Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Giano's rampant incivility

Okay people, this talk is escalating into argument for argument's sake. Please, let's take a step back and realize something: Wikipedia is not a battleground - we are not here to make war with each other, we are here to work together to the betterment of the Encyclopedia. This "IRC vrs non-IRC" argument is divisive and unfair. People will communicate however they want, and that cannot, nor should be stopped. We should be working together, and communicating, after all. Everyone that edits on Wikipedia, from the newest editor all the way back to Jimmy Wales, are valued and respected editors, and we should be helping them to contribute to the Encyclopedia and helping keep the environment positive. All of us together can improve this encyclopedia, and arguing over communication media isn't going to help that.

As Piotr and Ghirla are in Arbitration, and Jimbo has endorsed and overturned the block of Giano, I don't think this conversation, saving the last section, serve any further purpose. I respect all of you greatly, so I beseech you, please, let us work together to better the encyclopedia instead of taking time here in such a divisive argument. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

---

When did posts like this become acceptable? It seems to take years of established history of WP:CIVIL and throw it out the window. I'll reproduce it here, so you can see what I'm talking about:

Kindly refrain from littering my talk page [1] with your infantile and hostile warnings in the future, or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned. Irpen and Bishon were quite correct to revert your antics and your revert warring with them did you little credit. Giano 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This all stems from a simple boilerplate civility warning I left him (which is apparently "infantile and hostile") after he was getting too out of control on Mackensen's talk page. Now he turns his glare on me. Threatening to have me desysopped and banned? C'mon. And yeah, the usuals (Bishonen, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, and Irpen) are going to step in now and defend Giano ... but they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together. I'm posting this here to solicit some response from other administrators: is this kind of behavior really acceptable? Do you want to work in an environment where users routinely have blow-ups like this and are only encouraged by admin inaction? --Cyde Weys 14:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unlike some people, I am going to spell out exactly what it is in your above post that is a personal attack. "he usuals (Bishonen, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, and Irpen) are going to step in now and defend Giano ... but they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together." is a personal attack. Consider this a warning. If you persist in this type of mischaracterization and denigration, you may be blocked. HTH HAND. Geogre 18:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no incivility in Giano's posting, just a mild warning. "This little back-scratching clique together", however, is blatantly incivil and I demand apologies. Such comments may indeed lead to desysopping. If your posting is expected to trigger an uproar from all sorts of IRC fairies who habitually indulge in incivilty on IRC and then pontificate about civility during their occasional appearances on-wiki, I suppose it would be nice to see them here. Foundation employees have no wild card for incivility, for what I know. The community is aware that your dispute with Giano goes back to the time when your energetically defended Kelly Martin's postings demanding "an enema and a major fight that flushes 20-30% of the en-wiki community". This page is not part of dispute resolution procedures, so I advise you both to move your dispute to Requests for comment. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather feel Cyde may have a gone a step too far this time "they defend him no matter what he does because they're all in this little back-scratching clique together." I think that is rather a serious charge to make. Perhaps Cyde would like to withdraw it and apologise while it can still be contained to this page alone. It is Christmas and I am in a forgiving mood. Giano 14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I ever make a manual in civility or diplomacy, the first rule on that list will be: Never, ever, ever tell another person to be civil, and never, ever, ever, accuse another person of being incivil. We can work backwards from there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, from other administrators? I'm page banned from your posts on ANI, perhaps? That's all right, Cyde. The way you speak of me, you must be a civility expert, so I'll just listen. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

