee Air Museum page and left a message on the article talk page explaining why he feels that articles about private organizations don't need citations.

His repeated and ongoing addition of uncited material is disruptive, and based on today's edits, I believe that he has no intention of stopping. I'd issue a short block myself at this point, but I consider myself involved. Could somebody else take a look please?

FWIW, I don't think he's ever deliberately inserted untrue material; just factual material that isn't cited and maybe can't be verified. I also agree that the aircraft articles he tagged could indeed be better cited, but the POINTy behaviour wasn't going to get other editors to work with him on that... --Rlandmann (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Is any of the stuff being added in serious doubt and/or controversial? It looks to me that Rlandmann and many people leaving those warning templates are misinterpreting WP:V, which says all info in Wikipedia must be verifiable, not necessarily actually cited. Verifiable means that a source exists. Uncited stuff can be challenged and removed as a matter of editorial judgment, but the "challenged" part (at least in the form of a good faith belief that the info is likely enough to be wrong that leaving it in the article is doing more harm than good) IMHO is a vital component of such a removal. The main exception is negative info in a BLP, which always must be cited. There is a wikipedia fork called Veropedia in which -everything- has to be cited, but WP doesn't use that approach. People who want citations for every single addition should look there instead of here. (Actually it looks like Veropedia is now dead, which may convey a lesson of its own).

I've seen a number of ANI threads recently where people have been confused about this, as a result of which we've been losing lots of good encyclopedic info that per AGF we're better off leaving alone. I'm not saying people should go off on OR sprees or spew mindless trivia (including cited trivia) into articles: I'm just talking about uncontroversial relevant info, like the electrical data about obsolete transistors that someone was removing recently. That stuff is fairly easy to verify if you can get your hands on old data books, and is useful and encyclopedic if you have to fix an old TV set or something like that. This aircraft stuff sounds comparable. Articles that are very closely sourced (contentious politics articles, for example) are frankly less credible than less closely sourced ones, because the close sourcing gives the impression of conflict between editors and consequently the likely presence of bad-faith editing. Ken Keisel looks to be pretty knowledgeable so if the stuff he's adding looks relevant and correct, I'd generally not worry about it. Just ask for cites for specific stuff that you have doubts about, and discuss his approach to editing with him at a general level (RFC/U if you must) rather than leaving warning templates and opening ANI threads. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anon, and yes, I believe that each of the recent edits I linked above has specific WP:V or WP:CITE problems, either because they appear to require local knowledge (and are therefore WP:OR) [90], [91], [92] [93] because they're intrinsically "likely to be challenged" (claims of "the largest", "the heaviest")[94] [95] or they report an opinion [96]. I don't believe that "travel to the place and see for yourself" satisfies WP:V :)

This isn't new behaviour; Ken's been adding material based on hearsay or personal experience for some time.[97] [98] [99], so yeah, we have a problem here. Discussion has produced inconsistent results, so I'm happy to take it to an RFC/U if that's the best course of action. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that this user is doing some very bizarre things. I'm not directly involved but my watchlist of aircraft articles recently lit up like a Christmas tree. Uncited original research has been added to some articles where mass 'citation needed' tagging has been added to others (in some cases added for extremely obvious and undisputed facts), that can only be deemed as disruptive editing and I perceived a level of spite coming through (intended or not). Many 'citation needed' tags were added to article leads which shows no appreciation or understanding of WP:CITELEAD. The reversion of this 'spree', as another editor coined it, obviously involved much unnecessary work for project editors. A recent exchange at Talk:Yankee Air Museum implied that Rlandmann was not qualified to edit the article and this rang alarm bells of ownership problems to me, apart from not appreciating at all that any Wikipedia article is open to editing by anyone unless ARBCOM or other restrictions apply.

I am not qualified to write about old aircraft engines but I managed to get the Rolls-Royce Merlin and Rolls-Royce R through FAC by using old fashioned books and the previous work/contemporary support of other editors. Another strange request from this user was that all aircraft article editors use the same source for specification sections, it did not gain consensus at WT:AIR and I should note that we don't use US dollars in England even if we could order this (unknown to me) publication. I can understand RLandmann's reluctance to block this user as required but I do feel in this case that more 'boldness' should be applied to protect the encyclopedia (which is the primary purpose of a block). FWIW Rlandmann's neutral judgment and patience level as an administrator over the three years plus that I have been here have been beyond reproach (see User talk:AMCKen for an example). If an RFC/U is filed then I will pitch up there but again it's a lot of unnecessary grief for someone to deal with. A personal thought is that the general level of arguing/bickering/whatever you want to call it has risen to new heights on WP and has dampened my enthusiasm to the point that I don't contribute articles anymore, this episode is just a continuation of the problems that are occurring daily, it's a great shame and I'm sure Jimbo rolls his eyes when he reads this stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think you guys are overreacting a bit, except in cases of info that's actually contentious. Maybe you should try mediation (medcab?) first, as it's less confrontational than my earlier suggestion of RFC/U, if you're having trouble disussing this with Ken directly. Looking at Ken's overall contrib history, I think he's not that experienced with how we try to do things with regard to sourcing, and he is basically making newbie-like errors despite having 2300+ edits (almost all his edits are in mainspace--he hasn't interacted with other editors all that much). But he really does seem pretty knowledgeable about aviation. So it may help if an outsider has a chat with him.

Remember always that the purpose of all those policies (V, NOR, etc.) is to make sure the encyclopedia is reliable and mainstream, rather than being ends in themselves. They have to be enforced pretty rigorously in areas of controversy, like politics and BLP's. In areas like science and math, they're actually enforced pretty loosely, yet those are the areas where Wikipedia's reputation is the highest, mainly because the editors in those areas tend to know what they're doing and not be pushing agendas. That's more valuable to the project than any amount of policy observance.

The problems in the diffs you've shown look fairly tame to me at most. They don't make me feel like the encyclopedia is threatened. If you think something from them has to be taken out of an article, I'd say remove it but put a note on the talk page saying what it was, so people can know about it and look for sourcing if they think it's interesting. I'm pretty busy with RL stuff this week and sleepy right now, but can probably try to discuss this with Ken next week if you think that might help (I've had reasonable results in this sort of situation before). I do agree that he should modify his style somewhat. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Added: Nimbus, per Rlandmann's post, it sounds like the thing with the cite-tagging was a reaction to earlier cite requests that Ken felt affronted by. It was obviously inappropriate but I think it's been resolved. I also see the current discussion on Ken's talk page is not very friendly, and also it doesn't look like he's been notified of this thread. Look, he means well, please try to de-escalate the situation some. I'll try to leave him a note tomorrow but won't be able to spend much time on it. I also see he has asked for mediation, which seems like a good idea to me. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The user was notified of this thread here. I also thought of 'having a chat' but reasoned that it would not work. The mediation attempt was a direct response to another editor reverting the 'citation needed' tags, an attempt to report that editor's 'vandalism' to the admins. It was the wrong venue (should have been here if there was a case to answer), was malformed and quickly deleted. This recent post on the user's talk page (...is getting to the point where I can file a police report with my local police for pursuing me on Wikipedia. If you wish to test me by all means proceed.) could easily be taken for a legal threat and the user should be notified of the gravity of this wording. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This diff is very clearly a legal threat and requires immediate action. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pointed him to WP:NLT in the section he started below and invited him to rephrase it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit late to this discussion. I only just learned about it. Reguarding my notification to user Rlandmann to file a police report, that is in direct response to increasingly bizarre and abusive statements made by the user on my Talk page, as well as the users continued efforts to follow me on Wikipedia, altering my contributions on every article I have edited, including articles outside his area of interest. Because this is a very serious matter I have added a discussion on this specific topic to this page below. As for the rest of this matter, I have been very clear about my concerns, and have stated them in discussions held on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page. I returned ti Wikipedia because other aviation authors have commented to me that the articles are being used as a primary source by the general public, and much of the information contained in them is speculative, or downright incorrect. What I found are articles based on very poor sources that are totally lacking any form of standardization with regard to content, sources, or even the standards by which the sources are judged. One of my first principal concerns was that the performance figures are drawn from a wide variety of sources, if they are sourced at all. These sources do not agree on the methods or standards by which the list their performance figures, making it quite impossible for the reader to make a useful comparison of the performance of any two aircraft (Imagine how hard it would be to compare the performance of two autos if no one could agree what the length of a mile was, and you have a good idea what I'm getting at). I pointed out that there is a publication available for around $5.000 that lists all this data to a common standard, and suggested that they authors employ this for their figures. The objection I received was that no one wanted to spend the $5.00, so there was no consensus. I freely admit that while away Wikipedia's template for posting references has become somewhat complicated, and I am doing my best to learn it. A second, and perhaps more serious problem has been user Rlandmann following my every movement on Wikipedia, altering or deleting every entry I make. If he had wanted to check my use of Wikipedia templates that would be justifiable, but to follow me to critique the content of each of my postings is beyond the function of any editor, and does become abusive when he deletes a passage I added to an article on an organization I have belonged to for 21 years that merely listed the location of their aircraft while their museum is being rebuilt. This information is non-controversial, and non-abusive, and benefits both the article and the organization. Rlandmann did not have any evidence to challenge the information, but deleted it anyway. Another problem that I have seen crop up recently is the use of highly speculative sources as references for articles. The same people who are deleting information I post about organizations I belong to are posting information based on statements made on sites such as "Wired.com", a publication generally regarded as "The National Inquirer" for geeks. I am suggesting ways that this small group of editors could greatly expand the accuracy of their articles and getting no interest, while being threatened with blocking for providing information that is far more factual than much of the garbage that has been added lately. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As per User_talk:Ken_keisel#Warning and also below at #Edit_Stalking_by_user_Rlandmann this user has now been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. I am not sure that any other action on this entry is therefore required. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by OpinionAreLikeAHoles and anon IP

OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed referenced content from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia twice, both times with dishonest edit summaries. The first deletion of referenced content was marked as a minor edit [100] and "unclear" (It is a one sentence quote from a Muslim feminist that is quite clear). The second [101] also contained a flatly dishonest edit summary stating that my revert removed content (I was restoring content).

Between OpinionsAreLikeAHoles' reverts, anon IP removed the same content, also with a dishonest edit summary "restored content" (content was removed). [102]. Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material: [103] .

All the IP's edits are related to the MIddle East. And almost all of OpinionAReLikeAHoles' are as well. The latter editor registered a month ago, and immediately began making sophisticated edits.

Neither editor has made any comment in Talk. I'm not sure how long the content has been there, but I went back 500 edits, to August 2010, and it is there [104]. So it seems to be in the "consensus, but controversial" category. The article has been plagued by editors with obvious agendas regarding Middle Eastern politics trying to remove that quote.

Maybe this should a sockpuppet report, or an edit warring report. There is a little of both, and a whiff of vandalism.... Mindbunny (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I also wonder if OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is an acceptable name. Mindbunny (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't dignify this with a response..... but what the hey. I am confident any admin will see right through this troublesome editor's report here. 1) Mindbunny has a personal grudge against me since a re-inserted a comment critical of his behavior at Lara Logan, back onto his own Talk page. 2) in my short time here, I've learned to use the Talk page a lot, as a look at my Contributions will show. 3) I only inadvertently removed content the first revert on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia (an article I came to to see in what other ways Mindbunny has attempted to belittle discrimination against Womyn). I since restored the source. 4) I am obviously not responsible for the actions of anonymous IPs, and he's claim that I am the same person is laughable (I encourage any admin to investigate). I know I've kind of asked for it by delving into these Wiki pages and commenting myself - but I do find this a bit rich. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny notes above that "Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material". It's interesting that this removal was identical to, and shortly after, an edit by a suspected sockpuppet.[105][106] RolandR (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, one of Nableezy's friends trying to get revenge on me for commenting on his case. As I say, I guess I've brought this on myself for getting involved in all these dramas - but I must say I'm rather surprised by the "wolf-pack" mentality of some on here. Admin: please investigate me, and then kindly punish those who are making the false accusations! :-D OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OpinionsAreLikeAHoles should consider requesting a username change, the current one isn't really acceptable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Who do you really think would find it offensive??? OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:U is pretty clear that you aren't allowed to have usernames with profanity or implied profanity; not that I personally mind it, but our username policy does say as much. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

<-Some further info. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is editing via an Amazon Web Services Account although he claimed not to be aware of that. He seems to make a number of edits while logged out, see IP 175.41.171.29 and the edits by IP's starting 175.41. at Itasca High School (Texas) + their contrib histories for example. I think I'm okay providing the IPs here per the privacy policy because there is concern about abuse of the project and whether this user may be a sockpuppet, possibly of prolific sockmaster User:Ledenierhomme. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly of User:AFolkSingersBeard (which could possibly be itself a sock of Ledenierhomme). RolandR (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes possibly...it's difficult to keep track of all the socks nowadays. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrections. I said the account was created a month ago. It was created two weeks ago--and immediately knew how to edit in sophisticated ways. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has never "restored" the material in question, although the user keeps claiming otherwise. Mindbunny (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. I think Opinions answered NorthernBlades comment about user name on his talk page using the wrong account here...as Vassos55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He quickly realized it and removed the comment with a "Whoops wrong person". I'm requesting checkuser and will notify Vassos55...does anyone else see what I'm seeing?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops..oh dear. And there was I thinking the box of seaweed we bought this evening with the brand name "Big Sheet" was going to be the funniest thing today... Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Possible connection based on CU evidence. They both share the same UA, but IPs and geolocation are all over the place. However, webhosts and other gateways are being used, which may explain that. –MuZemike 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, MuZemike. I believe they are the same based on the sock's flub.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Vassos55's edits at Cyprus internment camps were to reinsert material previously supported by User:Telaviv1. I have no evidence of a connection. Zero^talk 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone's playing games. Got another IP doing the same thing - copying text from another section and inappropriately replacing existing content. [107] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP claims[108] to be Runtshit. The editing pattern does not bear this out; but it is clear that this and many other IPs and SPAs carrying out similar disruptive edits are part of a big sock farm. RolandR (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has walked away from this account. It's currently blocked pending a request for username change. I assume he is now using another sockpuppet account and/or is editing logged out probably via another proxy server. Are both OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vassos55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) going to be blocked for sockpuppetry and if so, when ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: He has just been unblocked as his user name change was approved. Hello? Anybody out there? Tiamut^talk 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pages with missing references list

Resolved

 – Category size down to reasonable levels. lifebaka++ 22:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• There is currently a backlog of about 180 pages here at Category:Pages with missing references list.
  
• Secondly, I have just noticed that there are about 49 articles listed that are of the name form ""xxx Province", apparently all about Turkish provinces. It may be that these only need to have a References section added, or even just {{Reflist}} or <references/>.
• It appears possible that these articles have never had a visible set of references because of this error. (I checked Samsun Province back to 23 December 2009, it already had a cite error then! several others I checked had long term Cite Errors). I hope/assume that there are tools or a bot that can fix this? (without resorting to manual editing just to add a Ref section to all 49 pages!) Regards - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 16:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesnt seem to be an incident, I dont think this is the right place for it. Perhaps try the help channels either by placing {{helpme}} on your talk page or the IRC channel [109]Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the 'incident' is the back-log, which I have seen others post here about for other areas of Wikipædia. I would rather not have to do it all manually, thus the enquiry about 'tool's or bots. (Or many hands make light work!) Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard would have been the correct venue? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of the backlog was caused by this edit to {{Infobox Province TR}}. All articles using this infobox now need a {{Reflist}}. -- [[User:|John of Reading]] (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, John of Reading. I thought something odd was happening, as I have been fixing articles in this category recently and hadn't seen the 49 'Province' articles in it before. Is the edit you linked to 'vital'? Can it be reverted perhaps? Seem to be fixed now, 49 provinces now gone from category page. :) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This was also something that didn't need administrator action, I'm just saying. -- Atama頭 20:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted! ;P. Nb. We hope (talk · contribs) fixed the problem by adding ref sections to all 49 pages! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Doing.... Shall clear as much of the backlog as I can today. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. With two exceptions:

• 2011 Continental Indoor Football League season, List of current Continental Indoor Football League team rosters, andContinental Indoor Football League, which somewhere among them appear to have a busted template (that i can't find) that's throwing the ref error

{{Marion Blue Racers roster}}. Related changes is your friend here. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Civil service, which just completely confounds me as far as where the error is coming from. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There were <ref>...</ref> tags after the {{reflist}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Current event election

{{admin help}} User talk: GaneshBhakt seems to be a new editor. I was away from the page West Bengal state assembly election, 2011 for a few days to return and find a move war going on. Another editor had an issue with him [110] (which is viewable on 1 May). In addition to other reverts this format issue was undone by him, then this ip edit was undone (note the edit summary). Finally he reverts blindly all edits to add uncited content and remove cited content. and he continues to do [111][112][113][114]. He seems to think the onus on copyvio issues is to prove theyre copyvios instead of the other way around to prove theyre okay. which is more serious to wiki[edia.

I warned him on his page that while his initial edits were WP:BOLD, per WP:BRD he needs consensus to get the formatting he proposed on to the page. Something he has not done on the page (which can be viewed from talk), and he continues to call me a vandal.

Furthermore, can someone see his edit contribs [115]: "Deleted baseless allegation, I cannot provide coyright permission if reader is blind. Further, he should see other images I uploaded and then bite me" + he's also made the ludicrous WP:CONSENSUS suggestion that "How could I get a consensus when User:Jayantanth was against one?"Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I add, see the [116] he said me that the next time you re-add a bogus file deletion tag. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas never stopped vandalizing West Bengal state assembly election, 2011. The "dispute" was regarding the name of the article and also a bogus "PUF" allegation by Jayantanth, but for apparently no reason at all, he has been reverting constructive, like the improved info and infobox, the updated phases, grammar, cleanup, copyedit, etc., edits on the page. He is welcome to add verifiable information but not under any circumstance revert the constructive edits made. I see he wanted to add the Gorkhaland section, and he is more than welcome to add it, but he has to stop reverting good faith edits made by fellow Wikipedians. If you reverts the edits again and continues to edit war, he will leave me no choice but to report him here. Thank You. FYI for admins, User:Lihaas and User:Jayantanth are targeting me together. You want proof? Here you go! GaneshBhakt (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the underlying dispute, I suggest you go easy on the vandalization accusation. Content disputes are not the same as vandalization. --rgpk (comment) 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside the stuff i undid which was good i immediatel;y restored [117][118]

And the initiated talk page idiscussion hs not been responded too desptie him coming online since [119] (again not edit summary)Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

bot archived adn unresolved issueLihaas (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible violation of Shakespeare authorship question NPOV forking

Hello all, I just ran across A new article was created in the last several weeks of questionable notability and NPOV related to the Shakespeare authorship issue: Titus Andronicus (authorship question). I think it is a POV fork, and the author might be involved in the whole series of issues related to the ARBCOM case. I am not a sysop or familiar with the case, so I though I would hand it off to someone that knows something about it, would someone double check my impression and perhaps hand this off to someone who knows more about enforcing the case? Sadads (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I know little or nothing on the topic, but it seems like a notable topic:[120], and especially [121]. The question of authorship appears open. Fences&Windows 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@F&W: you may want to read Shakespeare authorship question.

@Sadads: This is not a POV fork. This appears to be a non-attributed split of Titus Andronicus. It is also most certainly appears to be a POV Fork. NW (Talk) 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop forking, guys. Kids read this stuff... HalfShadow 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that the article needs to be recommended for merge or deletion or something per the decision for the ARBCOM case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question)? I will recommend it for merge, but would like some other opinions from people who are better aware of the case and/or the topic area, Sadads (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about the "Shakespeare authorship question". That is a conspiracy theory that claims Shakespeare was a front for some secret author. This is about Shakespeare's collaborations, a normal part of Shakespeare attribution studies. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I created this page for the simple reason that the Titus Andronicus article was far too long if this section was included in it. I did ask people for feedback on this issue on the Titus talk page but no one responded, so I went ahead and created the page. As Paul correctly says, this has nothing to do with the Shakespeare authroship question (which isn't even mentioned on the page), other the use of the phrase "authorship question" (and I also asked for feedback on the page title). However, I fail to see how it's a POV fork. I've reported the major contributors both for and against the argument of Peele as co-author, which the vast majority of scholars today are for. I myself was actually against it until I started doing some research on the issue. To merge this back into the original article with take 10 seconds as I have a copy of the article with this section in it, but that's going to make the article much longer than is recommended. Bertaut (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The ArbCom decision doesn't differentiate between the Shakespeare identity controversy (which is at the heart of the Baconian, Oxfordian, etc. conspiracy theories) and the mainstream, legitimate authorship questions regarding Titus Andronicus, Henry VIII, and the Witches' Scene of Macbeth. The decision seems overly broad to me, as if ArbCom failed to take the possibility of legitimate authorship questions into consideration. --NellieBly (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, WP:ARBSAQ very specifically concerns the WP:FRINGE theory known as the “Shakespeare authorship question”, including the remedies which authorize standard discretionary sanctions for “all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question”. That would have included these articles iff the additions or the spinout article had been related to that fringe theory, but as it happens these just looked superficially like it due to the article's title. The problem here is one of confusing terminology: “authorship studies” are entirely normal, entirely mainstream, academic inqueries into things like identifying the author of anonymous plays, whether certain parts of Macbeth were later additions by Thomas Middleton, whether parts of Sir Thomas More were written by Shakespeare (despite not generally being considered a Shakespeare play). The fringe theory in question, on the other hand, uses “authorship” in the sense of questioning Shakespeare's authorship of the entire (35+ plays, 155 sonnets) canon in favour of some other fanciful candidate. To the degree they care about individual plays it is only in so far as it supports their overall goal of disqualifying Shakespeare as its author. The distinction is between investigating the attribution of a play and questioning the identity of an author. Note that some of this confusion is deliberate: e.g. it's termed a “question” because asking questions is always good, right? And if it can be cast as an open (academic) question, then it has legitimacy on those grounds alone. Other confusing use of terminology is the simple result of trying to use the going academic terminology to describe their own theories (i.e. essentially a good faith effort to adopt the academic nomenclature).
In other words, I think Sadads merely jumped the gun a little here, because of the confusing terminology (on a newly forked article, written by a single editor, all of which would tend to set off alarm bells) and because of the background that led to the ArbCom case (and trust me, the regular authors on these articles very much appreciate admins and uninvolveds keeping a close watch on this area!). —Xover (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a notable topic, and the article is extremely well-researched and well-written and brings Wikipedia up-to-date on an important Shakespearean topic. It has nothing to do with the Shakespeare authorship question fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor with phone number in username

So there's a pretty new editor (arriving in mid-April) whose username incorporates what appears to be a full (US) telephone number. To complicate the mix, although the phone number would correspond to a US location, the editor works almost exclusively on article relating to Philippine television. Is this an appropriate situation? (I don't want to call attention to the actual username, so I'm not posting it here). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is indeed a real, registered number, then it's probably best to advise the user that this is not really a good idea (due to possible phone spam and such) and they should consider a user name change. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are probably too many unknowns here to give advice that would be correct in all circumstances. For example, how do you know it's a US phone number and not some other 10 digit number? Is the editor actively claiming it's their phone number? Is their editing problematic? Have you talked to them about it? etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Has the user in question been informed of this discussion? —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've notified her tonight. I didn't want to possibly distress a new user unless other folks felt raising the issue was reasonable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am disappointed the number isn't 867-5309. Resolute 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Incidentally, a TNID search comes back as an invalid number. [122] Also, [123] doesn't list 953 as a valid exchange in the 213 area code. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard

This is actually over. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been advised by User:John Vandenberg that, despite his attempts to solve it, that the situation has gotten such where, in order to settle the issues caused, I'll have to post myself, despite having no desire to edit Wikipedia again. Sven Manguard has used me leaving Wikipedia as a chance to launch vicious attacks at me, to improperly edit my posts to claim wrongdoing, and even violated the confidence a private mediation between the two of us by User:John Vandenberg to attack me, in order to preempt the statement that the mediation had come up with. Sven was under a mediation agreement (quoted below) which required that: “ If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution. ” He has not done so. Instead, beginning just after I left Wikipedia, he launched this vicious personal attack. The basic claims are false, as will be seen below. It is further compounded [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&action=historysubmit&diff=427697644&oldid=427695650] John, Sven, Tony1, and I were bound by a mediation agreement. Amongst other terms, it required disputes to be settled by dispute resolution. Sven violated this with his backstab. John Vandenberg arranged for a mediation over this; this is the last draft of an agreed statement I have; we had agreed a couple changes, and he was going to run it by Sven before the final comment. I have permission to publish this, and John has confirmed it as his statement. Some awkward phrasing, such as the sentence beginning "It is possible", which gives the opposite impression than the one intended, was going to be smoothed over. This directly and completely contradicts Sven's claims that I have used multiple accounts abusively. “ I apologise for commenting in a collapsed discussion, however after consulting with Adam since May 6 it is important to give Adam a response to the above. It goes without saying that Adam disputes most of the above from Sven, but he doesnt want to get into a he said/she said. he wants to walk away with only a few aspects corrected. With regards to the multiple accounts, ArbCom was informed of "Shoemaker's Holiday" as early as April 2008, and Adam asked the arbitration committee in February 2009 for the ability to start using a new 'Adam Cuerden' account, for the purposes of uploading PD-1923 media which are not permitted on Commons. When he did not receive a response from ArbCom one way or the other, Adam publicly requested this in May 2009[124], informed the committee of his public request, and it was approved by a 'crat. As far as I know, the only person to claim that Adam C has used multiple accounts abusively is an ArbCom&community banned user. it is possible that there is abuse, as "Shoemaker's Holiday" editing the same topics as the vanished account (most notably the Homopathy topics), however nobody has pointed out any problematic edits that cross these two accounts in a way that violates policy. Also, there is no reason to believe Adam would start using an undisclosed account without informing ArbCom (all evidence is to the contrary), and he assures me that he will not. ” Sven decided, upon seeing that a statement was going to be posted contradicting his claims, to launch a preemptive second attack. [125], which used the content he knew was going to be in the statement in an attempt to poison the well. At this point , I was told by John that the mediation to keep the agreement was finished, and that he could do no more. The agreement we were under stated that if the agreement was broken, and negotiation could not solve the issue within 48 hours (I voluntarily gave the attempt more time, as I was told Sven was busy, and did not want to cause disruption for the others), that the terms of the agreement should be published in full. I did so, here. I ran this past John, and got his approval of it (by e-mail). Sven, however, wasn't done. Not only did he edit my post to remove the agreement which he had caused to fall apart, and the draft agreement which he had maliciously preempted, but he replaced them with claims of malfeasance on my part, and even managed to get an oversighter to oversight it, which then had to be undone. - my original post being included in the oversight may have been an accident, but, frankly, I don't see how that could have happened without intent on Sven's part. The oversighter undid Sven's redaction. Sven redacted it again, putting up a new attack against me as justification. ("I re-redacted them. Sure, I'm involved, but Adam was using private communications in an effort to attack me. Considering that Wikipedia looks poorly upon the posting of off-wiki communications in such a manner, and considering that contrary to Adam's posting, the mediation is still in force, these needed to be removed. I also moved the collapse box down."). John Vandenberg has stated that I had his tacit permission to publish the letter, and that he had told me that he had given up, thus ending the agreement. If the agreement was broken, and I'll remind people that it required that “ If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution. ” - per the terms of the agreement, it may be published: “ This agreement will only be published if a party breaks the agreement. Should any party believe that another party has broken the agreement, they are to notify all parties privately, and try to resolve the situation. If it can’t be resolved within 48 hours, any party may publish the agreement in full. It may not be published in part. ” Hence, I was in the right to publish it. Sven's claims were therefore false: He has violated the agreement, and thus ended it. (Note that, per the last sentence of the previous quote, I am required to publish the entire agreement. I'll do that here.) Full agreement The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Background This incident started when Sven asked John on IRC whether or not Tony's project was still on track or whether it had had failed because John (acting as the president of the Wikipedia Australia chapter) didn't write a letter in time. John explained that the President can’t write letters until the chapter committee has approved them, and that this hadn’t happened. John appreciates that due to the way he responded, it was within reason to conclude that the project had failed. This was not actually the case: the committee hadn’t voted on it yet due to other factors, and even if the committee opposed the proposal, the members can also approve it at a general meeting. Sven indicated that Tony had asked Sven to hold back on his own university partnership plan and wait for Tony's to go through. John told Sven that any good project should go ahead, but that strategy about launching their projects is a matter for the Sven and Tony to work out between themselves. Sven then told John that he was going to go ahead with his project. John notified Tony, and provided him with an extract of the IRC log. Tony brought this incident into the public arena on Sven's talk page, accusing him of theft of intellectual property of the collaboration project and a lack of proper regard for the confidentiality which had been secured by Tony from Sven before he told Sven of the project. In his public comments, Tony did not mention any specifics of the collaboration project, as they were considered private and confidential. This put Sven in a difficult position as he felt he must respond publicly to the accusations that had been made in public. With the matter raised on Wikipedia, Sven proceeded to describe the Wikimedia Australia collaboration project publicly, in broad terms, as a way of establishing that Tony and Sven each had different types of projects in mind. In the process of doing this, Sven indicated he thought the Wikimedia Australia collaboration had probably failed, and was going to go ahead with his own project. He asserted, regarding his releasing of a broad outline of Tony’s proposal, that he believed that at most he agreed not to share details about the proposal as a courtesy, and did not agree to “confidentiality”. Tony does not agree with this assertion. Sven further stated that he only went back on the courtesy because he felt it was the only way he could properly defend himself against the accusation of theft. Sven described his own program as follows: "I want a few musicians I know to be able to access their university's recording studio and sound related resources without jumping through hoops. .. I'm probably going to sweeten the deal for the people that control the sound equipment by listing the university as the recording location in the description page of a few sound files." And stated that he “doesn't intend on 'stealing' [Tony’s] work”. In the discussion on Tony's talk page, both parties made attempts at de-escalating, but at the same time they each occasionally said things that caused each other to assume the other party was threatening to do something inappropriate. At no time did Tony make legal threats. Tony said that, should Sven go ahead with his project, he would inform any participants in Sven’s project that the idea was stolen. Sven took the matter to ANI on the basis that he believed that Tony was threatening him, and that Tony was going to “harass” his friends. Sven did not specifically interpret the threats as “legal threats”, however he did mention that he did not feel comfortable due to Tony's stated intention to contact this partners if Tony felt there was any IP stolen. The notion that the comments were legal threats was added by an observer, and rejected by the admin CBM and neutral observers Nil_Einne and Malleus Fatuorum. Tony also re-iterated that he was not making legal threats, and repeated that he would inform participants in Sven's project if they were participating in a project designed by Tony. As the situation evolved, Adam tried to seek clarification from Tony regarding the nature of his planned partnership, indicating that based on Sven’s description he couldn’t see anything difference between it and prior unsuccessful attempts by Durova at sourcing sound files from universities, and he feared that Tony was attempting to prevent Sven from replicating collaborations that many people had already attempted. Tony did not answer these questions, as he thought these were loaded questions and because he did not want to provide details in public until the project was officially unveiled. Sven’s comments made it clear that he had no intention of using the ideas that Tony had shared with him. Tony continued to use the term “IP”; he does not understand the term IP solely in a legalistic, commercial sense, and did not use it as such during this incident. However, it was not clear to some what he meant by “IP”. John tried to explain that the project was sufficiently advanced that the term "IP" was appropriate, as there were real documents. Admins Resolute, ErrantX and Timotheus_Canens thought that the wanting to protect the “IP” could still be blockable as this was against the spirit of 'no legal threats' and/or Wikipedia. Sven noted that Tony had not given him anything as advanced as a document. Adam presumed his earlier assessment of the confusing situation was correct. Adam asked Tony to voluntarily avoid FSC for a month. When Tony rejected this, Adam requested action, and Elen of the Roads blocked Tony1 on the grounds of legal threats. Tony re-iterated he wasn’t making legal threats, but rather was making it clear that he had been indicating that he would not stand for his concept being stolen, if that is what was happening, since Sven had previously agreed keep it confidential. On his talk page Tony agreed with ErrantX that using the term "IP" had contributed to the confusion. Agreement This agreement is between John Vandenberg, Sven Manguard, Tony1, and Adam Cuerden (the parties). It terminates on April 1, 2012. Sven agrees to not mention, in public or in private, any aspects of the offwiki collaboration project excepting what Tony publicly disclosed. Tony1 acknowledges that the ideas Sven has published are different from his own, do not constitute a theft, and that Sven has said that he is not going to use Tony1’s ideas. Tony1 agrees not to initiate private contact with any participant in Sven’s scheme. Sven and Tony1 agree to not initiate private communication with each other. If any party has reason to be concerned about another party’s conduct at the English Wikipedia, they will use appropriate dispute resolution. The parties agree to not refer publicly to this dispute on WMF projects. If others (not bound by this agreement) bring this incident up before April 1, 2012, it should be removed or ignored by the parties. However, Tony may discuss the block, which he disputes with Elen, but agrees to not mention Sven or Adam, by name or reference. This agreement will only be published if a party breaks the agreement. Should any party believe that another party has broken the agreement, they are to notify all parties privately, and try to resolve the situation. If it can’t be resolved within 48 hours, any party may publish the agreement in full. It may not be published in part. Sven makes some other claims about me which I haven't dealt with, and will not: Sven and I were close enough friends before this that he knows about some past disputes I had with previous users, and he mentions these to attack me. While I could try and prove I was right in these disputes, publicly doing so would not be fair on the users I was in dispute with. John Vandenberg has seen my evidence regarding those claims as part of the failed negotiations; I suppose you could ask him, but I think he, like everyone else but Sven, just wants all of this to end. Sven's behaviour has been abominable. He has lied, fantasised,violated confidences, and launched egregious personal attacks. I must ask that he be heavily censured for his behaviour, as, otherwise, he has shown it will continue, when everyone but him simply wants this situation to end. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Note I will only post replies to this should I be informed that it is necessary by e-mail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Statement by Sven Manguard My initial response to this was 'ignore it' but I really can't ignore something that's hit AN/I. Adam's version of this history is heavily warped towards a pro-Adam telling. Were I to present my own version, I have little doubt that it would be very pro-Sven. I will address a few points directly, however. The oversight had nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the poster; my IP address rather than my account. I had be editing with another computer earlier in the day, and it did not immediately occur to me that this would log me out of my personal computer. The edits that were oversighted were undone, and I made them again under my logged in account. Adam has, by posting the mediation agreement, posted evidence against himself. His primary method of dealing with problems is to try to chase them away. The mediation mentions that Adam tried to topic ban Tony1 at Featured Sounds. I will state again the the reason Adam and my relationship soured is that Adam tried to convince me to monitor KleinZach in an attempt to get him topic banned from Featured Sounds. He is now trying to chase me off of Wikipedia, and realizing that this won't work, is trying to make me look bad. My handing of this situation was less than ideal, but that does not make Adam correct in his actions or his assessment of my actions. I firmly believe that my assessment of Adam is correct. He has linked to my statements about him, and if anyone wants to read them, they should feel free to do so. Yes, coming from an involved party such statements are not something I'd expect everyone to instantly accept as fact, however, Adam's track record speaks for itself in these regards. That being said... I had hoped to move away from this issue, in all its overplayed drama and frivolity, but it seems that is now not a possibility. I therefore have a proposed solution that I think, in the long run, benifits everyone here. I propose that nothing happen. Would I like to see action taken against Adam? Sure. Would he like to see action taken against me? Sure. However at this point it comes down to a he-said-he-said situation between a retired party that wants to distance himself from Wikipedia (Adam) and an editor who would rather move on than keep fighting (Sven). I'm not afraid of the outcome, as much as I am afraid that this would clog up a month and a half of otherwise productive time, and I have no interest in pursuing this further on my end. No one benefits from continuing the drama here, something I should have recognized before I posted my first message. I suggest this whole thing be marked as resolved, stuck in a pretty blue box, archived when its time here is up, and forgotten about. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Sigh I think both of you should stop talking to each other, about each other, and anything else involving each other. Don't comment on each other or start new AN/I threads or VP threads even vaguely referencing each other. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Sound advice. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC) After 6 May the whole thing shifted to email. I was content to keep in there, however that has become impossible. I was prepared to post an extensive summary of what transpired there, as well as my rationale for replacing my first statement with my second one, but decided not to in the interests of de-escalation. I do have two statements though, about this; 1) I will not, for any reason, communicate with Adam on non-public channels. Therefore if this is to continue in any form, something that I'd really rather not do, it has do so on Wikipedia. 2) I will not, after this post, make any further posts about Adam unless Adam makes posts about me that warrant a response. I will not make any posts on this thread either unless I believe it absolutely nessacary. This issue should have died quietly four or five days ago. Each party blames the other for continuing it. I, for my part, don't intend on doing anything to keep it going, and intend on ignoring it unless it starts up again. Since Adam has mentioned that he won't respond unless he's emaild and John has thrown up his hands, I'd say this is effectively dead. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but no. I have been told about these events, and must respond further: Sven attacked me out of nowhere, in a post not related to him. I left his statements stand for several days to let John have a chance to mediate between us; Sven used this to launch a preemptive attack in order to bash me further. Sven is fully aware that some of is claims are false; John has explained to him the history of my accounts, and yet he has retracted none of his claims, despite knowing they are false. I object to the tone of this discussion, that treats me, the person who was attacked out of nowhere, and then immediately took it offline to be mediated in private, as the equal of the person who attacked me out of nowhere, and for no reason. Any fair examination will show that his attacks come out of nowhere, and, even if they were true - which they are not - would involve him making private conversations public, without good cause. That they are provably untrue on the points I'm willing to make public, and could be shown to be untrue on the ones that aren't, were I willing to drag other users into this dispute, makes this all the worse. Sven, at the very least, needs to be warned under WP:NPA. Even if all of Sven's claims about me manipulating him were true, which, again, they aren't, I would have done nothing wrong under Wikipedia policy, as his only claim regarding this supposed manipulation is that I told him my opinion of various users, and past experiences with them, which no policy can or could prohibit me from doing. The only claims Sven makes that relate to policy, the multiple account issue, has been deconstructed by John and shown to be false, as discussed above. I want this to be over. But I'm not willing to have this swept under the rug. Sven, at the very least, needs to be warned under WP:NPA. If you can show one point where I have ever attacked Sven, and ever did anything but defend myself from Sven's actions, please do so. But as it is, this is nothing but blaming the victim, to avoid having to examine the issue. I wish to make a clean break from Wikipedia, but I'm not willing to have my last experience be a former friend spouting vicious lies about me, which tarnishes my legacy forevermore. Sven had no reason to say what he did, and policy WP:NPA, states he had no right to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC) It's unfortunate that you ignored Fetchcomm's advice, unarchived this thread and deleted Skomorokh's closing comment. I happen to agree with Skomorokh that you're beating a dead horse here. 28bytes (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Sven's agreed to what amounts to a voluntary interaction ban. Don't make me put down a ban on both of you and enforce it with blocks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny making attacks