The problem is that incivility does happen, and incivility is harmful to the community especially when it results in ever-increasing tension between two groups. It would be nice if there was a way to address incivility before it gets to the point that arbcom gets involved, and before it gets to the point where people leave. --Interiot 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the persons here (not least because I'm guessing I've already been pre-emptively dismissed as an 'IRC fairy', which Ghirlanajo won't consider to be uncivil). But, please, if we are going to have a conversation about civility, can we perhaps compete to outdo one another in civility, rather than the reverse? We all know where this is heading unless we cool it.--Doc^g 14:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This time I concur with Doc. There is no need in pressing the issue, although the real grounds for Irpen's irrational block above should be eventually investigated, to prevent further outbursts in the future. We need to put an end to gaming WP:NPA and WP:CIV policies for pursuing one's personal vendettas. Everyone may read incivility in the postings of his opponent, however courteous they may be. We should understand that endless appellations to WP:CIV is a bad ground for solving long-standing differences. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to de-escalate the situation. Thank you. Luna Santin 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"...or you will find yourself de-sysoped and banned" is hardly a "mild warning," and "they're all in this little back-scratching clique together," is hardly going to calm anything down. This continued squabble is disrupting the community, and has been for too long -- everybody, please take a step back and breathe. -- Luna Santin 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Both sides telling the other to stop being incivil? This appears to be a case of WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed... I'm not an admin and I'm not familiar with the history of this dispute, but neither side is helping themselves much here. It's sort of hard to argue that the other guy is wrong when you are engaging in behavior that is no better. You both need to chill.--Isotope23 14:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, If he would just stay off my page I would gladly ignore him; unfortunately though this time he has allowed his obsessive hatred of me to overflow and has now insulted others. Is this the behaviour of an admin? Giano 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just walk away. All of you.Geni 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Particularly in the light of Cyde's edit summaries on User talk:Giano II about letting Giano defend himself, I'm not clear why Cyde got involved in the first place, he was not a direct party to the discussions at User talk:Mackensen and given what I've seen of their history his intervention was hardly like to calm matters. David Underdown 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I find Cyde's reverting of the removal of the talk page warning particularly ironic when he asked whoever posted it to leave it and let Giano deal with it himself. By that logic, shouldn't he have left Giano to undo the removal of the warning, and limited himself (Cyde) to posting a new message pointing out to Giano that the warning had been removed? Carcharoth 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think this needs some type of dispute resolution such as RFC or MedCab. This is not going anywhere if this is going on and on. Both sides should stop fighting and this is getting the community tired of all this. Just cool down guys, we can settle this. Nothing both of you say makes any difference, just be civil to each other and don't tell each other to be civil or vice versa, like what Sjakkalle said. Both sides are telling each other not to be incivil, this doesn't sound too right. I suggest both parties stay away from each other for a while to cool down. Edit conflict again... Terence Ong 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised to find out that the discussions on my talk page have prompted this affair; if there's any mediation to be had, it's between Lar and Giano. I've never seen a civility warning have it's desired effect--no one likes being told their being uncivil. At the same time, I don't see the need for allegations of de-sysoping. The Arbitration Committee has set ample precedent that you have to abuse your admin tools for that. Finally, I agree with Cyde on one point: Giano is more than capable of taking care of his own talk page; we all are. If I think someone's cluttering my talk page I can do it myself without anyone else's help. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at WP:PAIN? On another note, we seem to need a policy on civility notes. Who can issue them, and who can rever them. It seems that recently there is a trend to remove such notes (ex. [2], [3], etc.), which in turns causes other users to complain that they were removed... I'd suggest that only certified editors of WP:PAIN, who should be elected like admins, should have the right to issue such notes, and that in those cases the notes issued by them should not be removable by non-PAIN certified users. This will put an end to the problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is who may be considered a "certified editor of WP:PAIN". Who is supposed to "certify" these guys? The problematic warning you cite was added by a non-admin who is active on WP:PAIN. When I attempted to discuss the issue with him, he simply removed my messages from his talk page on several occasions. Do you consider yourself a "certified editor of WP:PAIN"? I see you have been commenting on each message posted there during the last day or two. Do you want to run the board and "issue" warnings to your opponents? If so, I would rather oppose your proposal. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is so broken that we need to introduce a new class of user. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Whew, is there something bigger going on here or is this really just a tempest in a teapot? From my experience at WP:RFI and WP:PAIN I suggest petitioning a neutral third party to review contested user warnings that arise from a dispute. This isn't policy or even guideline, rather practical experience: deletion of a user warning by an involved party often fuels more quarreling. If parties in this dispute accept me as suitably neutral (I've collaborated with Ghirla a few times and handed him a barnstar) I'll volunteer to be the template referee here. And please stay away from hot button words such as infantile - no good comes of them. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No No No Not another bunch of wiki legislation to enforce civility. You can't do it. Civility needs to be caught and taught not enforced like that. Speak nicely to people and perhaps it might catch on, ignore people when it doesn't. Personal attack blocks should only be used in open and shut cases....and even then (as I found out) it seldom works. Has anyone known any of these processes do anything bar escalate the problem? I've put the template in question up for deletion [4] --Doc^g 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• No to turning this section colors and saying it's over and settled. Cyde has announced that "it's time to stop" another user whose primary crime is making Cyde unhappy, apparently, or saying things Cyde seems to dislike. There is no divine right of admins. If there is, then my divinity is as great as his. Geogre 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is trying to do so; it appears to be the result of a formatting mistake about halfway up the page. Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mackensen, for that clarification. To the issue at hand: What I see, so far, is personal. Cyde is taking things very personally and becoming personally involved in trying to "stop" persons, etc. This is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. The fact that, above, he would even try to reach back to the Giano RFAR to mischaracterize Fred Bauder's rejected finding on the meaning of a policy is simply more evidence that Cyde is extremely angry rather than anything else. He had not been involved in interactions with Giano II on Mackensen's talk page, had not been involved in any interactions with me, and yet his vote on my ArbCom run, his desire to "stop" "people like" Giano, etc. is showing a very deleterious mindset at present. I hope that I am wrong (I often am), but I honestly cannot see any justification whatever for Cyde's words. I would love to "assume" good faith, but my imagination is not sufficient for finding a way to do that when someone comes along and announces a campaign to "stop" another user. It's rather like those people who want to "stop filth on television": they should not watch the show. Similarly, Cyde can not scanning everyone's talk page for "evidence." A good administrator waits for a complaint. He doesn't go looking to create one. Geogre 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point there needs to be a conversation about persistent incivility and its effect on the environment we work in. It is not clear to me why we tolerate so much of something we don't really want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In other contexts, other issues, with other disputants, I've objected to "double standards" where one or more parties held others to stricter standards than themselves, and I've argued for keeping a single standard. Now I begin to think that may not be sufficient to the needs. Better still would be to hold oneself to the stricter standard, and extend leeway (and some forgiveness) to others. That way the waves of mutual recrimination would be dampened out at the start, rather than growing, heterodyning in a feedback loop, as seems to be happening at present. Just a thought. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:49, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• I can't understand a word the person above is saying, but he probably agrees with me. I have been reading and re-reading various posts of Cyde's mostly admittedly those concerning me, and have come to the conclusion we are dealing with someone fairly young here, at most a late teens. We all get out of our depth at that age, so lets all say Happy Christmas and forget it. Perhaps though at some stage during 2007 we need to have a big think about junior editors and ages and responsibilities. IRC seems always to be a problem eternally with us, I know James Forrester has decreed IRC conversations off limits but that was in the days when wikipedia was much smaller - and he was more powerful. I think the time has now come to re-think that policy too so 2007 promises to be an interesting period in Wikipedia's history. Wikipedia is going places in internet history, it must not become a victim of it's own history. So lets wish each other a happy Christmas and productive new year. Giano 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"I can't understand a word the person above is saying, but he probably agrees with me." That is probably the funniest thing I've read all day... thanks for making me laugh (and I mean that with all sincerity!) --Isotope23 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, from your username and the physics metaphors you were using, I can understand Giano (who I think writes on Italian architecture, among other things) not understanding what you were on about. Maybe wikilink your metaphors next time? heterodyne and feedback loop were probably the most obscure terms. Carcharoth 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, Carcharoth, though Isotope23 is not the person who used those metaphors. I'm sorry for assuming a more general familiarity with those concepts than actually exists. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:15, 22 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Oh, and regarding Giano's speculation's about Cyde's age, it doesn't really matter what age he is. Judge him by his words, not his age. FWIW, I have seen pictures from various Wikimanias and similar meet-ups that identify someone they claim is Cyde, but again, that is neither here nor there. When we edit and interact on Wikipedia, we are just words. So look at the words, not the person. Carcharoth 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's sort of pointless to bring it up now, but I was asked (via the much-maligned IRC, no less) to note that I think the community should strongly prefer using tailored warnings to communicate with experienced users, rather than templates, since templates are definitely written with new users in mind. Given the heated conversation above, I don't know if it would have changed anything, but anything that can be done to keep a conversation cool is good. --Interiot 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