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive678 § Mindbunny

I just removed an attack made by Mindbunny...being made just to prove a point. I have a history of not getting along with this editor so I won't editorialize here and would rather defer to simply reporting so that others could let me know if I am in the wrong or Mindbunny is in the wrong. I will notify of this thread. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I was reverted, so the attack is back in place.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Mel Gibson is a jerk. Also, George W. Bush is dumb as a rock. If we are going to block anyone who makes such a comment on a Talk page (on the grounds that it isn't reliably sourced...I mean, huh?), then I'm done here. Block me. Mindbunny (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, do I understand this correctly? An editor said that Mel Gibson is a pompous jerk in a RfC page and this is now an ANI issue? Is there more to this that I'm missing? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, Mel Gibson is totally a jerk. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have commented over at the RfC talkpage something to that effect, and shockingly enough I've called Robert Mugabe a murderous scumbag. Really, don't cry BLP; Mel Gibson made his own reputation, and a flippant comment on Wikipedia isn't going to change that, no matter how self-righteous and important we view ourselves as being. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm still not getting how saying something negative about Mel Gibson on a non-article page is an issue at all, let alone an issue requiring the intervention of an Administrator. Also, Derek Jeter is a terrible defensive shortstop and my wife tells me that while he used to be hot, he's kinda ugly now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Two words for your wife: Joey Votto. --NellieBly (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As much as you may complain about Derek Jeter's defense (I'm a Yankee fan myself), Eduardo Munez is proof that there's something to be said for being able to make the play that comes right to you; that, Jeter still does just fine. I don't think he's that bad; he's not Kaz Matsui or anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny has a great many issues when dealing with current events, the Middle East, and pages about womens' rights. Perhaps a topic ban is in order, as this is not the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time he (under this and his other name) has been warned about his behavior. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 10:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

After brief review, it does seem as though Mindbunny is guilty of POINT here. But frankly, I don't really think the comments highlighted are causing any real harm to WP. This seems like a debate between a WP:BLP purist, and someone who thinks BLP purism is silly. Don't think there's any need to get litigious here. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Could Mindbunny clarify whether he's Noloop (talk · contribs)? An SPI page suggested he was, as does the timing of account creation and the interests, and MB didn't deny it. The issue is that Noloop's behavior was similar, and he edited one of the same articles, so CLEANSTART doesn't apply, and there's an outstanding RfAr. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this as a gratuitous rant on an admin's RFC/U just to make a POINT. I believe that people may have their opinions and I don't know if I would characterize myself as a BLP purist but I do think that this is unacceptable behavior, very unprofessional and unbecoming of what we are trying to be as editors. People are always commenting on the toxic environment on Wikipedia and I think these are the type of actions which contribute to that notion. I think we ought to be raising the bar of acceptable standards.

Let me see if I get this straight. People can vent and call anyone anything they want just as long as they aren't editors on this encyclopedia. If they were editors here, however, the slightest disparagement would be a personal attack? Isn't that a double standard?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny was being WP:POINTy, and not being constructive, but saying someone is "a pompous jerk" is just an expression of opinion. Not a good edit by Mindbunny, but it was a minor incident, and reporting it here is a gross over-reaction. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of purism. It's a matter of a kind of admin abuse in which 1) the facts are persistently ignored, and 2) the standards are applied selectively, creating an appearance of bias, and 3) (1) and (2) occur in support of other admins. For the record, the hub of the issue is Sandstein's block of The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous for saying Lara Logan's journalistic standards are degenerate and corrupt. [126] The opinion was given on a Talk page, and treated as a BLP violation, analagous to the comment above that Derrek Jeter is not only a bad shortstop, but ugly to boot. My numbered points:

1. Fact: BLP does not prohibit negative opinions about named living persons. Fact: There is no requirement that editors source their own opinions, expressed in conversation; you can have an opinion that nobody else has. You can express an opinion about a named living person that is unsourcable ("Brian Greene is fool.") Fact: Defamation refers to factual claims not statements of opinion; it is not defamation to say Logan's journalistic standards are crappy or Jeter is dog. The comment about Logan originates in a Rolling Stone article. There is a reason the author isn't being sued for defamation. It isn't defamation. Fact: the blocked editor didn't say Lara Logan is degenerate and corrupt; he said that about her standards. There is a difference, which JamesBWatson distorted. These are obvious facts. They are the opposite of what admins said in blocking and upholding the block of the victimized editor. It's a witch-hunt.
2. The "purism" behind the block is not applied with any consistency at all. If such a principle were applied with integrity, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb would currently be blocked: he called a named living person terrible and ugly. I hereby call Robert Mugabe] degenerate and corrupt. It would be POV-pushing to say we can express that opinion about some named living persons but not others, according to whether admins agree. And yet, that is exactly what is being implied. Here, I'll say again what The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous said, only I'll change the person: Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Now who is going to block me for BLP violations? I am being POINTY because I am making a damn good point.
3. I won't continue to dwell on the obvious. The rush of admins taking these absurd positions has come in defense of another admin. Wikipedia has an elitist structure, and power leads to powertrips. Mindbunny (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you Noloop (talk · contribs)? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this thread should be closed, the violation being minor--though a violation it is--and not actionable. But Mindbunny, are you sure you're not confusing Wikipedia with your blog? Who said that this was a place where you could or should vent your opinions on people? Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. The principle of NPA is primarily to prevent a toxic editing environment. I highly doubt Mel Gibson was reading that page. Mindbunny's edit was a little POINTy, but probably not as POINTy as opening this up. Nobody's said anything about Ginsengbomb's statement about Mel Gibson, or about any of the statements about Derek Jeter, Joey Votto, or Robert Mugabe, so this (along with the irrelevant, hounding questions about whether she is Noloop) suggest to me that this is just about hounding Mindbunny. Please, can we move on? Kansan (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't open the thread to be pointy....and I did not want to be accused of wikihounding (one of the reasons why I brought it here) Past attempts at warning the user on their talk page, either my warnings or others, have never been met with constructive reception. A review on their talk page history is telling. I placed a warning concerning ownership with the Lara Logan article and it was deleted with an edit summary "flush toilet". Mindbunny still has the message on their talk page that reads "Go away". After Mindbunny made this comment to another editor, no mistake was ever acknowledged. Since there has been a communication problem between Mindbunny and myself, I brought it here precisely to keep it from being a personal problem or wikihounding but so that someone that Mindbunny doesn't have a problem with could communicate objectively with him. I do think there is a problem but I didn't start this thread to get Mindbunny blocked. Impartial admin communication was desired. I also wanted to get a feel for what the community thinks is acceptable/unacceptable.

At the time I opened the thread, Mindbunny had began a rant in response to an impartial observer upholding Sandstein's application of BLP in the RfC Bunny filed against him...gratuitous insults followed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter has been trying to feud with me for a while. See the ANI in which he was warned for attempting to out me, and for personal attacks. [127]. This harassment is just a continuation of that (despite warnings). SlimVirgin is getting into that territory, as she keeps disrupting threads with accusations based on a sockpuppet investigation that was closed months ago, as she does above and elsewhere [128]Mindbunny (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Oh Mindbunny, there you go, bald-faced lying again. The result of that thread was that there had been no outing...nor even an attempt, just your false accusations. And there was no mention of attacks whatsoever....what attacks? The fact that you got caught sharing the same IP address as User:Noloop after the SPI case against you closed, pretty much draws out the obvious conclusion doesn't it. One of two things happened. Either you signed into that same IP and saw where I placed a whois tag on it and got upset that you were caught OR it's you stalking me...enough time had elapsed between the thread where I placed that tag and you filing the new ANI thread (from Mar 27 to Apr 2, and I had circa 450 edits in that time)...you would have been stalking my edits, wouldn't you, Noloop? Either way, you got caught.

You just keep getting into it with everyone don't you? You've expanded your accusation zone every time someone disagrees with you. You ran from ArbCom when things got hot for you and lack what it takes to own up and finish what you started. The Noloop account just kind of scurried off. If you had the brass, you'd quit hiding behind your sock.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bald-faced lying? I admit I'm not bearded. Berean's response makes the feuding clearer than anything I could say. For the record (since I've been called a liar), here are the warnings:

"Linking a user to an IP address without there having been a public link made by that user is considered to be "outing". The edit summary is not acceptable. Berean Hunter, please do not repeat this behaviour anywhere in the project. Edit summary suppressed. Risker (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)"

"No, that was not a "good faith mistake", Berean Hunter. The IP address is dynamic, and as such your edit summary could be tarring any number of people with the same brush. Do not post usernames that may or may not at one time be associated with a specific IP address into the history of the IP talk page. Absent an active SPI, this was completely unacceptable. Risker (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)" Mindbunny (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