convenient break

We hear a lot of talk about 'at some point' or 'they can't get away with this'. But I've begun to ask myself: what is the end game here? What solution are we realistically wanting? Cyde banned? Giano blocked? Perhaps others too? The problem is that loose cannons go off, and the various groupings raise the defcon in defence or attack. Where does this end? Actually, when all cools down, I find I actually agree with folk like Geogre on far more issues than I disagree. And some civil conversations with others (yes, in IRC!) convinces me it doesn't have to be this way. I don't want to be sanctimonious, but perhaps all of us could work on cooling it. Are certain people uncivil at times. Yes, and we all know who they are? Are certain people sometimes hostile to the point of trolling? Yes, and we all know who they are. Can these people be otherwise? Yes, I think so. We all know it would be better if it were. Please let's all use whatever influence we have (particularly on those we think might listen to us - and not on those who are likely to react negatively to us) to cool things. It really doesn't take Time magazine's 'man of the year' to work it out--Doc^g 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, we need a level open playing fields for all. No IRC, we are either all there - or all out, editors, admins, crats and the rest. Let the Arbcom have their mailings (confined to reigning members) in camera everything else open to scrutiny. I'm sick of reading "I discussed this on IRC" IRC counts for nothing here, and when all realise that, then we can progress, until then we are in for permanent fighting. Giano 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• And you'd agree not to use e-mail either? Actually my point is that the most productive civilised conversations I've had today have been on IRC, and have been with folk I've previously fought with on-wiki. So, I'd actually draw the opposite conclusion. But that's a side issue. Frankly, human nature is human nature: the medium be damned. We either want to fight, squabble, factionalize and and point score, or we want to move on and co-operate. I'm rather hoping we can go for the second option. Hoot if you're with me.--Doc^g 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree 110%, especially on your main point. (and on the side point, I agree that IRC has been the one place where I've had very pleasant and civil conversations with those I probably wouldn't have had otherwise). --Interiot 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm glad you are all having such a good time there, and good luck to you, but why do so many Wikipedia admin decisions on blocking etc have to be made there? Please do not insult our intelligence by saying they are not. Giano 20:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure bad blocking decisions have been made via phone or email as well. As Doc said, address the person, not the medium. --Interiot 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• You have to be joking! I've been there and have the T-shirt to prove it. They conspire together and come out with WP attack, WP civility and WP anything else the next one can think of. I'd rather fight a nest of vipers than take on the IRC gang, but I frequently do. No lets have the source "eliminate the nest and kill the pest". Giano 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Doc, I agree with you, and I meant what I said above sincerely and at face value. I know folks assume that I'm always up to some rhetorical trick or something, but I'm not. People take things personally, and that's no way to operate. I don't know what "incivility" is in cases like these. Words? Words are just symbols. Intentions? None of us can judge those. Actions? Ok. Worse still, we have taunt and counter, badger and follow, charge and countercharge, and all that can occur then is that the people behind the names get angrier and angrier, and then someone says "booger," and the other person blocks, and then we're at ArbCom. Seriously: when you find yourself scanning other people's talk pages for evidence, you're probably trying to make a complaint rather than addressing one. Geogre 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the IRC side issue: IRC is a great place to be pleasant, to banter inanely, and to burn some time. It's a fun place to blow off steam, too. How could it not be? That's the function of all chat. It's a horrible place to argue, in both senses of the word. I've never been against bantering with my fellow Wikipedians. I'm generally an amusing and mellow fellow (I got top 2 percentile in chatter and banter on the GRE), but IRC is a terrible place for formulating on-wiki actions unless it is followed by on-wiki deliberation and transparency. It's not that fine a distinction, either. Wikipedia actions have to be established and accountable on Wikipedia. People on IRC should have the sense to know that, whatever IRC says, they have to find their evidences and provide their rationales on the project. Geogre 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Why is IRC rather than the person to blame if someone decides the conversation is over and that there's nothing to discuss on-wiki? --Interiot 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The person is to blame, but our vagueness is more to blame. Having an ArbCom that lived on IRC didn't help, either, as we had tremendous reluctance to spell out coherently and clearly best practice. Additionally, the much touted "gang" and "herd" mentality at IRC is very much to blame, too. While Cyde maligned the "back scratching" of a few of the academic writers, if such a thing existed (and it doesn't), it wouldn't have a patch on the self-defense instinct of people on IRC who rush to defend their pastime and/or IRC "friends" (quotes around friend because of my views on the illusoriness of all this mess). So, if a person is found out acting plainly on the basis of non-accountable process, we will see some very shrill defenses. It is disappointing that so few people think independently and weigh the issues dispassionately. Geogre 12:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hoot Hoot Hoot to All. Paul August ☎ 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon? Are you going to share with us your views on IRC with us, or just make owl noises? Giano 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I see what you did there, Paul. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
        • I'm with you too Bish. Hoot Hoot. Paul August ☎ 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. to Giano: You don't have to beg you can have my pardon for free. As for IRC, I don't use it. I think it is best if Wiki related business is done on-Wiki, and hoot hoot to you too.
          • What is this? An example of a conversation held in a secret medium? —Centrx→talk • 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
            • See Doc's Hoot if you are with me above. Paul August ☎ 03:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh look everyone [5] another little IRC kid has turned up! Now lets see if I get banned for kicking him off my page. It does become very tiresome Giano 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, a RFAR concerning the behavior of Cyde, Ghirlandajo, and Giano is certaintly appearing to be a good possibility/remedy, as I can safely say that there has been a depressing lack of assuming good faith here, and this incivility on the part of all parties involved is simply disruptive. Thank you Ghirlandajo for trying to cool down the situation up above at your second post, but I think the fact that we are even here in the first place shows that there are some blatantly obvious problems between editors that needs to be addressed. How would a RFAR sound, then? Cowman109^Talk 22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I for one would love to see a productive discussion about the policy and accountability implications of IRC's lack of transparency -- in particular the "on-wiki actions should be justified on-wiki" school of thought appeals to me quite a bit, as a rule of thumb if nothing else, and I try to stick to that. IRC is a medium, it's a tool, and like any tool, it can be used effectively to better the encyclopedia, or it can be abused. I think it is a damned shame that the discussion has become so heated -- all of this incessant name calling accomplishes nothing and only makes the problem worse; it encourages "factions," scares people away, and hurts any chance of reaching a consensus of any real sort. As I said, I'd love to see a productive discussion, but I can say for sure that when I see a phrase like "IRC fairy," my blood starts to boil, and the chance of a good talking-over is inherently diminished -- I'm not trying to defend anything, or single anybody out, here, and I'm sure that any number of other examples could be brought up, on all sides. I guess what I'm asking for is this: those of you who really care about Wikipedia, please try to put your petty squabbles behind you, and strive to reach a legitimate agreement. I implore you, all of you, act your age and let the anger go. We have more important things to accomplish, all of us. Luna Santin 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As a reminder to myself, I have just added the following to the top of my talk page:

"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Proverbs 15:1 King James Version

I recommend this sentiment to everyone. -- Donald Albury 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• An RFAR? <cough> For what, exactly? I've been aggrieved, too, but I don't see anything but bad interpretation of the blocking policy and Cyde being very, very angry. He's entitled. I am reminded of what Mark Twain said: "When angry, count to ten. When very angry, swear." The problem is, we're now getting to the point where no one can be very angry. I'm not suggesting "drunken sailor -pedia," but let's get over this false Polyannaism. We are on the Internet, after all, and the very people offended by someone seeming to be angry are jokingly referring to goatse. You can't be jaded and prim. I don't use the pottymouth words, myself, but I think we ought to wait for people to violate Wikipedia policies, get warned, get negotiated with, have some mediateion, and repeat their mistakes before we block folks. Geogre 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A less painful alternative?

Piotrus left me a friendly response to my proposal about playing template referee and invited me to the PAIN and RFC. Since this has escalated to a proposed ArbCom case I've proposed a less painful alternative: namely that I step into this hornet's nest and try to mediate. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy's block

Chairboy has blocked Giano for 48 hours. Giano is saying on his talk page that this was all decided on IRC. I've asked Chairboy to unblock, particularly if he was involved in an IRC discussion. I'm requesting two things: first, and most important, that Cyde stay away from Giano from now on, and in particular that he stay away from any warnings or admin actions; and second, that people stop discussing admin action against Giano on IRC. It starts to look like harassment, and whether it's intended that way or not (and I'm sure it isn't by at least some of the parties), that's what it looks like to some bystanders and probably to Giano too. Admin actions like this, especially controversial ones, shouldn't be decided on IRC because it leads to nothing but trouble. That's surely a lesson that must have been learned by now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, it looks to me that every time he get or the users that have associated with him get in trouble, they complain about secret IRC discussions they cannot prove happened until the decision is repealed. This is, at best, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. How long are we going to let them bully sysops out of their decisions? Who are the ones making the decisions here? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the IRC rules is that public logging is not allowed, but that shouldn't prevent people telling us what was said and who said it, so long as the actual log isn't posted. I hope someone will therefore elaborate, and say who was involved in the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If they can actually back up these claims, then we can weigh them on their own merits. If they're just complaining "OMG IRC CABAL" it's silly - we are not in kindergarten anymore, there is a certain code of conduct expected. That these editors are getting away with it on technicalities and unsubstantiated claims is damaging the wiki, in my biased opinion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Who are the ones making the decisions here"? Certainly not the IRC clique of several non-editing sysops and lots of wannabe admins, of which you are one. The decisions are made by the community, by the ArbCom elected by the community, and by Jimbo Wales. If the janitors with mops are to make some vital "decisions" in this temple of knowledge, I will be the first to walk away. Admins are not priests but janitors. When janitors prevent priests from performing their duties (i.e., editors from writing the articles), priests should evacuate the temple. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an occasional resident of the IRC channels, I can tell you that IRC is just like real-life and on-wiki- there's no close-knit clique (or if there is, it's two or three close friends, and others dissent). Most of the time in controversial situations, there's a significant amount of discussion on more than one side of the issue. And frankly, I've dissented more than a few times on blocks that I thought were unjust, etc., leading to continued discussion on the blocks both on and off-wiki. The thought of an IRC clique controlling Wikipedia is just absurd. Ral315 (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read my message carefully, you will see that what I spoke about was contrary to what you've been able to read into my message. I was responding to these inflammatory questions: "How long are we going to let them bully sysops out of their decisions? Who are the ones making the decisions here?" --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no conspiracy. There was no plotting against him. The claim is inaccurate, and if the logs are reviewed, they will show that to be the case. I hope he will excercise good judgement in whom he shares his illicit copies with, and I hope he provides complete transcripts without any editing, but that's that. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The copies wouldn't be illicit; it is only public logging, by which I assume is meant public posting, that's prohibited by IRC rules, at least that's my understanding. I stand to be corrected, of course. Chairboy, can you say whether you were involved in the IRC discussion, and who first suggested the block? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Since, after an IRC discussion, Jimbo has both endorsed and lifted the block, I think it is all a little moot now.--Doc^g 00:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad Jimbo has lifted the block. I don't think the discussion about IRC will be moot until people stop organizing blocks there, particularly if it's anything likely to be controversial. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak but I do have a question: has it been verified that this block was organized via IRC? All I've seen is questions asked of Chairboy and Giano's accusation. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not verified. I've asked Chairboy here and on his talk page, but he hasn't responded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your questions both here and on my talk page, please clarify "he hasn't responded". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant that you hadn't answered the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this on Recent Changes, and i'd suggest that you just have public logging of these secret IRC rooms, that would prevent the conspiracy theory stuff.Just H 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly save a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The block was not organized in any way on IRC. The only involvement IRC had before everything exploded was that an admin gave me a diff of Giano being incivil to someone. After that, the decision to block based on his subsequent actions was mine and mine alone. There was a discussion on IRC where I counseled someone _not_ to block him because the block rationale they provided was improper, and another user in the room appears to have misinterpreted that as planning/coordination, but that is absolutely not the case. In response to the assertion that sharing the logs with Giano was proper and licit, I'll have to disagree. It's a violation of the channel rules and undermines the privacy expectations each participant has agreed to. While I know that I have at all points operated on the channel in a manner completely consistent with the ideals and ethics of the project, the fact that someone would make such a gross violation of trust is very disapointing and personally troubling. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy, can you say who gave you the diff of Giano allegedly being uncivil? Also, can you say exactly what the channel rules are? We can't have a situation where a channel that operates in absolutely secrecy has any effect on Wikipedia administrators. I can see the rationale for no public posting of logs, but for no one to be allowed to say anything whatsoever is absurd. This isn't an in-camera hearing of the UN Security Council. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who gave the diff to Chairboy. But I subsequently gave the same diff to Jimbo Wales on IRC. The 'channel that operates in absolute secrecy' (which, incidentally, any admin can join) had an effect on that particular administrator. Indeed based on conversations there, he endorsed the block and, after discussion, agreed to lift it for the wider good of the project. A course of action (that I believe I) initially suggested to him, again on IRC. Any problems?--Doc^g 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what your post means. I asked Chairboy who gave him the diff, because it'd be useful to know whether it was any of the people who've previously tried to get Giano blocked. And I asked what the privacy rules were on the channel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my laptop timed out while I was asleep, so I don't have the relevant logs. When I asked, earlier, if the block was planned on IRC, Chairyboy said "absolutely not" and Bishonen said "you'd better believe it." Don't know who to believe, and I don't have the logs. =\ Luna Santin 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then bishonen has called me a liar. I find the claim offensive, incorrect, and a gross miscarriage of WP:AGF. I have attempted to reconcile with the user off-wiki, and she has rejected my attempts. I hope it doesn't spill into the project, we've got enough work already as is. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand the logic here. A block is either a good call or a bad one. The blocking admin is alone responsible for his/her call. This call was a reasonable one (although I think ultimately unhelpful). I'm not sure what is meant by 'people who previously tried to get Giano blocked'. I've previously blocked Giano, does that count? Since everyone in the channel is an admin, anyone who believes someone should be blocked can just do it. However, it isn't the first time I've asked people to take a look at a diff I've caught (wanting a second opinion), and found someone blocked the offender before I did.