<--Berean, knock it off please. While I have no love for what Mindbunny has been doing here on this project (less than 100 edits to article space and they're being oppressed all over the place), you're not helping your own cause. Turn off the sarcasm, and let this thread die out--there is a clear consensus that the violation was not sufficient to lead to any kind of action. This SPI stuff is not for here, and bringing it up in this thread is not going to lead to anything else but more heat and less light. Move to close. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Mindbunny (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I was all in favour of dropping this whole thing as too trivial to bother about, as I indicated above. It also seems to me that a consensus to do so had developed, as Drmies said. However, Mindbunny has chosen to deliberately set out to be provocative in violation of WP:POINT (here, here, etc etc). This is, it seems to me, a different issue from the "attack" which started this discussion, so I decided to block Mindbunny for 72 hours. However, on reflection I have decided that, since the cause of the block was closely related to this discussion, I should not block unilaterally without at least giving others a chance to comment here. In my opinion, considering Mindbunny's past history, that is a moderate time for a block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, full support for the 72 hour block. He is being pointy and disruptive all around and posting deliberate contentious comments about living people - to some people Mugabe is a hero, to others something else but we do not opine those opinions we hold about them on talkpages. This has been pointed out to him by multiple users and yet he continues.Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• After three hours there has been one indication of support and no opposition, so I will go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC):::Without going into more detail, if we misapply WP:BLP to sanction editors for stating their own, clearly recognizable opinion on talk pages, I'll start getting pointy. A statement of ones own opinion is inherently and undeniably self-sourced. Dick Cheney is an immoral asshole who should be hauled before a human rights tribunal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• I realize I'm late to the game here, but I do not support this block as not a word has been said regarding the other POINTy criticisms of other public figures above. These grossly separate set of standards suggest to me that it's not about what she did, but who she is. Kansan (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Addendum: just to clarify, when I used the word "hounding" above, I didn't base this on the creation of this thread alone. I do recognize that Mindbunny should have known better and that she seemed to be deliberately pushing the boundaries; however, the repeated questions from SV and others regarding NoLoop seem to have nothing to do with this current topic (correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the community dealt with that in the past?) Kansan (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "grossly separate set of standards". Mindbunny has been doing this on a far greater scale than any of the others involved, as far as I know. Mindbunny quite clearly did this repeatedly with the deliberate intention of being provocative and disruptive, whereas although other editors made questionable remarks to make a point, they did not, in my view, do so to such an extent as to constitute deliberate disruption. You may, of course, see it differently, but that is my sincere reading of the situation, and the suggestion that I discriminated on the basis of some other, extraneous issues, rather than on the nature of these comments, is unfounded. Also, as I have indicated above, at first I thought this was all a storm in a teacup, with bringing this report on Mindbunny a "gross overeaction", and I did not dwell on somewhat dubious responses from other editors, as I really thought that the best way of dealing with it was to drop it, with a minimum of fuss. It was later that Mindbunny chose to escalate the whole issue, effectively rejecting the possibility of taking such a minimalist approach to the whole issue. As far as I have noticed there have not been any further examples from other editors since. (If I have missed any, please point them out to me.) In addition, you don't say what "POINTy criticisms" you are referring to, but I agree that The Blade of the Northern Lights has made unacceptable remarks, and I will post a talk page message warning about it. If you are referring to Ginsengbomb , then I really don't think that calling someone "ugly" is the same in character as accusing someone of corruption. If you disagree then you are, of course, free to raise the matter. As for the suggestion of bad faith on my part in the form of the suggestion "it's not about what she did, but who she is", I can assure you that I had never even heard of Mindbunny until this issue came up, and I have certainly not been influenced by anything about her not related to this issue, because I don't know anything about her not related to this issue. In fact, I only said "her" in that last sentence because you have done so: otherwise I would have had no idea of Mindbunny's sex. One more point. If I have picked on Mindbunny not because of "what she did", but because of "who she is", then I wonder why at first I tried to dismiss this report, calling it "a gross over-reaction". I wonder why I didn't rub my hands with glee at the opportunity to leap on this person I had such a prejudice against. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Without going into more detail (I'm not familiar with the involved editors), if we misapply WP:BLP to sanction editors for stating their own, clearly recognizable opinion on talk pages, I'll start getting pointy. A statement of ones own opinion is inherently and undeniably self-sourced. Dick Cheney is an immoral asshole who should be hauled before a human rights tribunal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, thank you for your explanation, and I would like to clarify my comments insofar as I am not accusing you of blocking in bad faith (as I am certain you did not do so); I simply have a different reading of the situation. (Also, I only use "her" because I have seen others do so; I am actually not sure of the user's sex.) Also, upon reflection, I do agree that referring to one's physical appearance, while still inappropriate, probably does not come to the same level as one's moral character. To further clarify, I'm not seeking sanctions/blocks on any editors who have made other comments, just to ensure that this is handled in a consistent manner (and so that we, as a community, can clarify some of the policy issues here should they come up again). As an aside, Stephan Schulz's comments about Dick Cheney above are another of the type of comments that seem to have gone without comment from others, though I do agree with Mr. Schulz's assertion that stating one's opinion, while possibly disruptive in some cases, does not seem to violate the literal wording of WP:BLP. (I also read through [[WP:NPA, which, as worded, seems to apply exclusively to editors and not necessarily public figures, although discretion can be used per IAR.) Kansan (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As my own comments have proven, I'm somewhat more in line with Stephan Schulz's and Kansan's thinking, but I suggest we let this die out. This is degenerating really fast, and I'd hate to see someone blocked in a fight over something like this. I, for one, will not make any more comments that could be interpreted as BLP violations (though I don't personally see them as such), and I'd hope now that other people would do the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As a note; Minbunny asserts that what was written was not a BLP violation (which, Mindbunny claims covers defamation only) and that policy allows expression of editors opinion on a living person. This is very incorrect. For the start BLP is intended to discourage exactly those sorts of expressions of opinion as generally non-constructive. It is even explicit on this point: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. In this case it wasn't a major BLP issue, but it was non-constructive and the sort of statement to be avoided. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this block is ill-conceived for two reasons. Firstly, there are plenty of others who have made similar POINTy comments. Secondly, it's really not that important and is unnecessarily drawing attention to her "protest". She has a history of histrionics (admin "abuse", conspiracies against her etc.) This is just feeding a martyr complex. It would be much better to just ignore it and let it blow over. DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here: it's possible that Mindbunny is a woman, but s/he's almost certainly the same person as Noloop, and some of the edits of that account don't suggest there's a woman behind it, such as adding—and restoring when others removed it—a photograph of a dog to Bitch (insult) with the caption: "Its original use as an insult was based on a comparison of a woman to a dog in heat." [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] And a few other edits that have felt similarly problematic. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is often not helpful to react when an irritated editor vents steam occasionally, but I agree with a comment by Hans Adler (talking about a different case) which included "editors of this kind have reached a critical mass where they can no longer be ignored as they are actually trying to run the place and set its norms" (comment now here). We need to convince the people involved in this case that WP:BLP should and does rule out editors expressing negative opinions on living persons in a manner unhelpful for the development of an article. Mindbunny has placed another WP:POINT violation in a heading at the top of User talk:Mindbunny (diff)—Mindbunny needs to understand why that must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 log entry reason

Resolved

 – block reason ammended Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Next time, please just talk this over with the blocking admin before bringing it here. This is an issue of rather minute (Compared to this or this) importance at best. It certainly did not need to take up 17kb on ANI. NW (Talk) 03:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This account or IP address is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 23:35, May 9, 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) changed block settings for Sarah777 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (racism, battleground behaviour and total failure to adhere to the most basic principles of editing in a collaborative environment continuing even during a block.) View full log To any concerned administrator: I am filing this under "incidents" because it involves the placing of a block and the block reason summary given at that time, making it an "incident". I am extending the request of the user, who refers to the formatting of the specific log warning notice recreated above; I felt it should be presented here faithfully. In a single edit to her talk page early this morning, the user questions how the block affects another editor living with her, and also questions the use of the word "racism" in the block log and its appearance on the top of the page. Thryduulf (talk · contribs) responded to the residential issue, but did not mention Sarah's objection to the use of the word "racism". After a long period of thought, all day in fact, I had decided to come to this page to protest that exact thing without actually knowing whether it had been changed. I began by typing this post after seeing the notice wording unchanged and have since beginning the post discovered that the user, Sarah, is objecting strongly to the word as well. Similarly, several posters at the entries above this one (if not yet archived) have objected to the irresponsible and casual use of the word racism. Sarah is not a racist; she objects to the rule of the former British Empire over her country and its legacy. She protests strongly against symbols and arguments from others, conditions which she feels foster continued imposition of the effects of that rule. These are my recollections, you can read in her words her own objection she wrote a few hours ago. It is unacceptable for this notice which defines her personally as practicing "racism" or in other words labels her a "racist" to appear on her talk page edit window and contributions page. Sarah faces an indefinite block, for which she has the offer to argue against in time. She may well do that, however I am calling immediate attention to her objection, a feeling which is shared by several in this community. There is certainly precedent to "unblock" and then "reblock" to revise a block reason; in her case that very thing was done for an earlier episode, on 21:27, January 25, 2008: "Ioeth (talk | contribs) unblocked Sarah777 (talk | contribs) ‎ (tweaking duration and reason)". Please consider this a formal request to each administrator who reads it: will one of you please revise this block reason, perhaps made in haste, but obviously objectionable and reckless in its application of a very powerful social stigma. I don't want to get into a "legal threats" situation, and this is certainly only a request and not a threat, but in some contexts the current warning might be considered libelous. And then, will each of you also take very seriously the use of words in your summaries going forward to avoid the fecklessness that such block reason summaries as this one give acceptance to. It is not appropriate for any individual with administrative powers in any situation to casually color another with this term in a public posting viewable by potentially millions of people. Please revise the warning and contemplate developing collective wisdom to avoid using such summaries in the future. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC) (a) that sounds like a "legal threat" to me; (b) she said that being "British" was "an institution with a history of genocide". Racist sounds about right. DeCausa (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Racist might have the correct sentiment it is the wrong word; her rants are plain hatemongering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ?????? How on earth? "The British race"? or what is the point here? The Irish are a different race from the British? what are they? Green? Purple? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC) There is no such thing as a "British race." pablo 08:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Red herring. In most anti-racist legislation (incitement to racial hatred laws etc - mainly in Europe), no distinction is made between "race" (a word which of course has no universally recognized meaning), ethnicity and national origin. To describe an entire nationality as an "institution" with the genocidal tag is racist. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) No, it's not. That statement is not racist. See Racism. --HighKing (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Maybe a red herring, although there was no intention to distract. pablo 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Take your pick from the many diffs presented in the threads about her for examples of hate speech. Whether the target of the hate is a "race" or not seems to be splitting hairs unnecessarily. Regarding whether British is a race or not - on many forms where I am asked for my ethnic background the first two options are "White British" and "White Irish". This suggests that at least the British government regard "British" as being a separate ethnicity to "Irish". Were someone to preach violence against people of another ethnicity (I'm not saying Sarah has done this) they would rightly be labelled as a racist; as would those who practised discrimination against the Irish. I do not see justification for rescinding the word "racism" from the block log. Also do note that the phrase you quote about a history of genocide was not the reason for her block (she was already blocked when she made this statement), it is thus irrelevant to determine whether the reason given for the block was correct or not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC) bullshit. I suggest then that "Socialist Nazi antichist witch" be added. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Thryduulf, your response is self-conscious, as was the block summary reason. It works too hard to justify itself. Objections to revising the summary are weak and splitting hairs on a different level. My objection is to the casual application of the term in a highly public way. The word is too powerful and accusatory to use in this way and should be avoided with prejudice in any circumstance, and specifically here it should now be removed in light of the many objections to its use and the use of the term "hate speech" above. Each admin who reads this has a chance to revise the block log summary. As long as it continues to be displayed using the words shown above, the project suffers. You wrote "I'm not saying Sarah has done this" in parentheses, yet won't act to remove something that instantly groups her with advocates of violence and institutional discrimination. If you are "not saying" it, don't. You and other British editors are in effect playing the race card, should you really be doing that given the objections? If you are sincere about disliking racism, protect victims who truly suffer from it and do not play casually with the application of the term. If there is any question about its use, don't use it. See The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Sswonk (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I mulled over reblocking with the word removed, and I may do so. But I do think the word racism was not reckless, but a good faith characterisation of her actions. Firstly because some of the hateful comments used by Sarah do appear to be racist, or at least extremely hateful towards the British. There is no reason to allow such things on this project. Secondly; Sarah is objecting to the characterisation of her words/actions as racist - I'd strongly encourage her a moment of self-reflection on the sorts of things she has said of editors here over the last few days, and consider whether editors subject to her disdain might perhaps have felt the same as she does now... Having read through the entire original AN/I and associated information, Sarah has an extremely hateful attitude towards the British - instead of expressing her very valid point about that flag in an objective and polite way she seems to have used it as a soapbox to heap abuse on our British editors. The argument being made is that "British" is not a race; fair enough, but largely irrelevant and akin to Wiki-Lawering. However, in the interests of de-escalating I am willing to re-block, removing the word "racism" and replacing it with "hate speech". That is a more PC description of the reason for her block --Errant (chat!) 10:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Just remove it. Whatever you change it to will be unacceptable to Sswonk for whatever reason, and will just invite more grandstanding. Sarah can have a full and unconditional apology for this 'racist' slur for all I care (you never know, it may spur all the people not-so-subtly suggesting HJMitchell is a member of the EDL/BNP to do likewise). Anything to bring the focus of the community back onto the fact she's not said a single thing on the other 23 words in the block rationale, and continues to use her talk page to air her general political grievances and grief other editors, rather than show she Gets It. MickMacNee (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Good man Mick! Keep the pressure on on Sarah to grovel and apologize! Nice one. While giving a back-handed reason to correct a thoroughly wrong block reason. I know you're a stickler for correct procedures and definitions as evidenced by your verbosity gracing these pages on so many occasions, so I'm surprised you've not spotted the *error* and stuck to your principals. So much better to get the digs in, eh? Shame. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I've no problem with her feeling pressurised to acknowledge and apologise for her wrong doings, as outlined in the 23 other words of her block reason, and our procedures and principles. Whether the other word is strictly correct or justified, well, shock horror, it's hard to have real sympathy after all these years when she's hardly let accuracy or truth get in her way before. So she's not a racist. Fine. Remove it. I honestly don't care, because it's a side show. And the "grovel" stuff - that's all your spin tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC) WP has become a political institution to satart legislating now?Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC) According to Racism#Legal, racial discrimination can apply to nationality as well as ethnic origin. —BETTIA— talk 13:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Great Britain is an Island, composed of the countries Wales, england and Scotland. United Kingdom is a union of these countries and Northern Ireland. "British" does not actually refer to nationality or ethnicity or race. But in any case she was clearly not talking about people from the Island of Great Britain (she talked about an institution) and hence it is no more racist than saying the the US government sucks. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Excellent summary. For those that need examples: the definition of racism is to imply a certain set of traits or capacities *due* or as a result of their race/ethnicity/etc. For example, saying that Irish people are drunkards or alcoholics. That's racist. Saying Americans are dumb. That's racist. Calling French people surrender monkeys. That's racist. But what Sarah said is not racist. --HighKing (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I agree that calling Sarah777 racist from the statement about Britain is incorrect. That is not a racist statement in any way shape or form. And I have a very wide and inclusionist definition of racist. She is clearly referring to Britain, the government/institution, and it's history of oppressing ethnicities. This is a correct statement, and does not refer to people in any way. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC That is exactly where you are wrong. Firstly, a citizen of the United Kingdom is termed "British". It's the official legal nationality and it's on the passport. Have a look at British nationality law. Secondly, she was clearly not talking about the government. She said that being "British" was a genocidal institution. She was clearly talking about the British people, which means, just to repeat, 60million citizens of the UK. That is a racist slur.DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) No. That's exactly where you're wrong. British is *not* a race, it's a nationality and a description of citizenship. They are not the same things. Secondly, have you looked at what Sarah said? "British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide, not least in Ireland" So how can she be talking about "British people" when she explicitly states that she's referring to the British institution which means the official offices of British rule? As much as we'd all like to punish anti-British vitriol, let's try to be accurate and stop unnecessary emotional inflation of the issue. --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I never said it was a "race". I said it was a nationality. I was responding to OpenFuture who thought it wasn't a nationality. So what point are you trying to make? Also, she doesn't say she's referring to the "British institution" which you morph her statement into and which you then helpfully add your own definition: "the official offices of British rule". Where's that come from?! You've just pulled all of that out of the air. No, she said: British is an institution, and not only that, but that it is an institution with a "history of genocide". That can only mean that British people have a history of genocide. So, no that is exactly where you've got it badly wrong. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Now you're just obfuscating and this is getting silly. You originally attributed Sarah with saying that being "British" was "an institution with a history of genocide" (my emphasis). It's not reasonable to reach that meaning given the quote. My interpretation above is a reasonable interpretation, give common usage and definition of the term institution defined as any structure or mechanism of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals within a given human community. As it turns out, common sense has prevailed and the racism remark has been removed, case closed. --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC) It is silly and the case is now closed. I have no idea why you posted your mesage of 15:38. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Problem solved: [134]. --Jayron32 13:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I made a bit of a mess out of this, as I didn't get an edit conflict when I revised the wording myself 2 minutes after Jayron. It might look like I'm saying the language of Jayron's rationale was inaccurate, but that isn't the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Sarah777 ain't a racist, she's anglophobic. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD topic ban of MoonLichen

MoonLichen (talk · contribs) This user has some odd activity at AFD, basically adding nonsense or "joke" !votes to AFD's. Examples:

• "If Sunday brunch is gay, I don't want to be straight" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Sunday Brunch
• "I've seen C-beams glitter in the dark near there" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Haur (2nd nomination)
• "To honor the Republic of Macedonia" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boosterthon Fun Run

This is all very odd. User has been asked a couple of times to use better rationales. I left them a note last night, but they carried on (this morning with the Macedonia summary) without responding at all. In fact they don't seem to have responded to concerns at all.

Propose a topic ban to read:

• MoonLichen is topic banned indefinitely from all deletion related pages until such a time as they can adequately demonstrate understanding of the deletion process and guidelines.

Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 08:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Moonlichen is some kind of troll account for the most part, i noted it when first created.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A review of their contributions indicate a) a familiarity with high-level WP policy b) that this is probably not their first account. This is not an editor who does not know what they are doing. The AfD carry-on is not terribly disruptive, but it is of no value to the process and adds only noise; if they keep it up, issue a block warning and take it from there. Topic-banning is a little heavy-handed at this point I think. Skomorokh 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• A single-line comment that disagrees with your sensibilities does not make someone a troll. There are far more policies against being a mean to other editors than against being a little goofy now and then. Lighten up. --MoonLichen (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You've done this multiple times and it has proven disruptive to others with no benefit to the project. If you want to keep playing silly buggers, go ahead, but don't complain you weren't warned if you end up blocked. Skomorokh 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think the topic ban is in order. A quick run through their history show no useful contribution to that process, and a lot of mild disruption by annoying everyone else without being responsive to concerns. — Coren ^(talk) 14:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhat on the fence. Some mild goofiness is fine, and the user has made some useful copy edits, for instance. A series of edits a few months ago made me think that this was a vandalism-only account, but it's not. On the other hand, I am an elephant and have not forgotten this edit and the associated mess, where the user had to be admonished by an administrator to a. keep their goofiness within bounds of our policies and b. to at least try and act like an adult. That rudeness is a hallmark of trolling as well and does not indicate a desire for cooperative editing. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions. We're not topic banning humor accounts from AfD are we [135]? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's not really occasional humour though - but persistent and slightly annoying "keep" comments which are not useful. Topic Ban was intended as a lightweight way of pointing out that the joke is wearing thin :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  You realize, of course, that the AfD to which you link is an April Fool's, right? — Coren ^(talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Except that it's not and I'm confusing it with someone else. It was ridiculous, but not for that reason. — Coren ^(talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support I can't see how this is helping the process --Guerillero | My Talk 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Don't forget to spank him for colorful violation of WP:TALK!! Make his ass cheeks on red and one blue! Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• The admin getting the prize for taking MoonLichen seriously is... drum roll... (did you guess?) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Huh? No, I didn't guess, and it has nothing to do with this. Sandstein comments, as closing administrator, that MoonLichen's arguments don't make sense. How is that taking them seriously? And why the silly little drum roll? If you have a bone to pick with Sandstein, bring it up at another lame attempt at humor. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support a AFD topic ban but I think its not really needed anymore as if he does it again he will clearly be blocked and has been warned of that. I still remember the user redirecting his talkpage to a sexual expletive, he had to be warned he would be blocked before he stopped reverting to that position and one of his AFD comments is even in a foreign language (Swedish). Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions. My goodness. Really? Take a good long look in the mirror. Giving ourselves just a tad too much importance? Project needs a lighter side. Most funny people overdo it in time, feel silly, turn it down a notch, then resume. So they used profanity. Oh well. I propose that editors voting "support" here go find a real issue on the project, there are people on here with chainsaws (socks, real uncivility, agendas, POV pushers, etc). Ridiculous.Turqoise127 22:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I take offence at that! You can find me being silly or cracking jokes in the appropriate places! :) MoonLichen is simply ignoring polite requests to scale it back.. that's concerning. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom and Off2.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Since I first saw this account a couple months ago, I've been hearing quite a few quacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Get a life. —SW— ^confer 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think sanctions are the best approach. I've also queried this editor, several times, and received no response - other than moving my posts to their odd sub-talk-page and calling my edits 'vandalism'. I'd suggest a strong warning for tendentious editing, and if that fails, a block. If they're not prepared to discuss things, it's detrimental to the project - and their contribs to AfD in particular are more disruptive than they are amusing.  Chzz  ►  10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• I see no need for a ban - just warn for disruption and block if it continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User Geo Swan continues violation of BLP

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 14:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Geo Swan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After his recent RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan he still violates BLP and bases articles on primary sources against community consensus and BLP.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports And he keeps reverting one edit another one with a false explanation that he want to discuss the copyright status of the image while reverting a bunch of other edits including some that violate BLP. Please help. IQinn (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, the image dispute is just a small part of Geo's obsession with cataloging and wikifying every Guantanamo detainee. It was bad enough when MfD had to scour his userspace for this languishing junk, but now IMO Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp needs a thorough review. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest Iqinn has slipped into forum shopping here. I already initiated a discussion over the use of this image, at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 11#File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png. So, my edit was not an attempt to avoid scrutiny, as Iqinn implies. I already know Iqinn objects to the use of the image in question. I'd like the opinion of uninvolved third parties. And, if I am not mistaken, the {{puf}} is an appropriate forum for that. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As said that here is not about the image and the whole thing was never about the copyright status of the image it was about the value of the image for the article and about Geo Swan secretly reverting other changes that violate BLP in the same edit. There was a discussion on the talk page about the value of the image where he fails to provide compelling arguments or sources for inclusion. He does not need to revert the image 3 times into the article to get another opinion on copyright was not in question and if he would like to discuss the copyright status than anyway keep the image of the article until that has been discussed not edit war the image into the article. But that is and was never the topic here - edit warring, BLP and continues disruptive editing is.

He did not only re-add the image 3 times while a discussion was ongoing on the talk page what would be bad enough. He reverted several other edits under the cover of this. E.G. re-adding these primary sources two times one two. against community consensus and RFC/U and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports

@Tarc - how can this section ever been cleaned up when Geo Swan keeps aggressively reverting any attempt to clean it up under false explanations and he disagrees to be mentored? I am here so administrator stop him edit warring and stop him repeatedly reverting all changes of the article including some that violate BLP. I also want him to agree to be mentored as the RFC/U Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan suggested. At least he need to be mentored in BLP articles where he once again violated BLP. Enforcement is needed. IQinn (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, just noting that this image brouhaha is the proverbial tip of a very large iceberg. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing here. Not ripe for this page. The already-opened discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 11#File:Andrew purvis's sidebar -- 'The Suspects- A Bosnian subplot.png should be pursued by the parties there, and discussion there completed.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well Eppefleche, i think you are a known supporter of Geo Swan and people might should not take your words to serious. The forum you point to is irrelevant and as i laid out that is not about the image it is about Geo Swan edit warring and violating BLP. It seems to be the case that other people understood the problem quicker and enforced the removal [136], [137] [138] of the problematic content that he had re-introduced two time into the article under the false claim he would like to discuss the copyright status of the image. Geo Swan should agree to be mentored as the RFC/U suggested unfortunetly he refuses to do so and continues disruptive editing in BLP's articles what makes the fixing of this section almost impossible. IQinn (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:93.97.194.200

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please review the talk page of this editor who refuses to sign talk-page comments and will not communicate about his or her behavior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I see the only real issue relating to this editor is their disdain for signing their talkpage posts, their comments and other edits being otherwise apparently aimed at improving the project. If their intent were not so in keeping with the aims of the encyclopedia I would have placed an indefinite block - to be lifted upon their undertaking to sign their comments (and address any other issues) - on the account. In this instance I think it would be best to warn them that such "impoliteness" will no longer be tolerated and that they will start receiving increasing but short term blocks if they do not change their habit. I would also give them notice that they can set their preferences to remind them to sign talk page edits. How do others see this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore - if their only problem is not signing posts, then leave them alone. So far as I know, failure to sign doesn't break a rule, and if we were all that keen on mandating it, then we'd just force the software to do it for us (as in some other wikis). In fact, we should probably apologize for pestering them in the first place. Rklawton (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Right, I'm taking the user talk page off my watch list, then. I certainly hope that their unwillingness to fulfill a small courtesy like signing one's posts and the refusal to discuss it when brought to their attention doesn't indicate a generally uncollegial and uncollaborative attitude. Guess we'll find out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, sometimes that's all one can do, BMK. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Drmies: If by "Take it easy" you mean "Don't get your buns in an uproar", I'm not. I've literally done what I said I would do, and I'm not dwelling on any potential future problems -- in other words, I'm cool. If, however, you were just using is as a pleasantry ("Have a nice day"), then... thanks, you too!| Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• The latter is exactly my meaning. I don't know about you, but it's cocktail time here and I'm sipping on a margarita. But note, I wasn't *just* using it as a pleasantry--it's a real important issue, as far as I'm concerned. Later! ;) Drmies (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Any time can be cocktail time! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu comes to mind. If an editor persists in ignoring community norms, refusing to adhere to a widely-expected mode/form of communication, then sanctions are not outside the realm of possibility. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree w/Tarc here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's what the closing admin had to say in re Docu:

There was indeed support for a block, had Docu not heeded this RfC. However, Docu did heed the input and either way, most admins would be so wary of blocking over a guideline unless there was a policy breach to go along with it.

What I take from this is that if there's no policy violation, then there's no block. Besides, Docu was an admin who should be well versed in our standards. In this case, we're dealing with an IP. Blocking an IP, even one who has been advised about our arcane practices, squarely crosses the WP:BITE line. If we're going to get all upset over something so trivial, then just submit a programming request that automatically signs ever talk page contribution so we don't have to waste our time as well as risk alienating new editors. Rklawton (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is worth a shot? (If not, just revert me)  Chzz  ►  02:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag Team editing by CJCurrie, Bearcat and DigitalC

A la edits on Talk:Thomas Mulcair (see the section: Headline for the recent controversy) and Libby Davies, there seems to be a case of tag-team editing by CJCurrie, Bearcat and DigitalC where all three of the users adopt the same position of removing (unjustifiably I might add) sections that document the controversial statements made by the two Canadian politicians (Thomas Mulcair and Libby Davies). Moreover, here is a post by CJCurrie on Bearcat's userpage requesting Bearcat for his opinion on the Thomas Mulcair dispute. Can any of the administrators here take a look at this and see whether their actions qualify as Tag team editing?Sleetman (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make this very clear: nobody removed "sections that document the controversial statements" — in both cases, the statements are still discussed in the article, and the only point of disagreement in this discussion involved whether the statements needed to be set apart as separate subsections in their own right, or simply discussed in an existing subsection without their own special "This person said something stupid!!!!! Fear the scary socialist!!!!!" headline. Kindly stop misrepresenting the situation.

And I would also advise you to keep in mind that CJCurrie, DigitalC and I are all established editors who have been around here for years, and are quite familiar with Wikipedia policy — whereas you've been around here for barely six weeks and have already accumulated more than one accusation of biased and/or misleading edits. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ma'am, you are removing the section that documents the controversial statements (Do note that this different from removing the paragraph that documents the controversial statements). I don't where I've misrepresented the situation, and I don't know what fearing the scary socialist (Are Mulcair or Davies even socialists? Perhaps you meant social democrats?) and them saying anything stupid has to do with anything...As for the accusation of bias or misleading edits, feel free to point out where I've made those transgressions. As for you, CJCurrie and DigitalC being "familiar" with Wikipedia policy, well it certainly doesn't show on the Thomas Mulcair or Libby Davies talk page. Sleetman (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing a headline, while leaving every last syllable of the actual content in the article under an existing different headline, does not constitute removing content or violating policy. And between CJCurrie, DigitalC and I, not a single one of us has "violated" or failed to follow Wikipedia policy in any way whatsoever. Simply disagreeing with your own opinion does not constitute a policy violation — and describing them as "socialist" in the above quote was not meant to suggest that that's what they are (I know perfectly well that they're not); it was meant to imply that that's the way you're trying to skew the article to portray them. I do hope you realize there's a difference there. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Miss, I JUST MADE THAT DISTINCTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT I'm not accusing you of removing content, I'm accusing you of removing the section (by changing the formatting of the headline) which the three of you are doing. As for calling them socialists I didn't call them socialists and I don't even think of them as socialists, I think of the two politicians as social democrats (which they are) and there's a huge difference between socialists and social democrats, so please stop putting words into my mouth.Sleetman (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Where you're tripping up is in failing to give a coherent explanation, apart from the "it's true because I say it is" fallacy, as to how removing a headline, while leaving the content in the article under a different headline, constitutes "bias" or "violating policy". Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• This appears to be bleedover from an editing dispute; the editors in question appear to be working to ensure that undue weight is not given to certain aspects of the articles in question, where the reporting editor feels that there should be more weight given to those aspects. I don't see tag-teaming, rather an issue of consensus being generally against the reporting editor. A third opinion or RFC might be more appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I welcome any oversight and opinions on this matter. DigitalC (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Tony Fox that this is a content dispute that's gotten heated. Recommend dispute resolution before someone gets sent to time-out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Without any consideration to the content itself, it does appear that Bearcat participated in an edit war at Libby Davies prior to protecting it in their preferred version. There should at least be an extra trout around here somewhere for that. --Onorem♠Dil 21:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of protecting my "preferred" version; Sleetman was simply reverting without explanation anytime anybody changed so much as a comma from his preferred version, his only argument being "your version is biased because I say it is", with no explanation of how that was the case — and all in defiance of the fact that there was already a pretty clear consensus, agreed with by every single established editor who'd bothered to weigh in at all, for not giving the section its own separate headline. In a nutshell, Sleetman's behaviour crossed the line from legitimate editing dispute into clear disruption (possibly even skirting the edge of outright vandalism.) It's not about my preferences at all, as I actually think the article needs work because Davies is too prominent a figure to have such a short stub on here — but Sleetman's contributions weren't constructive at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be an involved content editor on that article. Let another admin take care of the admin stuff there. --Onorem♠Dil 22:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wish I will unprotect and reprotect under my own auspices. This is a case of a new editor trying the familiar tactic of discussing whilst at the same time reverting to their preferred version over and over. That's clear edit-warring and the lesson needs to be learned early, either move things forward when you edit the article, or stay on the talk page until you get consensus. Franamax (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not asking for stupid process for the sake of process...but when an admin has been involved both on the talk page and on the article with opinions on content, they shouldn't use the buttons. I was pretty much just bringing it up as an aside, but that the issue isn't at least acknowledged once brought up bothers me more than the initial protection did. --Onorem♠Dil 02:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I wasn't just trying to wonk out on process for process' sake, I wsa primarily endorsing the protection. If it was a dispute about whether or not a certain type of cheese is made in a certain place, or whether '69 Mustangs ever came from the factory painted pearl-grey, yes, there could be a problem. This is a BLP article, so there is discretion allowed when considering the immediate situation. Mirror-bots and mother Google can crawl at any time, it's not worth the risk to allow potentially prejudicial content to stay, consensus was clearly not favouring the reverting editor, and they were clearly pursuing a tactic. The call was right IMO. Franamax (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Offering to undo an action just to redo it is wonking out on process for process sake. It may have been an unneeded extra heading that brought undue attention to a portion of the article, but it didn't introduce an actual change to the information. "Mirror-bots and mother google" have nothing to do with it. Oh well...forget I mentioned it. --Onorem♠Dil 03:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way then: if the same disruption recurs after the current protection (and block) expire, I intend to act to prevent the disruption. I won't forget you mentioned it, because I think you have a valid concern and I would encourage you to raise it anytime you have questions. In this case, I think we got the right outcome and IAR doesn't even need to be invoked. It was a discretionary BLP call. Whether you agree or not with having a separate sub-heading (something we generally avoid in BLPs when "controversy"s can be worked into a proper recounting), is a matter for the article talk page, and I think you are getting at a general point rather than the specifics. And speaking only for myself, I do think about mirrors and search engines when it comes to BLPs, I have at least once tried to deal with real people on that issue. It's not fun to explain why they have to be patient and wait for Google to reindex. Franamax (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If the admin involved wanted to claim BLP, they should have mentioned BLP at some point, and they should have explained their concerns to the other editor directly. Instead, the only communication were edit summaries. 'this does not need its own separate headline' on one side and 'Undid revision 'x' by Bearcat' on the other. After 3 reverts, the page was locked by someone directly involved. 'Remarks on Israel' as a section header isn't going to destroy someone on a Google search. The remarks are still there. It was a common edit war without any explanation up until the admin decided to protect the article that they had traded 3 reverts on. --Onorem♠Dil 05:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Threat of editblocking by User:Bearcat

Resolved

 – User:Sleetman blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. 28bytes (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bearcat (who is a Wikipedian Administrator) has threatened to editblock me here because I called him "ma'am. Although no explanation is given as to why he takes offense when I call him ma'am, I suspect that the user is trying to find an convenient excuse to resolve the two disputes through censorship in which the user and I are currently engaged. As the user seems to be pretty serious in following through on his threat of editblocking, I ask that other administrators have a look into this issue.Sleetman (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This should be a quick boomerang, no? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Sleetman, when someone asks you not to call them something, don't. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that a block is in order. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Appears that Tnxman307 just blocked for 31 hours. 28bytes (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bearcat should not make the block. An uninvolved admin should.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Where on earth do you get the idea that it's even remotely acceptable to call a man "ma'am" or "miss", or a woman "sir" or "mister", in the first place? You might want to read WP:CIVIL if you think you were in the right and I was in the wrong on this one — you do not have a right to call people dismissive or inappropriate names on here. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Bearcat shouldn't do that per WP:INVOLVED but now that you've posted this here and continued calling Bearcat a female (which judging from his userboxes he will probably find extraordinarily offensive) it's quite likely someone else will. See WP:BOOMERANG. N419BH 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

He posted an unblock fairly instantly, it doesn't quite feel genuine to me (and misses the point of the block a little).. so I declined it with advise to pause and think before trying again. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not for a second believe a word he has said in his unblock requests and would advise against unblocking. NW (Talk) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you've made him eat his humble pie. He's admitted that his actions were unacceptable, and promises not to do them again. What more do you want? Buddy431 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, want them to quietly finish their 31 hour timeout. — Satori Son 02:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Stalking by user Rlandmann

I have been experiencing a problem with Rlandmann, who has been following me onto every article I edit, and systmatically deleting or altering the content (examples ZMC-2, Naval Air Station Grosse Ile, Stealth helicopter, Martin AM Mauler, Grumman AF Guardian, McDonnell FH Phantom). At first he tried to say he was an experienced Wikipedi user who just wanted to help, but recently his comments on my User talk:Ken keisel page have become increasingly abusive, and he has started vandalizing articles I have edited (Yankee Air Museum). He has stated that no one can ever add any information to a Wikipedia article without a reference, which was not supported by the Wikipedia page he referred me to, or the activities of other editors he has ignored on the same articles. In addition, he has been systamatically deleting additions I have nade to articles, even thought the information is factual, non-controversial, and expands upon information already present. He has also taken it upon himself to make disruptive edits to articles that are outside his area of interest for the sake of his "rules". I use for example his edit war on the Yankee Air Museum page. I am a member of this organization, and can attest to the accuracy of the addition. Rlandmann is not a mamber, has no connection with the organization, and has no reason to believe the information is incorrect. I have advised user Rlandmann that his behaviour constitutes internet stalking, and that any further postings to my User talk:Ken keisel page, or continued alterations of my edits on Wikipedia, will result in a police report being filed against him for internet stalking. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:No legal threats, as well as WP:Wikihounding, and consider if you'd like to rephrase that a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, other editors checking here should review #User:Ken keisel adding unsourced material as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This filing is an inverse of, and relates to, the section above at #User:Ken_keisel_adding_unsourced_material, where this user making legal threats has already been noted and action requested by me. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also please note that the user filing this complaint failed to notify the admin that he was making the complaint against. I have informed him that this conversation exists. - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This situation is extremely unfortunate. It's clear that Ken Keisel is very knowledgeable about the topic which he contributes to, but somehow nobody seems to be able to get through to him about the importance of reliable sources. If we could just somehow convince Ken Keisel to add the sources when he adds the information this would be over with. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Every contribution I have made thus far has been referenced, with the exception of a paragraph added to the Yankee Air Museum article. What is being argued is the validity of my contributions when I have failed to add the page #, and that paragraph added to the museum article, which only lists the location of their aircraft while their museum is being rebuilt. That information is both non-controversial and non-threatening, but has become the object of a huge fuss by a small number of users. I am arguing against Rlandmann persistantly following my every movement of Wikipedia, even onto articles outside his area of interest, and altering or deleting their content. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken, you haven't withdrawn your legal threat above in your posting here. As per WP:NLT we can't deal with anything else until you have withdrawn that. That pages says "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding." - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What suggestion do you have for dealing with an editor whose behaviour fulfills the legal requirements for "online stalking"? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is all outlined in WP:NLT, but until you withdraw that threat this conversation cannot continue and you will probably be blocked until it is resolved. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken, your claim that all your contributions are referenced are clearly false. Most of your edits claiming to add citations in fact only adds the "citation needed" tag. You need to find actual references. Otherwise we don't know if you are just making it up or not. For other users to undo your edits when they don't have references is *not* stalking. You need to withdraw your threat and apologize, and then start adding references when you add information in the future. If you do this I assure you that Rlandmann will either leave you alone, or in turn get blocked. Harrasment and stalking is not allowed on Wikipedia either. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As Ken keisel (talk · contribs) has refused to withdraw the legal threat despite repeated notices both here and on his talk page regarding WP:NLT, I've blocked the account. Should other admins disagree with this action, there's no need to check with me before unblocking; although it is my belief that the user should need to either withdraw the threat, or discontinue their article editing while they pursue external legal avenues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Page move during requested move discussion

At 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Dbpjmuf initiated a requested move discussion of the page Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) to Ernst August Prinz von Hannover. That discussion continues. Dbpjmuf then moved the page unilaterally to Ernst August Prince of Hanover (born 1954). This is a name the page has NEVER had before - although it was at Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954) (i.e. with a comma). I reverted this move to the page name at the beginning of the requested move discussion, but now Dbpjmuf has moved the page again unilaterally to Ernst August Prinz von Hanover (1954-). Could an administrator please explain to Dbpjmuf that this isn't the way things are meant to work. I'm sure that he has his reasons for moving a page during a requested move discussion, but .... Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved the page from "Prin eErnst August, Prince of Hanover (1954-)", a title unilaterally intorduced by DWC LR. The pre-dispute title was"Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954)"" Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)" was a new title you unilaterally introduced during the dispute.Dbpjmuf (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, why is the DOB in the article's title? I'm not sure that's the way things are supposed to work either. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The date is meant to disambiguate this Ernst August from his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and son, all who have (or had) the same name and title. --NellieBly (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah...looking at Ernst August, I see what you mean. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to move it to the title in the RM (Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)) but clearly I messed up and accidently hit enter on my keyboard. I asked at WP:RM for someone to move it to Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) as otherwise it will confuse the ongoing RM. I will ask again. - dwc lr (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Related to this, I've also had an issue lately where Dbpjmuf has been redirecting the trademark Honey Baked Ham away from HoneyBaked Ham to Ham with a hatnote, even though it has been discussed that branding of a product takes preference from the generic product. I'd like clarification on this. Nate • (chatter) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

University project

Bit of an odd one this (and I'm not sure exactly how accurate that heading is) but it's been revealed via IRC that Washington College has a computing module - or similar - aimed around creating "false" articles:

Hello, today I put up an article. I agree that it has no indication of notability. I had to put up a Wikipedia page as part of a college class. [...]

I guess I am looking to ask that deletion of the aforementioned article be held off for a day or two so that I can get my grade. I apologize for the clutter, really

Some of the people in my class put up some extremely biased and poorly written articles

They also gave us a bit of info on articles created as part of this "project" (note this isn't all of them, most likely):

Article	Editor
The Decline Effect (book)	ZBWeidner (talk · contribs)
Chupacabras (Legend and Failures)	AEldreth (talk · contribs)
Caffeinated alcoholic drinks	Lnwieser (talk · contribs)
Africa (Western Influence)	Rlandale (talk · contribs)
Amphetamines and Friendly Fire Incidents	Camcc422 (talk · contribs)
Barbaro's Recovery Mistakes	Mmccaslin2 (talk · contribs)
Cane Toads (Effects on Australia)	Kkreft2 (talk · contribs)
Holocaust education	Ashuckhart (talk · contribs)
Video Game Addiction (Research)	Sbitzelberger (talk · contribs)
The Battle of Masada	Ms. Debonis7117 (talk · contribs)
Userpage	EMCAULIFFE1 (talk · contribs)
2010 World Cup Controversies	Mgutkind (talk · contribs)

Now, they said their professor completely ignored our guidelines for this and that their articles had to stay up in order for them to attain a grade. Bit of a pickle; any help/opinions welcomed.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  23:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They also estimated the college uses the IP range 192.146.226.* (or 192.145.226.*).  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  23:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I left a note for Annie Lin - the wikimedia campus team coordinator - about this on her talkpage. Kevin (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't think Washington College is working with the ambassador program at the moment (although I may be mistaken). The best course of action is for someone to directly contact the professor and explain why this is disruptive and unacceptable, and why they should be creating higher-quality articles, instead—or let these be deleted and a low grade be given. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The student did point him at WP:School and university projects. He ignored it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I figured they weren't, it just struck me that an outreach attempt by the campus people might be desirable. Kevin (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Verified, Washington College is NOT a participant in the Ambassador or Public Policy programs. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way we can contact the college or something, and let them know that this is not acceptable on Wikipedia? I'd hate to see these students get a low grade for something which seems to be not their fault - how about userification as a temporary measure at least until this can be resolved a different way? [stwalkerster|talk] 00:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's just redirect these to the non-fork articles. This a) will allow the prof to see their article versions by looking in the histories b) make it easy to move any useable content over to the non-forks c) preserve what are to some extent reasonable search terms. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't help the students at the moment who are probably still developing the articles for their grades. You'd also need to ensure the prof knows how suppress a redirect and look at article histories - given he ignored a student who pointed him at WP:SUP, I get the feeling the prof will ignore a student who tries to explain this too. [stwalkerster|talk] 01:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My solution optimizes things with us while giving the professor a method of looking at them if he isn't completely incompetent. Since my other temptation in this context is to mark all of them for speedy deletion under A10, redirection seems to be positively nice. Our primary concern should be the health of the project, then the students (who got stuck with this) and very last the professor who refuses to be cooperative. CSD A10 works pretty nicely for optimizing goal 1, isn't bad for the students (since they all then get the same treatment) and only makes things bad for the professor, who I'm not sympathetic to. Given that, redirection is going out of our way to be nice to someone we don't need to be nice too. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone got the professor's name? Prodego ^talk 02:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked him, but he timed out of IRC before I got an answer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned on the IRC, but I'll go through the users and see if any of them mention the professor on the user or talk pages. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, nothing on the user's pages. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to advocate this, but since it seems that the purpose of this project is to make POV forks, why not block all users involved with a message for their professor and deleting every article created? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Block the users until the expiry of the semester, range block the University's IPs until the expiry of the semester, get Wikimedia to put a formal ethics complaint against the staff member. A member of academic staff is deliberately sabotaging the project as part of his core teaching responsibilities. This is a significant breech of scholarly codes of conduct, and an example of an off-wiki collusion to attack the project. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. The aim of these users is not to better Wikipedia, and looking through their edits and contributions I'd have to say that they're disrupting Wikipedia more than helping, which makes it worse that it's a class project lead by a professor. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the user, the prof is a Mike Davenport, and according to my source he's the sailing coach. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yea, except a few of the articles on the above list are clearly pretty good. Take Caffeinated alcoholic drinks for example. It's by no means a perfect article, but its not a bad stab at one, for a newb. No, I suspect we have a situation where a professor gave instructions that students were given different instructions than we are led to believe. Students were probably told that they had to create a proper Wikipedia article, one which met all Wikipedia guidelines. Some of them probably created some shitty articles, and then saw them deleted, and freaked out. Rather than learning Wikipedia's policies on proper articles, they're now trying a little "social engineering" to get us to leave their shitty articles around long enough to get their grades. I know we haven't heard from the professor yet, but I am likely to find suspicious any student who "needs you to do my a little favor so I don't fail my class". As a teacher myself, I recognize this as a plea from a procrastinating student who didn't do the assignment right rather than a professor who sets an arbitrary and unreasonable standard for a passing grade in their class. Just saying. The best thing to do is to treat all of these articles as we would treat any articles: Delete the ones that need to be deleted, let the good ones stay. I agree that contacting the professor is imperative, but seriously, lets not treat this, from an article standpoint, as any different from any other articles. (post EC response to Fifelfoo): Do you have evidence that the proffessor is deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia, or are we going on the word of one of his students here? --Jayron32 03:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• DUCK. He's set undergraduates out in a live environment in such state, and he bears a responsibility. Much as if he used teaching to get students to do qual interviews for him, and didn't have a Human Ethics clearance. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I figured as much: tomorrow is the last day of final exam week at Washington College.[139] Can anyone say "last-minute-panicked undergrads"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mike Davenport's page on the University site: [140]. It's probably just a case of students misunderstanding instructions. bW 03:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not email him. One person should do that, and only if we decide we should be contacting him. At this point, I'd say a couple of those articles are decent - let's just treat them as we would any other article. And by that I mean don't be particularly strict, but no free pass here either. Prodego ^talk 03:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree entirely about contracting the real world individual. Let Wikimedia handle anything like that. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No worries, I am not contacting him. I just posted that because someone said he's the sailing coach, he isn't. He's a Business Management Lecturer who also coaches rowing. bW 03:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree(ec) - speaking as a former professor, I agree entirely with talk:Jayron32. We don't make special accommodations, though I'm sure many of us would be willing to provide extra help where we can. And yes, procrastinating students abound. Note also this week and last marks final exam season and the end of semester at many universities. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If the professor told students that "their articles had to stay up in order for them to attain a grade", I'd suggest that regardless of what else happens, we suggest that the students involved report the professor for negligent/irrational behaviour. Given the way Wikipedia operates, to use such criteria to assess students' work is a dereliction of duty - it isn't up to us to do his work for him, and nor are we qualified to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. Judging by the age of some of these articles, these students had ample time to RTFM. The professor didn't just drop this assignment on them yesterday; if they needed to create compliant articles, that actually isn't that hard to do as long as they put in a few hours getting to know the rules for compliant articles. I see nothing wrong with a professor saying "Part of your grade this semester is to eventually create a Wikipedia article. I will be grading the quality of your work at Wikipedia" We have lots of school projects that do just that. Until I am shown otherwise, I still don't see how this is not just lazy students who put this off until the very end of the semester and are panicking because they are finding the assignment harder than they thought it would be. --Jayron32 03:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

With articles outside of his scope of scholarly competence; with most articles displaying SYNTH and POV outside the five pillars? This is an open ended mess as an assessment task, and there's a reason for student panic around it. Compare it to the feminist political economy articles that came through this semester; where users contacted relevant projects and had a structured assessment cycle involving feedback throughout the assignment which required the students to access the encyclopaedic project's culture before writing. Oh and the articles proposed there were on topic. This mess isn't just student apathy, it is to do with course design and delivery. Meanwhile, WP:Business and WP:Economics have a slate of under worked management articles and concepts; and, a bunch of new editors haven't gotten the five pillars during a wikipedia heavy course. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron32 - Nope. Wikipedia isn't qualified to assess the academic abilities of students. Our system (such as it is) for assessing new articles is largely arbitrary, and only works in the long term because eventually 'good' articles that get rejected reappear, and 'bad' articles that pass the first hurdle don't last. I'm sure that Wikipedia will identify many the best of the prof's students, and the worst, but those in between are being 'assessed' by lottery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, AndyTheGrump, I guess you had better tell all of these people and these people that they had all better stop, because students shouldn't be doing Wikipedia as part of school projects? That's total bullshit. There have been dozens of really great articles, including some featured articles, that have been done as part of class assignments. We have hundreds of dedicated editors who work specifically with students and teachers. Just look at the Wikipedia:Ambassadors program. The entire point of that program is to work with professors and students to make Wikipedia editing an integral part of classwork. You seem to be saying that no student should ever be expected to work on a Wikipedia article as part of an assignment? That's complete and utter bullshit, and unless you make some clarifications, I am going to disregard you entirely as being completely clueless. @Fifelfoo: You certainly correct there. Properly organized and targeted assignments clearly work better than the what this professor is doing. I agree that this professor isn't doing a particularly good job of integrating Wikipedia into his class assignments. Still, there's a wide gap between assigning someone incompetance (which is the worst we have proven here) and outward malice. Which is why I am advocating the middle ground here. It is not our responsibility to care one way or the other about this professor's class. The students can fail, or they can pass, it makes zero difference to me. However, that's a long way from cutting off our nose to spite our faces, some of these students ARE doing good work, and we shouldn't delete their articles if they ARE up to standard just because we don't like the job this professor is doing, and we definately should not block IP addresses or accounts which aren't being disruptive, but are simply screwing up because they don't understand Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)None of these should be given any special treatment; that being said, I'm surprised there wasn't an article on the Battle of Masada before May 1. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Kinda covered in Masada already, innit? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. the Battle of Masada should be a redirect to that page, if anything. - SudoGhost (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? Are we forbidden from having articles about battles when there are already articles about the location? Should we redirect the Battle of Britain to Britain?!? --Jayron32 04:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

When Britain contains basically the same exact information as Battle of Britain, and a large (about half of Britain is about the battle that took place there? Yes. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) could argue that the UNESCO heritage site and the Siege itself warrant separate articles (see two infoboxes right now). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Jayron32, as far as I understand the purpose of blocking is to prevent disruption to the encyclopaedic project. Screwing up enmasse with articles is a disruption, we block IPs and users on this basis fairly often; because we don't evaluate the motive, but the effect. I propose blocking for the period of expected disruption: the remainder of the academic semester. We block so as to remove the disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get the point of a block here. Do we have any evidence that the disruption is purposeful besides the comment of the anonymous IRC user? If there's no solid evidence of purposeful disruption and the problems are of the nature of inappropriate forks or other misunderstandings of policy, I don't think a block is appropriate - and as far as I can tell, there's no solid evidence of purposeful disruption and the problems seem to be of the nature of them not understanding wiki-policy and could the disruption caused is relatively minor. Additionally since this is a university class it seems like there's a really easy opportunity for positive outreach here that is likely to be successful. Kevin (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Some of these are way better than the shit that comes in on a daily basis; if every user got blocked for the first messy article, we'd have mass-blocking. Even outright vandals who create pages with "x is a bozo" get a warning not to do it again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• And those individuals don't collude off-wiki to do so, organised to do so by major institutions as a function (albeit fundamentally pedagogically deficient) of one of their core remits? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayron here: I doubt very much that there was collusion for disruption, rather, the stated goal was to write an article and have it survive. Given the wide range of subjects, I think this was either a writing class (which causes me to wonder why Wikipedia was chosen as a medium) or some kind of psychology/sociology class, where the experiment was not in the article itself, but how it was responded to. I don't think an academic in good standing would assign a project to students using a system (nay, Wikipedia is more a society) that he or she doesn't understand; meaning that I don't think a professor would be dumb enough to tell students to write Wikipedia articles if he or she didn't have some level of experience in editing. While we might not be dealing with a very good teacher here, I think it's far more likely that most of the students didn't grasp the dynamics of the assignment well enough to write an article that would survive. It is also possible, though I think less likely, that every word we write about this is being read to measure the experiment, which would mean that the professor is a somewhat experienced editor (maybe even Jayron, the self-admitted teacher? :P).