All that aside, Jimbo's action was designed to de-escalate this conflict and ask us all to play nice. I'm not sure going through Giano's edits, or IRC logs to see who said what to whom and when, is quite in that spirit. Lets move on.--Doc^g 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a point of information: not everyone in the channel is an admin, and most admins aren't involved in it, so it's a little misleading to call it an admins' channel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which may or may not be much depending on Ghirla's decision regarding my offer), I'm not on IRC and don't have any plans to join that channel. Durova^Charge! 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, the fact that Giano got blocked yet again tells me we learned absolutely nothing from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean this? Funny, it seems to suggest just the opposite. Or perhaps you meant this? I'm not seeing a "Get Out of Jail Free" card anywhere in there. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is disgusting. How long do we get to bandy about a diff? Can I now block Giano on the same comment and then claim, "Hey, it was just me by myself?" The "any admin" channel is similarly ridiculous, as there are at least two people who are not administrators who are on there, and there are people who are who won't go near it. The very existence of the thing was an attempt to gain greater secrecy, and that means opacity. Playing legal games now to say, "Well, someone showed it to me on IRC but I made the decision" is disengenious. Anyone ever heard of the bias of the first move? Basically, if I go to your talk page and say, "Oh, my goodness! Look at this horrible personal attack" and link, then you go to read specifically a single comment looking for the attack. If you are not skeptical (say, the person telling you is someone you've bantered pleasantly with for days), you may indeed see that vicious personal attack. Now, if all this happens on a talk page, there is some chance that the "attacker" will show up to explain the context, the intent, and the standing. If it happens on IRC, though, you're just getting that biased view. When a person makes a point of attacking IRC coteries, that person's going to be hunted and hounded extra especially. Doing anything "by the attention of someone on IRC" is a horrible, disgusting move. Confer! Confer some more before you block and confer openly. What is AN/I? What is its purpose? IRC blocks are, if ever, justifiable only in emergencies. Hours old diffs of Giano being mean are hardly emergencies. (Oh, and then the "Help, Bishonen's not assuming good faith" is really terrific.) I'm very disappointed. Geogre 04:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I want to make clear that I don't doubt Chairboy acted in good faith. However, in general, I wonder why people discuss blocks on IRC rather than on AN/I or by e-mail? AN/I has the benefit of being public, transparent, and can be quoted. E-mail is private for anything sensitive. IRC is neither fish nor fowl. It's public enough to invoke a gang mentality in those who use it, yet not so public that we're allowed to quote from it, which just strengthens the gang mentality. There's no point in denying this, because I've seen it time and again, and I've been stunned every time I've witnessed it (and the two facedness takes your breath away!). There's no gang mentality by e-mail, or at least it's harder to create it given the limited numbers. Anyone who can't see IRC has a potential for creating that atmosphere doesn't understand human nature. Even if we think we're not succumbing to it, we might be. Doesn't it therefore make sense to use AN/I for most blocks, e-mails for anything sensitive, and IRC for general discussions not involving individuals? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well said. Paul August ☎ 04:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I have no aspersions to cast on Chairboy's intentions, but the process was awful. It's common sense to deliberate, to use AN/I, to make deliberations especially for blocks as transparent as possible. Not doing that is absolutely wretched, whatever the intentions of the person doing it. Instead of accepting this point, which would certainly make me feel better, we're getting another battle, which doesn't help my peace of mind at all. Insisting that one's actions are above reproach is rarely helpful. If people are reproaching you, there's probably something you could have done better. (Unless you assume bad faith in every single person questioning you, but, if you do that, you're really off the path.) Geogre 15:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• "There's no gang mentality by e-mail" ... Are you sure about that? If there actually are conspiracies afoot, the conspirators will conspire by whatever means necessary. And it's a lot harder to hide the evidence on IRC, in a channel that 1000 people can join if they want to, than it is by private email. With private email, all you see is the circumstantial evidence. If that. I don't really think you need IRC to get two faced behaviour. Human nature being what it is and all... IRC is a tool like any other and can be used or misused, like any other. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• The nature of IRC lends itself to the herd mentality in a way e-mail doesn't, or at least much less so, because the latter's private and the numbers involved much smaller. With IRC, there may be dozens or even hundreds of people watching, and there's a certain amount of grandstanding. I've seen more experienced editors basically issue instructions to very young or inexperienced ones, and minutes later, they're off doing the thing that the experienced editor didn't want to do himself. It's all very well for people to claim that everyone on IRC acts of their own freewill, but how realistic is that when the age and experience differences are very significant? The important point is that IRC-related blocks frequently cause trouble, so why not just avoid them? If someone raises the possibility of a block on IRC, directly or otherwise, the sensible thing to do is for one of the admins present to initiate a discussion on AN/I to see whether the off-IRC voices concur. That's particularly important in the case of a controversial block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, the truth does not require your approval. You can assert that I've misbehaved and conspired and cabalized all you want, but it's simply wrong. If you feel I have acted improperly, if you feel that I'm lying or otherwise doing wrong, then put your money where your mouth is. Open an ArbCom case so that the logs can be reviewed by disinterested parties. JWales reviewed the situation and endorsed the block. I corresponded with SlimVirgin in email regarding some of the specifics of the discussion. Either make a formal complaint and follow it through or apologize for your inappropriate insinuations. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How often has the point been made about articles, that Wikipedia needs not merely truth but verifiability? The same should apply to accusations and disciplinary actions. It may be true that umpteen dozen admins on IRC endorsed my blocking you indefinitely for death threats (and protecting your talk page so you can't even post an "unblock" appeal); and it may even be true that "all the lurkers support me in email"; but you have no way to verify either of those claims, so you'll just have to take my word for it. However, since you know first-hand that you never uttered any death threats, my word on the matter is unlikely to satisfy you. So isn't it convenient for me that I've just prevented you from publicly defending yourself or denying the charges? And that if you try to do so from different accounts, I can just keep blocking you as a sockpuppet? Under those circumstances, you might want to have open process, with all assertions proven by citations of an open and verifiable record. As an abusive admin, I have just as strong a motive to keep everything secret and unverifiable, off the record, and avoid having to prove anything, or even specify (let alone cite) what threats you supposedly made. (With that in mind, see this and this.) This scenario is why the whole IRC issue is raising people's hackles. It brings up memories of the Vehmgericht and other "secret tribunals" of the past, and of stories by Kafka and Orwell. Secrecy destroys trust, because people will always wonder (and worry) about what you're hiding and why. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:00, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• Indeed, the truth does not require approval, and it is similarly not your possession. You have been asked, several times, to answer germane questions. You still want opacity. In what way does this help? As for "apologize for inappropriate insinuations," you'll have to tell me what they are, just as you really should tell Giano what you are blocking him for. Oh, and giving him a chance to explain would have been nice. Giving him a chance to reduce the heat would have been nice, too. You have, indeed, behaved inappropriately by following along the well worn path to unilateralism. You will note that my comments were directed at this affair, and not so much a single person. This affair illustrates, again, the use of stale diffs and, most distressingly, the refusal to confer. You indicate, one place, that you did confer, but it was on IRC (where no one may see or say), but then you say that you made your decision solus. I repeat: before blocking consult and confer and do so on Wikipedia. This is good practice, and it does require approval. All administrators should (must, except in emergencies) confer and deliberate in any shadowy area. This was a very shadowy area, and yet you felt that, on the basis of a first move call for action, you could act without warning and mediation and resolution and conferring. That can only be done if you believe you have a pipeline to the divine truth or divine rights (or if you are acting unthinkingly, of course). Geogre 12:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're calling me a liar. This is grossly incivil and an injust mischaracterization. What are your motivations here? I didn't block Giano because of a conversation on IRC. I got a diff from a novice admin who wanted to know if the text in it was a blockable offense. I told the admin that it was not, but volunteered to ask Giano to be nice. I then went to Giano's user talk and left him this request to be civil. Giano blanked the civility request with an edit summary that told me to "Go away tiresome shild^(sic)", then left a message on my talk page telling me to go and 'learn some manners'. As a response, I restored the warning and told him I was blocking him for repeated incivility and personal attacks against me when I asked him to knock it off. At no part of this was there any IRC collaboration to plot his blocking. As far as I can tell, another admin in the group misinterpreted my counseling to the novice admin as some sort of plot, but anyone who actually reads the log will see that it's ridiculous. At one point I mistook Giano for someone else and characterized him as a wikilawyer and said something to the effect of "If you block someone, you need to make absolutely certain that it's a proper block. You can't just block based on a feeling, there needs to be a specific policy violation", and mentioned that Giano would properly assert against an improper block. Blocks are bad juju, and I don't like doing them, that's why I counseled the new admin about how to avoid getting into a crapstorm and blocking innocent users. Between you and bishonen, my actions have been mischaracterized and you have whole cloth fabricated motivations and conspiracies that simply do not exist. Create an ArbCom request, Geogre, please. I beg you. If it's the only thing that will get you to stop libeling me and the only thing that will help us begin healing this weird rift in the project that you and bishonen seem determined to create, then let's get it over with. The logs can be privately reviewed by the Arbitration Committee without violating the trust of the admin IRC channel (which exists not to plot and make Wikipedia policy, but as a place where people can bounce ideas off each other and either get a positive sanity check or a thwack on the back of the head to correct a mistake) and breaking its effectiveness as one of Wikipedia's heroic inanimate carbon rods. Apologize for your gross mischaracterization of my motivations and actions, open an ArbCom case (which I will gladly assist with in any way possible), or you stand ready to clearly communicate to everyone here that your goal is not to create a better project, but is instead to disrupt and impugn innocent folks with whom you personally disagree for one reason or another. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, what "characterization of motives?" I don't see any, unless you count way up there, where he says that he doesn't have any aspersions to cast at your intentions. You mean he should apologize for that or else you'll link "civil" and "personal attack" some more? Sheesh. Crowbait 18:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there was no characterization of motives. There was a characterization of behavior. When Betacommand was called out for his improper block (blocking without warning, blocking without conferring), he conferred with Chairboy, whose measure of conferring was to think it over and just block without using AN/I or consulting with another administrator. That is bad practice. There have been no personal attacks here, just tremendously bad actions. When blocking, confer and do so openly. How hard is that to take to heart? Chairboy, you can keep begging for an RFAR, but I am not "accusing" you of anything. I am flatly stating that your actions were bad practice, improper, and invalid. They were. Take that as a "personal attack" only if you consider community input to be always harmful. Geogre 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, Chaiboy's block was entirely justified by Giano's disruptive incivility. If he hadn't beaten me to it, I would have blocked Giano myself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the benefit of anyone who still cares about this project, the truth of this affair is being outed here [6] Giano 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell us exactly what the rules are regarding privacy of logs on the so-called admins' channel? Giano's source appears to have one understanding and some of the people posting here have another. It would help if we could be told for certain what's allowed and what not, in terms of disclosure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Most major Wikipedia channels, including #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en-admins, allow logging for personal use only. Thus, keeping copies for one's own use would be fine, and, presumably, reading logs to generalize a situation and responses would be fine. Quoting logs, making logs public, or sharing logs without the permission of all participants in the discussion is prohibited. (It may be worth noting that even private logging is illegal in some jurisdictions, but that's another story.) Ral315 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ral. I'm still not sure what it means in practise. Would someone be allowed to say "It was User:X who suggested the block"? Would they be allowed to say it on AN/I? By e-mail? And I mean without X's permission. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And when you say "illegal" and "jurisdictions," what do you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Good news: both Piotrus and Ghirla have agreed to let me mediate. Durova^Charge! 14:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC) --- I want to go on record here I also stated this on my userpage. I NEVER ASKED FOR A BLOCK all I asked was that a npa warning be given. at the Time I did not see a reason to block, I did not know about the block until I logged BACK online over an hour later. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

May I quote your bit of the log re:Giano to show how to the block was discussed?

The background to Chairboy's block of Giano last night was Betacommand's recent block of Irpen. Looking at the admin channel logs from last night, I see people asking me how the issue of blocking Giano started this time, and me saying I couldn't remember. Now that it's no longer the middle of the night, I do remember: the background was Betacommand's extremely dodgy block of Irpen, which has been criticized here on ANI for being done without warning, for giving only the vague reason "personal attacks", for coming without a block message, and for being imposed at the last minute before Betacommand went off line. (On Betacommand's talkpage are many more queries and comments, including this trenchant summary by Geogre: [7].) Betacommand's block of Irpen was pretty soon undone, but Irpen remains crushed by the way his block log now looks. I saw clearly last night on en-admins the usual old callousness about such things, exhibited by some admins (those most active in the matter): the too-frequent incapacity for understanding the amount of harm done to good-faith editors by blocks. :-( Blocks were actually discussed in terms of editors wanting to be blocked, "wikilawyering" to be blocked, "dancing" to be blocked; rather than in terms of the shock and pain of getting an enduring black mark (so very easily inflicted!) in the block log. Whatever. Giano was one of the people criticizing Betacommand over the Irpen block, and Betacommand's reaction was apparently (not that he needed to take stock, being a new admin, and reconsider doing such blocks) but that he needed help from more experienced admins in putting a stop to such Personal Attacks against himself. He joined #Wikipedia-en-admins to ask, and Chairboy advised him. Considering the rate at which Chairboy's accusations against me personally seem to be escalating above, I'd really like to go into more detail at this point, and to preferably use exact quotes from the discussion of the blocking of Giano, but I confess myself unnerved by the different things different users are saying about whether, or how much, the logs can actually be quoted in public. Let me go out on a limb, though, and ask the following editors if they will permit me to quote their words here on ANI. If that question itself is improperly revealing, you'll just have to hang me. Betacommand, Doc glasgow, Royalguard11, Chairboy, Naconkantari, Interiot, Luna-San, Jwales, could you please indicate here whether you're OK with having your words from the log quoted by me here? Bishonen | talk 17:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

If you feel you need to make a point, then go ahead. I release my contributions, my only requirement is that you include the entire log, from beginning (when Betacommand asked for someone to block someone for NPA) to Jwale's leaving the room after endorsing the block, not just a cherry picked segment with "helpful editing". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't fully understand this what's going on here. Giano's recent edits seem to indicate he already has logs (though I can't confirm if it's genuine, but I'll assume so). Have you already shared them with him? Dmcdevit·t 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I don't know where Giano got his logs. (I asked and he wouldn't say.) I logged the channel when I was in it, and I'm asking if I may share suitable bits of the log here. On ANI. Nothing to do with Giano. Right now I'm taking some deep breaths and trying to decide whether anything will be achieved or improved by my replying to Chairboy in the same spirit in which he speaks to me. I think not. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

With respect, you've been accusing me of lying, and I've had the temerity to object. Look, we're all volunteers here, that's part of why this whole thing is so silly, and the personal nature of the attacks are unwarranted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Does not compute: "entire log" makes no sense. How do you know when someone began logging and quit? Weird. Everything is "cherry picked." Crowbait 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be most helpful for those who wonder where Wikipedia is going. I have been told so many times how civil and helpful that abode of "wikilove" they call #Wikipedia-en-admins, that I would really like to see a sample from logs of that "wikilove" (or is it "wikievil"?) to assess the situation. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well you can obtain a flavour of the log here [8], where you will see some of those concerned are grabbing at straws and seem reluctant to discuss the situation further. Oh and for the benefit of those who seem to suspect Bishonen passed me the log - she did not. It came from someone altogether closer to my home, and that is the only hint. Those concerned know what was in it, and they seem to be anxious to rephrase their meanings, I do hope so because "kill me cleanly" is a very unpleasant term indeed. Obviously nothing uncivil intended there. Giano 19:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Kill you cleanly?" Is that what this is all about? It appears you do not actually have a copy of the logs, if you did you wouldn't be making these claims. I was counseling an admin about administering blocks. I told him that any block administered must meet specific criteria and be completely legit to ensure a "clean kill", in the sense that the alternative is that people get blocked who shouldn't have been. Bishonen interpreted this in just about the worst possible way, and if my language was unclear, I apologize, but saying that I was plotting to kill you or otherwise conspiring as part of a big mean IRC cabal is just flat out wrong. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, in what way can "clean kill" be interpreted? Honestly, you're great at reading menace into my words, but your own...even when you use violent language...that's just no biggie? Yikes! Geogre 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from obvious vandalism, blocks of established editors should be discussed here or on AN. Using IRC to determine if a block is appropriate or if an unblock is a good idea simply needs to stop. Consensus is decided on wiki, not IRC.--MONGO 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. If an established contributor is to be blocked, at the very least they should be given a chance to defend their actions. I feel the "anti-IRC" argument is misplaced however. Plenty of blocks have probably occurred by AIM/MSN/YIM group chats too. I would even conjecture more happen there as more Wikipedians I know use these messenger services as communication media than IRC. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