What do we do? I don't think blocking is in order, since there is probably not any bad faith, and we probably won't see any significant disruption past what we've already seen (not to mention it's a drop in the ocean of the crap articles we get every day anyway). We should invite the professor to share with us what his instructions were and his intent, because I rather think it was benign, and we should be helping these students just as we would help any other newbie. And, if this actually was a wayward professor who didn't understand/care about our policies, or wanted to disrupt them to measure our response, we should simply carry on as we have been, treating each article on its own merits and dealing with each editor on his or her own actions. Anything else would be overkill, not to mention spoil the experiment anyway (if that's what it was). bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32, before you "disregard [me] entirely as being completely clueless", I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than what you seem to think I did. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with students writing articles, or in teachers asking them to. What I said was that a professor telling his students that "their articles had to stay up in order for them to attain a grade" was being irrational, or negligent - he is assigning grades on the basis of assessments made by unqualified individuals, in a context where the quality of assessment is inevitably going to be inconsistent. Or do you think that Wikipedia editors are qualified to make such decisions?

It is possible of course that the version reported by the student who raised this via IRC is incorrect. We clearly need to contact the prof, to get his version. If he did tell his students that grades were dependant on our assessment of the articles, I stand by my argument that not only is this not in Wikipedia's best interests, but it isn't in the best interests of the students either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. I do not think an assignment that requires a student to write an article and have it stay up is at all inappropriate. Such a requirement would not at all be out of line with grading requirements that I have regularly seen in other areas as an undergrad. It would be silly if the professor said that their grades were dependent *solely* on their articles staying up, but I don't think we have any evidence that that was what was said. Generally if an article is taken down it's a pretty solid indication that the article-writer failed to understand at least one important norm of Wikipedia (like WP:verifiability or WP:notability,) and requiring students to gain an understanding of those norms is a perfectly reasonable requirement of a Wikipedia-based assignment. It would not be a good thing to use as a positive grading point ("You gain ten points for not having your article deleted") but as a negative one ("Your article was deleted, so I am not going to assess it") it's perfectly good. Kevin (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, some of the articles have been deleted, and I think now we're just starting to cause some chaos here. I think someone does need to contact the professor—it's not the WMF's job, OK?—and explain what has happened and what to do about it (userfication?), not scold him for wanting to keep up low-quality content for the purpose of grading. I don't think the prof understands what disruption this situation has caused and we should instead invite him to join the ambassador program for the next semester so his project will meet better success. But without contact, and as he does not seem to have a WP account himself, all we are doing is making people confused. Student editors should be treated just like every other editor. Let's assume good faith, teach them, and not bite anyone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The point above about not having all of us email him is still a good one, though. We don't need to flood the professor's inbox with potentially contradictory emails. Fetchcomms, would you like to email him? If not, I suppose I will. lifebaka++ 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You go ahead, I have a lot of RL stuff going on right now so I probably won't be able to follow up much or anything. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.46.188.8

Resolved

 – Thanks to User:Boing!_said_Zebedee for removing talk page access and extending block by 24hrs. - Happysailor ^(Talk)

86.46.188.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Requesting removal of talk page access, and possibly extension of the block due to continued abuse on own talk page - Happysailor ^(Talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mario! But our Princess is in another castle! —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fungal friends, have no fear! :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Heyheyheyhey! Stop stealing my shtick, or I'll sic the internet police on you! HalfShadow 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Luigi, but I think I'm in the right castle - I'm not looking for page protection - Happysailor ^(Talk) 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

RFPP also deals with talk page revocations. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem has been solved, user cannot edit talk page as per User:Boing!_said_Zebedee. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 templates?

Do we no longer template indef blocked users as such?[141] Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Practically speaking, I find templating users as indeffed while the block remains controversial is almost never a good idea; inevitably someone gets mad about it. And it's not like the tagging is really useful, anyway; they're just as blocked while tagged as when not tagged. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Heimstern. Tagging indef-blocked users is dancing on their grave. I don't see any impending need to tag such users. If a user is formally banned, there's Wikipedia:List of banned users, but for something like this, just let them be indeffed. --Jayron32 03:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, don't template the users unless there is a reason to. Prodego ^talk 03:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't object to changing. How do I know when there's a "need" to and when there's not? And if there's not a need to, then why do we have the template in the first place? Rklawton (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If a user is a sockpuppet where tagging the userpages will help keep a list for investigative purposes, for example. In most cases blocked is blocked, tagging isn't too important. If it is going to upset someone, might as well just not do it. Prodego ^talk 04:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If the user is a sock, then I'd use a sock template, but that's not the case here. The case here is about a long-standing editor with an indef block, so I used the indef block template. I felt the template was especially appropriate for use with long-standing editors so that editors accustomed to interacting with the blocked editor can immediately see that such interaction will no longer be possible. I've seen cases where people have left new messages for users long gone, and the indef blocked templates would help prevent this. The only objection came from a personal friend with a very bad attitude and who continues to find new ways to toss personal insults my way.[142] Rklawton (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I checked back with the template page itself, and it basically says that it's up to the blocking admin as to whether or not to use the template and suggests that if the blocking admin doesn't see the need, then there probably isn't one. That's good to know since no one here (myself included) seemed aware. So in short, I didn't need to post the template on Sarah777's page but there's no rule against it. In the future, I'll only use the template on accounts that I block myself - when I feel it necessary. Rklawton (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's 100% subjective and random. Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't, and there's really no consistency in application. People who think it's gravedancing will edit war with you over it sometimes, but they'll never submit the template for deletion because that discussion would fail miserably. So, basically, we have some indeffed accounts tagged as such and others that will sit for years and decades not tagged as such. Is this critical? Of course not but it's infuriating that what should be a normal, non-controversial process is left (sort of) up to the whim of whatever individual happens to block the account, and that the language dealing with this process is weak, ill-formed and seemingly designed in order to prevent consistency. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Where there is inconsistency, there is repeated problems and wasted efforts. Where would be a good place to initiate a community discussion on the matter so we can put it to rest? Compromise should not be all that difficult to reach. Rklawton (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've only ever templated a user page if there's sockpuppetry, and I've indef blocked plenty of people. I'm not sure where such a discussion should take place, maybe WT:BLOCK, with a notice about it at WP:AN? -- Atama頭 19:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think, if a user is indefinitely blocked, that user will really not be participating in various WikiProjects at this time (in this case, WikiProject Ireland, which Sarah777 is a part of). To me, it does not make sense to have indefinitely blocked users on a WikiProject category such as in Category:WikiProject Ireland members; as such, replacing with the standard {{indef}} template makes sense in this regard. But then again, dead people always end up voting in Chicago elections. –MuZemike 22:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat or frustration?

Resolved: user blocked Rklawton (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Empress Ericka (talk · contribs) posted this message which appears to contain a legal threat. The user does not state that they will take any action, so I have not blocked them. The message does seem to be designed to intimidate, however. The source of the user’s frustration can be found here, with additional opinion located here. I think the user would benefit from some clue, but my attempts to help have failed and my opinion (derived from their oblique statements) is that the user would rather I did not continue my effort. Thanks for your time Tiderolls 03:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved non-admin, If things arent changed quickly her label and lawyers plan to get invovled. and but you need to get back to me, seriously, within a 24 hour period. sounds like a legal threat to me, and maybe I'm taking it out of context, but I can't see it as anything but a legal threat. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a legal threat. From reading the comments she doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and doesn't care, and will "File a compaint" if she doesn't get what she wants. [143] --OpenFuture (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Call in and file some kind of complaint" is not a legal threat. In fact, we've got BLP processes set up specifically to handle such complaints. Rklawton (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

While that diff isn't a legal threat (IMO), the one posted at the top most certainly is. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The "threat" at the top is 3rd person, so that's a gray area. The person posting is just big fan and doesn't speak for the artist or the label. I've resolved the main problem, however. I went to Anita's website (the one we list in her article and maintained by her label), clicked on her Twitter link (so we know it's not an imposter), and found where she posted her birth day and month. I noted this on the talk page, posted a link, and restored her article back to the last edit containing the correct date. I see no reason why this shouldn't end the matter. Rklawton (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for continued legal threats. –MuZemike 05:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good, too. Rklawton (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I really wish that someone would have contacted me on either my talk page or my email, which is activated, since the offending comment was made on my talk page, thus somewhat involving me. Often I get so many people contacting my talk page in the same period of time that I miss seeing everything, or don't have time to respond immediately. I would have appreciated being a part of this discussion. I hope that my good faith edits and advice given to User:Empress Ericka (all done only on her talk page, and mine; no email or communication outside Wikipedia) show that I was in not attempting to encourage her either to give up entirely, or to encourage her to continue in the same fashion given the WP:MOS and the WP:COI issues after she identified herself as the A&R employee of at least one record label, never identified for both Kaki King and Cindy Blackman. I had a hard time with another editor who was blocked for the same reason was more than enough for me! I try to learn from my mistakes, and tried to assist User:Empress Ericka as much as possible while still warning her of the importance of WP:NPOV. If there is any scrutiny or problem with the advice I gave her, the feedback would be helpful for me to know how to interact with problems of this nature in the future. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Alam567

Resolved

User replied on my talk page Rklawton (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"New" user with multiple problems, the most obvious of which is the user's claim to be an admin. As this is new to me, I thought I'd bring it up here for a 2nd look. Rklawton (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible disruptive nomination for deletion request

User:Thivierr nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is required for deletion. This essay was mentioned as part of a comment to an evidence presentation in an Arbitration Committee case; Thivierr has consistently commented in that case in support of the "accused party" at the core of that dispute, and this essay was cited by another editor that has commented against the accused party.

If someone uninvolved in the arbcom case could keep an eye on this user and his deletion request, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Did not notice this until after I had begun closing the MfD as withdrawn, but there we go. sonia♫ 09:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of Jacob Peters

Recently, Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) was unblocked by Jpgordon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with a reason of "one last chance". Jacob Peters had been indefblocked since 7 January 2007, and was generally considered community banned (as his userpage is still tagged at present). His block log shows a long history of block evasion, as does his drawer of socks. Jacob Peters argues that he didn't understand the rules of Wikipedia back then. This just doesn't wash. His talk page shows that he was repeatedly told not to sockpuppet and continued to anyway. He says he hasn't socked since 2009. That's still at over two years of solid sockpuppetry, and that's only if the last sock was in early '09 (and I've seen one suspected sock from November 2009, meaning it was probably closer to three years). I don't believe this long-standing block with excellent grounds in long-term sockpuppetry should have been just lifted without a community consensus on the matter. For my part, I'm very much opposed to unbanning Jacob Peters. The community wasted enough time dealing with his edit warring and disruption; I don't think it should do so again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, even some of the claims he's making are total nonsense. For example:

• He says he hasn't socked since 2009. - he's brazenly lying, he was in fact socking, with an intent to be abusive and disruptive, as recently as June 2010. He got caught because he was using one of his socks to violate WP:OUTING - he posted personal info (real life name and work info) as a way of harassing others [144]. When this was looked into by checkuser, six more sock puppets were found: [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150]. At least one of these looks like it was intended to be a 'sleeper' sock.
• The guy has at least 33 confirmed socks [151] and a few more dozen suspected socks [152]. And I can vaguely recall at least a couple more that got caught but just were never recorded on those lists.
• He was banned for, in addition to massive abuse of multiple accounts, tendentious POV pushing. You can ask User:Moreschi about how much time had to be wasted to clean up after him. And that's not even counting the huge amount of time that was wasted chasing down his socks and cleaning up after each one of those. This is a user who can do A LOT of damage very quickly if given the chance. He's showed that even with his socks, which caused lots of trouble even in the short time they were operational before being caught.
• You'd figure a user who was indef banned for three years, if they got lucky enough to get unblocked, would try to stay out of trouble. Instead Jacob Peters immediately jumped into the perennial battleground that is Mass killings under Communist regimes and resumed right where his socks left off; more tendentious POV pushing, etc. In the process, he violated the discretionary sanction that is on that article. Once someone pointed out to him that that wasn't such a great idea, he switched to doing the same thing at Red Terror and Mao Zedong both of which he'd edit war on previously with his socks.
• He's played of his original indef ban as "something foolish I did in my teenage years long long time ago". I think Jpgordon just didn't pay enough attention here, didn't look into the details and made an honest mistake by taking him at his word (there is such a thing as too much AGF, especially when users like this are concerned). Mistakes happen, and they can be reversed.
• I'm not so sure if Jpgordon even had the authority to undue this block, though I'm pretty terrible with understanding the bureaucratic intricacies of these kinds of things. A note on Jacob Peters talk page states that the only way he can get unblocked is by appealing directly to ArbCom (along with the statement that it ain't gonna happen).
• There's also a basic issue of fairness here. Editors who got blocked for things which were nowhere near as bad as Jacob Peters, had/have to go through the proper procedure of an appeal with the ArbCom or a community discussion and show an understanding of what they did wrong, as well as negotiate the terms of their unblock. This includes editors who bring both negative as well as positive things to Wikipedia. JP is pretty much all negatives, yet he got unblocked with a snap of the fingers, while folks far more deserving of clemency are put through the ringer first (for better or worse).

Just re-indef him already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked again, for obviously and clearly lying in his unblock request (and for his behaviour since the unblock, which doesn't give much confidence either). I have indicated that further unblock requests should be directed to ArbCom. Fram (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse re-block. Among the minimum requirements for the "standard offer" to be considered are complete honesty about any past infractions (socking etc), and a clear self-critical awareness of what was problematic about one's editing in terms of content, with a realistic effort to avoid the same problems (POV advocacy etc). If he lied about recent socks that negates condition one, and the fact that he plunged right back into making POV-sensitive edits on the same old hotspot articles throws into doubt condition two. Also, I agree it was poor style to do an unblock unilaterally and without prior consultation in a case like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• indef block again and salt the earth per information in Volunteer Marek's comment. Sock puppeteers promoting extreme political views are the last thing we need here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse re-block One of the worst POV-pushers Wikipedia has ever been plagued with. This was the most misconceived unblock since Fred Bauder decided to let User:Ararat Arev loose on us again with no prior consultation. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I declined an unblock request because it ignored the reasons for the reblock and attacked Volunteer Marek instead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse re-block. As I said on my talk page, "the lesson learned here is Be way careful when doing admin stuff on Wikipedia while jacked up on Vicodin after a root canal..." Sorry, guys. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ouch. Root canals. I hate 'em. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose community ban

He's tagged as banned, let's make this official. I propose a community ban for Jacob Peters. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This person has a clear intent to cause disruption to Wikipedia and nothing else, and has used deceit to accomplish this multiple times. A formal ban will make it clear that this person should only be unblocked following a full public discussion showing support of the community (which I doubt would ever happen). -- Atama頭 19:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'd say I'd miss Jacob in some manner but this would involve lying on my part, which is something I just don't do. HalfShadow 19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The reason: he constantly appears as different IPs, as recently as April 2011, to make edits like this, and there is no one to fix it. This currently active IP is also suspicious since it come from the same area and removes exactly the same materials as in the previous diff, but only from another article [153]. Ye, that's him. After being blocked by Alison for one month, he came back to do the same. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Is he hitting few enough articles to semi-protect them? If the little bugger's just going to play whack-a-mole, nothing's really being accomplished here. HalfShadow 21:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

He edits large number of articles, from Mugabe and Hamas to Russian/Soviet subjects. Some of the latter could indeed be semi-protected because there are few active editors in this area. But if we do it, he will create more alternative accounts. The only solution is to watch the entire subject area. I would not say however that all edits by Jacob are unreasonable (I even tried to keep a few of them in the past). He is back because User:C.J. Griffin who watched him is now inactive. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Per all above. Still leaves looking for his socks, but the point will have been made. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK
• Support. Didn't take him long to start attacking others again... let's revisit this somewhere in 2020s, shall we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Teacher / class editing

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

---

Teacher asked on helpdesk about using Wikipedia in class, and I advised - mostly, "use drafts", "do not share accounts" - Wikipedia:HD#Afternoon Wikipedians.

The teacher disregarded the advice, and allowed pupils to share the account and create live pages, e.g. [154] [155].