..........and the reason I dismissed Chairboy with such a curt message [9] was because I already (very reliably) knew he had been made the stooge of an IRC plot. He was referring to the incident Cyde had already posted here (on this page) hours before. All very odd isn't it? Giano 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but I see irony in the fact that you were unblocked per an IRC discussion in the admins channel as well. If anything, I would suggest you be happy it was IRC - there are plenty of people who have logs (of which you seem to be one). If it was AIM/YIM/MSN it would be "he said/she said." Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Was I? I didn't know that. Not often someone can tell me something I didn't know. So what else was said in that IRC discussion? I'm sure we would all love to know Giano 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Jimbo interceded on your behalf. As I understand it, he endorsed the block for the reasons given, but repealed it because of the issues related to IRC (with a strong warning in the unblock for you to act in a civil matter - you can read the block log if you wish.) I am not sure of the contents of the discussion, as I was not a party to it, but I know for a fact that it was conducted over IRC. For my part, I also discussed the matter with him. While don't want to say anything Jimbo said without his permission to say it, I commented to him that the whole matter seems to have gotten vastly exaggerated, that you were a good contributor, and that you simply seem to have misplaced your suspicion of IRC. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick correction. JWales did not unblock Giano because of issues related to IRC. He unblocked Giano because he feels Giano is a valued member and he wants everyone to be happy. Whether or not it is the right thing to do is a concern that must take a back seat to diplomacy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Any admin who thinks diplomacy is not the right thing to do or is unimportant, should be summarily stripped of their mop, which should then be broken in twain and the pieces lovingly shoved where the sun don't shine:).--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And that's your idea of being 'diplomatic'? Perhaps you should follow your own advice.--Doc^g 00:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what I was getting at about people being a bit hypocritical. People who go on search and destroy missions for "incivility" and "personal attacks" should at least be consistent in seeking to exemplify civility (and not talk about getting quick kills or escalate situations with volatile editors and not admit no fault) and avoid itching for fights. RDH doesn't go hunting civility breaches, and neither does Giano. Of course we should all be civil, but when we make ourselves wardens of everyone else's behavior and not our own, when we go hunting for what we are sure must be personal attacks, then we get distorted into the monsters we claim to want to destroy. It's far better to be laid back. Geogre 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. No one should go hunting for incivility breaches. I certainly don't.--Doc^g 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was a non-starter. A question about sharing the en-admin logs.

Well, that was apparently a non-starter. Only Chairboy has replied so far, and, Kerberos-like, in a way that would make it necessary to ask several more people for permission to quote their words (pointless quoting, but required by Chairboy to avoid my putative evil and dishonest cherry-picking). I've suggested to Chairboy on IRC that he might like to do the editing himself, to shorten the very long section from Betacommand's question to jwales's exit, and especially to remove the irrelevant people, but he doesn't wish to. OK, I would have liked to explain how I see what happened on en-admins yesterday, but meh, forget it. I'm only sorry Slim's questions are destined to have no replies. Hey, could somebody who's sure they understand the rules tell me, though: is there any objection to my e-mailing the logs to SlimVirgin? She's an admin, she might as well have been there and doing her own logging, though in fact she was not. Right? Bishonen | talk 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

For my part I pointed out to Jimmy that there was a request for his permission to have the logs reviewed pertaining to him, but he has been busy today. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure "Jimmy" is very grateful to you. Regarding your point above, it rather seems my suspicions of IRC are far from "misplaced" Giano 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy is jwales on IRC and User:Jimbo Wales here. You can read about him on wikipedia. He happens to be it's founder :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• don't worry, I know who he is, I have been here a short while. Giano 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I have no objection if you release the logs of that conversation, Bishonen. I thought it was a helpful talk. I can only speak for myself, though. If you get the permission of all involved, I don't see why it would be any problem at all (even getting past our general paranoia about it). Luna Santin 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And If people won't answer, I don't see the harm in emailing the logs to anyone who requests a copy Giano 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think I would see a problem with it, either, but the person releasing the logs would be making themselves vulnerable, under the prohibition on public logging; if at all possible, I'd prefer to avoid forcing that on anyone. Luna Santin 22:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I would suggest you didn't do that without permission. The reason is alluded to above. If you give out information given in confidence without the permission of all involved, then there could be legal implications, and I certainly wouldn't want that happening with anyone here. We have Bishonen's implicit permission and Chairboy and Luna-Santin's explicit permission, let's wait until doc-glasgow, Jimmy, and Betacommand reply and do this the "right" way. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to read Chairboy's "permission" more carefully, Peter. It contains conditions that make it unusable. There were several people there whom a publication would be likely to embarrass. I simply wouldn't do it, even aparat from the fact that they'd be highly unlikely to give permission for it. They're not relevant to this, but as long as Chairboy insists on every dot or nothing, they'd be part of it nevertheless. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

I've just seen your edit here [10] are you daring to make a legal threat to me? Please consider your answer very carefull before you answer. Giano 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious how you could interpret that diff as a legal threat in any way, shape, or form. Unless you're referring to this edit, where he specifically says he's not hoping for that. Luna Santin 22:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to his edit directly above, where he and I know full well what he is implying. The reason IRC Logs are not used on Wikipedia is because James Forrester decreed it so. I have an IRC log of him boasting about it, I must dig that one out, it makes amusing reading. Giano 23:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I've commented there to keep things short here. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:41, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I know I'm going to be shouted at for this but if you really want IRC logs published, propose a change to the policy in the normal way and let the community decide what happens rather than keep banging on about IRC logs here where it's just annoying and upsetting other users and where your making new enemies for no reason. I'd really like to see a proper discussion about IRC logs after all the complaints from the past week. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, with all due respect, I still don't see how you can possibly interpret that as a legal threat, when he explicitly said he didn't want anyone to get into legal trouble. Perhaps you're reading a subtext into it that I'm not, but at this point focusing on details like that is only going to kill everyone's chances at quickly resolving this with as little drama as possible. Please, just let it go so that we can move on to working this out. If you want the "last word," fine by me. Luna Santin 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-involved non-admin here, and FWIW I interpreted it as a legal threat. Anchoress 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anchoress, please also see here. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 06:48, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Giano, I wish to take this opportunity to apologise for using sarcasm in your presence, as it is obvious unhelpful. I will attempt not so to do in future (though I imagine I will fail, sadly).

Yes, it is theoretically my call as to all of the rules in all of the IRC channels (that's my job). Yes, it is my job to oversee the enforcement of said rules. No, I did not actually make this rule up. Yes, I support it personally, but it would be utterly inappropriate to use my position to further a personal objective of mine. No, I do not enjoy "power", and would not boast about it. Yes, I sometimes make a joke of it. Further questions are welcome, of course; transparency in this role is not necessarily a bad idea.