I further advised, in clear polite terms, not to share accounts - the teacher claims Jimbo / WMF have OK'd it. See User talk:MrPurcellsClass and User_talk:Chzz#Thank You.

I gave an 'only warning', but he is insistent that he has permission via WMF. Please advise.  Chzz  ►  12:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't take "I have been in correspondence with Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia and associates and they said it was a great idea and the use of just one account he said was 'a great ideas, Mr Purcell! Go for it and don't let anyone stop you'." at face value - at least, not without some actual evidence to back it up. I suppose you could leave a note on Wales' talk page to get further confirmation? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note ongoing edits from this user, Wikipedia is committing a crime against humanity and my pupils are very talented and wish to edit and experiment with the Normal wikipedia. Is there any chance you could make me an admin? It would make my job easier. etc.  Chzz  ►  12:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Those above comments he made on editors talk pages make me a bit suspicious on the original statements from the editor - Happysailor ^(Talk) 12:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting development - [156] - just reported to AiV - Happysailor ^(Talk) 12:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is a moot point now: KFP blocked the account for disruption and legal threats. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• User is blocked now for disruption. I'd guess this could be impersonation by pupils. Perhaps we should delete the user page too? --KFP (contact | edits) 12:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  I have placed the standard indef block notice, with directions on how to request unblock, on their page. Let them learn how to use that (or not). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User page deleted. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the prompt help, everyone. I was suspecting trolling from early on, but had to balance it with AGF and not wishing to bite, etc. I think we dealt with that pretty well. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request declined. I suggest that we only deal with the request trough the unblock-en-l mailing list, and require a school mail for the unblock. Right now, i believe we got an impersonation issue, or at least a case where one cannot know who requests the unblock (Teacher or pupil) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

1. MrPurcellsClass (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of Shuvuhikovsky (talk · contribs).
2. As a corollary of the CU results, the user was not editing from a school. Hence, I would bank that this is another disruptive sock account more than anything else.

–MuZemike 21:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Freddie and the Dreamers

Freddie and the Dreamers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Quinn2go (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quinn2go

I'm sorry for trying to do this at multiple places (mainly, having this thread, RPP and SPI at the same time) but I'm really getting fed up with this. The article's talk page has been practically dominated by an army of socks that only use it to soapbox and possibly to attack the subject. Since there are now several different IPs doing this, I think in addition to blocking the socks, I think the talk page should be semiprotected for a good while to prevent the accumulation of new chitchat from these socks. I also am highly surprised that Quinn2go, a vandalism-only sockpuppeteer account hasn't been indef-blocked already. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: HJ Mitchell semiprotected the page. This should settle the issue (unless they find another page for their soaping that is). Thanks! Zakhalesh (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing music recording certifications by several ip-addresses

121.102.105.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
113.197.225.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
124.147.88.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

hello,

these anonymous users change certifications from several discographies. Everything began with the first ip-address, 121.102.105.130, where he upgraded BPI music recording certifications on five discos, see [157], [158], [159] and [160]. I reverted his revisions, except on Whitesnake discography, where it was correct, and put a warning on his talk page. Then 124.147.88.101 made this revision: [161] (again UK certs!). Now, I warned him with {{uw-vandalism1}}, because it is obviously that it was not a good-faith edit. And last but not least 113.197.225.128, who edited again the same discos: [162] and [163]. I put the same warnings as before. This is logical that they are actually the same editors. What do you think? Is a topic-ban appropriate in this case? Or do you have a better solution? Oh and certs are listed on [164]; just type the name of the band or musician and you will see the certs. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) All three IPs belong to the same ISP and geolocate to the same area. Looks like a single IP-hopping editor to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly these IPs are used by one user. I doubt that there is any point in a topic ban, as it is highly unlikely the user would take any notice of it, and when a user IP-hops over such a wide range there is no effective way of enforcing a ban. I have semi-protected the articles for a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 21:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible hacker?

Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:H3xStack Hrm... Who needs names? ^{talk the talk} 14:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Nothing indicates that the person is a "hacker" in the sense of attacking datasystems. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also see Hacker (programmer subculture). Not necessarily the same as Hacker (computer security). - SudoGhost (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I doubt there would be a userbox for hackers if it were only what you were thinking. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this: Hack. Hrm... GiantSnowman 15:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry, I've notified the user in question that a discussion has been opened about him... GiantSnowman 15:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap, my name is Ginsengbomb. I might be dangerous. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh snap! Everybody stay back! I'm doing to perform hacks to deactivate the Ginsengbomb! - SudoGhost (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't trust you. Your name sounds like you are someone who uses Linux to control the undead. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Woooooo...WOOOOOOO... HalfShadow 02:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

sudo pacman -Syu necromancy | error: target not found: necromancy | my search continues. ;) - SudoGhost (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Censorship of Islam related articles by Adamrce

Summary of issue

This incident is related to the controversial Jihad article regarding the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have reviewer rights, i feel he is abusing his reviewer rights. The user has been on Wikipedia for about 1 month.

I believe the user is censoring Wikipedia.

What i want

I want an admin to mediate or decide whether Adamrce was right to remove the content i added (the content was well sourced), and is about the opinion of the 4 school of Islamic thought on the rules of Jihad, to challenge the already existing rules of Jihad provided by the user Adamrce from bbc news. You can see the content i added here: Content i added in yellow

Issue and evidence

• User made a new section called “best Jihad”,Proof 1
• There are many different interpretation on what the”best jihad” is. I notified the user that I will add alternative POV(points of view) to reflect the alternatie views, and asked whether he objects to this. He said “You're taking texture out of context”, so I doubt he would allow me to add it.Proof 2, the user called wiqi also said that if there are alternate views then i should add it here:Proof other users support altenrate view, where he said "You may wish to add any other interpretations of this concept in the same section"
• Then he (Adamrce) also added BBC’s opinion on the rules of Jihad here:Proof 3
• BBC is not an Islamic source, so I added views of 2 of the 4 Islamic schools of thought Hanafi and Shaffi, user removed these views which were properly sourced, his reason was

  “I don't think it's logical to add two schools out-of tens, which is pushing a minority POV that confuses users. If you'd like to add them, you need to be fair regarding the other schools too. “

  Proof 3
• But then I added the opinion of all 4 major schools of Islamic thought (the 4 schools make up 80%+ of the worlds Muslim population) to satisfy the user (who as shown above did not like only giving views of 2 schools), another reason i added the 4 views, was to reflect Wikipedias major world view policy, user removed it on the grounds that

“All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded”

“You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source! “

Proof 4

“Please stop your removal till the dispute clears. FollowWP:BRD, as you were warned yesterday!!!”

, which he wrote while reverting my edit here: Proof 5

• But 3/4 sources I used where secondary sources, which also contain excerpts of a primary source with analysis on it, like this

Rudolph Peter, Translation of Averores rules of Jihad

• After this, I removed BBC POV on the rules of Jihad, since there was a dispute going on over it, but user reverted my removal of the disputed content. So basically, I am frustrated because he removes my edits on the grounds that there is a dispute, but keeps his edit claiming they can only be removed after dispute is settled.
• He also added a message on my wikipedia page, claiming I am censoring Wikipedia and could get banned here, and sent me warnigns that i will get banned for adding back to content : Proof 5
• I added it back with compromise. Again I added the opinion of the 4 schools with more secondary sources and reasons for war (which he wanted), an against whom war can be made. User still removed them! Proof 6
• I would like Wikipedia admins to decide whether the content I added is acceptable, and whether Adamrce is right to remove alternate POV.
• I dont want to get involved in edit warring with this user, and based on the warnings he has left on my wiki page, it seems he has powers to ban me? He only created an account 1 month or so ago

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources used

User claimed he removed content because i need to use secondary sources, but the sources i used were secondary, the following sources were used:

Secondary Source 1

Book contains a primary source which is analysed by the author

Excerpted from Edmond Fagnan, trans., Kitab al-Kharaj (Le livre de l'impot foncier) (Paris, 1921). English translation in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 165-72

Excerpted from Edmond Fagnan, trans., Kitab al-Kharaj (Le livre de l'impot foncier) (Paris, 1921). English translation in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 166

Primary source 1

Reliance of the traveller: the classic manual of Islamic sacred law ʻUmdat al-salik

Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

Secondary source 2

Used as primary source, as contains excerpts from a primary source Ǧihād aṣ-ṣaġīr:Legitimation und Kampfdoktrinen ,By Thomas Tartsch, Pg98

Secondary source 3

Excerpted from Bidayat al-Mudjtahid, in Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam: The Chapters on Jihad from Averroes' Legal Handbook "Bidayat al-mudjtahid," trans. and annotated by Rudolph Peters (Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 9-25

Secondary source 4

Contains primary sources also, is an analysis by a US government backed institution, regarding rules of war in Islam Non Combatants in Muslims Legal thought,Page 15

Comments

As a note, I have informed the user that this discussion has been opened. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it's fairly evident that both the reporter and the other user are engaged in an edit war, I've blocked both for 24 hours. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin observation Are blocked edtiors not supposed to remove block notices from their page except when expired/unblocked? Croben ^Problem? 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he reverted to having the warnings and notice. Well... My question still stands, if someone could answer it. Croben ^Problem? 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:REMOVE, "Sanctions that are currently still in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices ... may not be removed by the user" - SudoGhost (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I'll leave a note on his talkpage to make sure he knows. Croben ^Problem? 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? As long as they don't request an unblock, removing a block notice is the same as acknowledging it and waiting it out. It's only the denied unblock request that can't be removed, and that template even states as such (pretty sure it does). Leave 'em alone. 64.85.214.12 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP is correct, actually. The removal of block notices isn't prohibited by WP:REMOVE, the text that SudoGhost quoted above omits that and nothing else in the guideline says otherwise. Any admin or other editor who wants to see if a person has an active block just has to look at their edit history, it will say so right at the top. -- Atama頭 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, it seems I misread 'ban' for 'block', my apologies. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tex with X Ray Spex uncivil behaviour and disruptive edits

Disruptive and biased edits: [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]

Edit summaries and warnings: [174] [175] (seems the warnings have been ignored).

91.85.164.100 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin observation Biased editor is biased. Just looking at the diffs gives me the impression of heavy-handed POV-pushing. I can't assume good faith with a couple of the edit summaries involved; it goes WAY beyond what I'd otherwise call a "content dispute." As far as his Talk page goes, s/he's free to delete warnings as s/he desires, and the presumption is that if it's been deleted it's been read. I have taken the liberty of posting the required notice regarding this discussion on his Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't think any admin action is needed right now -- I cleaned up a bit and gave him a vandal-3 warning over a content-free edit that just added a random string and messed up grammar. Might not hurt for a couple more people to keep an eye on his contributions, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A perfect case where WP:WQA would have been the correct venue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Something is vaguely familiar about the editor's style (such as it is) and choice of articles to edit...I could swear I'm hearing faint quacking, but I can't place it, and without more than a vague familiarity there's nothing to open a WP:SPI case on. Oh well, back to watching... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would WQA have been the appropriate venue here? AIV seems more appropriate. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Maheshkumaryadav

I for one have reached the limit of my patience with this guy. He has created nearly 500 contentless substubs en masse, has been community-banned for doing so and now, according to a recent link on my talk page, is canvassing for sympathy under the premise of an anti-India bias. I am ready to block him and use the nuke option on all those blasted stubs he refuses to expand. He's taken up way too much of this community's time and patience. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Even if his aim is to better Wikipedia, the end result is a lot of mess to dig through, and he's made it clear that he wants to create stubs and then never touch them again. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

PM, deal with it, haha. You wanted to be an admin and get paid the big bucks--time to put your nose to the grindstone. I agree--this incommunicative and belligerent editing is not helpful. What type of consensus do you need to nuke them? I mean, is that what you're looking for here? Drmies (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen this, User:Anna Frodesiak/Silver sandbox? Drmies (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a similar section above on this page where he was banned from creating new articles. There seem to be suggestions that a large number of the stubs created may have been copyright violations. I would suggest it's time to discuss a community ban from Wikipedia, not just from creating articles. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. BTW Drmies, I love that link. Of course, you realize that the mop, bucket and three bucks get me a venti cup of Pike Place coffee at Starbucks. :P Seriously though, yes. I'm looking for some sort of consensus since I've been deep in this issue since Monday, if memory serves. Cooler heads on the recent AfD suggested that I not drop the hammer due to my involvement. However, I really think we're being toyed with. This guy can cite the most arcane and little-used policies you can imagine, but he still acts like a new user when it comes to article creation and the posting of multiple copyright violations. He rubber-stamps nanostubs literally by the hundreda and states quite clearly that he will not expand them. Then, he starts crying "bias" when his "articles" are either under AfD or being deleted as having no content. Grrrr....! PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know what I think about it all. I've said it often enough. Feel free to wield a nuclear mop. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Boom. Got most if not all of them. I need to double-check the list but I think most are now history. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You have only missed 469 of them. Whose side are you on here? <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No one likes a wise guy, you know. :P First time I've ever used that tool and I'm thinking there's more than one page of these things of his. BRB...PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I found out what I was doing wrong, but I think I'm overloading the servers. There are simply too many of them. I'll simply have to delete them a few at a time tomorrow. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the village links have all gone a funny colour on the list. Red, I think it is. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

requesting closure of an uncertified RFCU

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sandstein

Hi, the user that was blocked User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous.. has become unblocked and not confirmed the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sandstein. Only User:Mindbunny who is now blocked three days for disruptive WP:POINT violations he made on the RFCU talkpage has certified it - so its uncertified and imo better to close it asap because the whole thing is demeaning to the RFCU process. There is some discussion on the talkpage regarding its unconfirmed and un-certifiable status Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sandstein#Certification Could someone close it? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC/U regarding User:Sandstein. lifebaka++ 23:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit war brewing/fringe science/ownership/etc. on Luis González-Mestres (and Superbradyon)

Before this goes too far, let me ask for attention to a biography (and a related semi-fringy-scientific term). User:Indépendance des Chercheurs, a new name for what seems to be an old user (with a host of IPs) is claiming some serious ownership, especially after I reinstated a bunch of templates that Coffee had placed there a year ago, templates which were summarily removed, without explanation, from an IP which looks a lot like all the other IPs in that history. Anyway, as I write this the editor has twice removed my templates, here and here (note: I did not reinstate all of them, only those I considered still valid), and has claimed ownership in edit summaries and on the talk page (note the use of the royal conspiracy plural), and has accused me, it seems, of complicity in some conspiracy which no doubt had as its goal to destroy a well-meaning scientist and their work--or something like that.

The BLP issue of the article itself is relevant as well, it strikes me, but perhaps at a later date. Relevant to this thread also are the editors edits at Superbradyon. No doubt there are some among you who are knowledgeable of this affair. Your attention is appreciated; I'm afraid we're headed for a conflict with all the accoutrements--fringe science, ownership, BLP vanispam, a "collective", the whole shebang. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• As I was notifying the editor, I noticed that they just reverted a third time. A final warning and a 3R warning would be appropriate, in my opinion, but I should back down from templating all over their talk page. I leave that for y'all to judge. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It also looks like Indépendance might be an account shared by multiple people given their use of pronouns like we/our. Kevin (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This diff [176] refers to "our collective" - it is clearly a shared account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I referred to it somewhere as a royal conspiracy plural--I think it is more a collective in spirit than in anything else. I have a nagging suspicion that the subject of the bio is the blog is the Independance is the IPs; that's often how those kinds of vanity bios work. All the contributions have the same tone, for instance. The "we" is the plural of a persecuted minority that has no recourse than to blog!blog!blog! about the injustice being perpetrated on Wikipedia. See their latest comments on the talk page of the bio. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hot off the press: editor made what appears to be a legal threat on the talk page, "We are not afraid of threats. If we are blocked, we will react consequently", and in an edit summary, "If we are blocked, we will act elsewhere", where they again removed the templates. Note: I have made a series of edits to the article indicating the problems with sourcing. Moreover, I have explained on the talk page what the COI is, so the editor's claim, "You still have not given a single serious argument", is clearly incorrect.

Perhaps it's also time for a harduserblock: the username is the name of the subject's "collective" (it's in the article, Luis_González-Mestres#Other_activities), and the blog they keep threatening us with is run by the subject as well (see talk page for details). Couple the name with the disruptive edits intended to promote the subject and I think there's enough ground for a block. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The templates were removed a fifth time; I will report this at 3R, though I want to let this thread to remain as well for the ownership and COI issues. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion of stubs (related to villages in Punjab, India) by User PMDrive1061

PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:PMDrive1061 have mass deleted stubs related to state of Punjab, India. All of them had been provided references from the official government website. The list can be found at here. The reason given for deletion "unverifiable nanostubs" doesn't hold good as each one can be verified, by reference provided in it. Kindly look in the matter as the stubs deserve to be restored. An action against User:PMDrive1061 is requested. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

See above for related information. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)