The rule and its rationale are as follows: IRC is not Wikipedia. IRC is not under the control of Wikipedia, or any part thereof (the me-who-is-on-IRC is not the me-who-is-on-here; such is the nature of having various hats). Things that happen on IRC are equivalent to things that happen on MySpace, or in a telephone conversation, or in a pub. They are meant to be analogous to e-mail - all participants get a copy, but it is utterly morally vile (and generally illegal) to forward private correspondance to another party without permission of all those involved. Were we to publically log the "private" IRC channels, they would, err, cease to be private, and all these "cabal"-like discussions that so many people seem to think occur there (wrongly, as far I am aware) would move to somewhere that they cannot have as many people take part in the discussions (by the very nature of having a private channel), and, as they wouldn't be part of the official Wikipedia IRC network, I would have no ex officio ability nor authority to be in said channel, and so wouldn't be able to monitor such things.

I think that it is very sad that those people who choose not to use IRC (it takes very little effort in most circumstances) consider those who do do so to be part of some microscopic group that plot against the rest. It is not really very in-keeping with wikilove, AGF, and other core parts of what our community is about (for those that have forgotten :-().

Finally, please note that #wikipedia-en-admins is not an "official" channel (as said above), but is for informed discussion, so various particular people who are no longer, or have never been, sysops are still welcome there - and, by extension, people who are sysops but are disbenefits to the discussion could be asked, or forced, to leave (though I do not believe this has happened yet).

James F. (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, James. You've explained the rule — that it's analogous to e-mail, with all participants receiving a copy. Two questions: first, whose rule is this? Second, can the rule be modified so that anyone who would be entitled to be on the list (basically, any admin) may ask to receive a copy after the fact, assuming a copy exists? In that way, situations like the above would be avoided. The secrecy is breeding suspicion. A number of us here have tried to deal with this situation, and are having to feel our way along in the dark. I have not seen the logs. I don't know who said what. I would like to know, not so I can blab about it, but so I can inform the way I approach the situation. If admins could request the logs in future for any situation that turns controversial, the people on the channel will be more careful not to do controversial things on it, and if they do, it'll be easy to see how it evolved so it can be more easily avoided in future. Do you have any thoughts about that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The rule is that of the IRC community. It has been the rule for longer than I've used IRC for the Wikimedia projects (that is, it's been a rule since at least 2003). I'm sure it can be modified, but in the same way that any policy in Wikimedia can - consensus has to be convinced of the need for and appropriacy of change. As to the particulars of your proposal, I would observe that it violates the primary point of the logging ban (that what is said in private, stays in private), and so I doubt the community would be terribly in favour of it. You can ask, of course, but I don't fancy the proposal's chances.

I'm also somewhat unsure of your implict premise - that each and every single sysop can be trusted with such information. By "trusted", we mean trusted not to react adversly to it, not to leak it to other people or organisations such as "Wikitruth" - in essence, not to bring the project into disrepute (that is what we're all here to do, isn't it? ;-)). This is in general an exceedingly difficult thing to ask of people - for example, I would not necessarily feel comfortable seeing logs about myself, or about something "politically sensitive". I would say that the ability to trust all sysops with such information is not something that can easily be handed down - it is up to each conversations' participants to judge for themselves whether or not they trust the people in-channel at the time to. Given the rampant lack of trust and factionalism present in the sysop cadre, a rot that has been festering for quite some time now, I can see no way of getting to the point where such a thing would be possible. :-(

I don't think that it would be appropriate for me to comment about the individual cases that come up here, of course, so I'm afraid that I might not be of as much help as you might expect in solving this right now; I have had a quick look, and it seems that I was not in-channel at the time of this conversation (there were a few problems with IRC servers), so I'm just as much in the dark as everyone else. Sorry. :-(

I'm sad that you have seen people become suspicious just because they do not know everything; it seems somewhat petty to my mind, really - but then, I'm used to the concept of circles within circles and all that from my extra-wiki life. :-)

James F. (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you James so your statement on IRC: that if you were to make personal attacks you would do them on IRC because you control it, and had personally ruled it was not under the Arbcom's jurisdiction" was not true then? Giano 11:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a sarcastic observation. Anyone who knows me even vaguely would be able to tell that. :-) I would not make personal attacks about others - ever - so the question is moot. I was, yes, part of the Committee when we observed ("ruled", if you prefer, though I don't) that IRC is outwith Wikipedia, but the observation was not novel.

In this particular case, I'm not terribly fussed about you revealling the contents of my privileged discussions, but please do not do so again without prior consent of the parties involved.

James F. (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

James, if making the logs privately available to any admin who asks isn't tenable (and I take your point about trust and Wikitruth, and other venues), would it be easier to request, or to introduce a rule (I don't know how the channel works and what rules exist, or how they are introduced) that no-one is allowed to discuss on the IRC admins' channel the proposed block of an established editor, and that anyone doing so will be asked to leave the channel, or some such? Not including proposed blocks of vandals, or drive-by editors, of course, but the blocking of anyone established in the community should not be discussed at all on IRC. Would that work? I think it would go a long way to re-establishing some trust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked this idea so much that I went ahead and made it. Hopefully this will make people happier, but, far more importantly, work to improve the project.

James F. (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not involved in the discussion prior to the block (as Bishonen can attest), my only involvement after it was to counsel against the block. However, I explicitly deny permission for the publication of any of my contributions. That is not a precedent I wish to set. --Doc^g 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion for the future

My understanding is that any admin is entitled to use the so-called admins' channel. Therefore, any admin could be present at any time and be watching or logging for themselves. My recollection is that Danny set it up for the benefit of admins. Therefore, it makes sense that any logs may be passed to other admins by e-mail with or without the permission of the participants. This would get round the absurdity of Wikipedia admins trying to discuss an admininstrative issue on the Wikipedia admins' noticeboard, but not being allowed to know what was said. In future, I suggest that any admin may request a copy of the logs from any other admin who happens to have them. Who are the channel operators so I can check this with them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's my understanding that the channel is not restricted to enwiki admins, but is rather open and devs and commons admins get access too. Does that mean they get the logs if they ask for it? – Chacor 02:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why it's not allowed to just publish these logs in any case (with the exception of confidential stuff, of course), soo.. what if we allow logs to be published whenever an admin action was involved (same exception)? Whenever someone says "I discussed this on IRC and then blocked him/protected the article/whatever", it should be possible to find out what was said by whom, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my suggestion is that anyone who would be entitled to access to the channel may request a copy of the logs from anyone who has a copy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the long-standing rules on #wikipeida channels on IRC is that publishing a log = ban on IRC. Another issue that hasn't been brung up is that the conversations on IRC aren't released under GFDL. (not a big issue, but it could turn into something someday). ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "publish." I meant that anyone entitled to access may request that they be privately forwarded a copy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Brought". ;) – Chacor 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a rule, I just don't understand why it's one. I think publishing the log in this case would've prevented a lot of bad blood between all participants. --Conti|✉ 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So, out of curiousity, who holds the copyright to them? Picaroon 03:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that IRC chats have the same status as telephone calls, and in North America you may record your own telephone conversations and allow others access. You may not do it unless you're part of the conversation. However, I find this resorting to legal questions pointless. We're not children and we're not enemies. We should be able to reach an agreement that ensures these IRC block controversies don't pan out in the same way in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You may record your telephone calls and allow others access if you inform the other party or parties prior to the conversation that the conversation is recorded and may be used for whatever purpose, at which point they can disconnect or communicate elsewhere. —Centrx→talk • 09:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're a participant in the conversation, the only consent you need is your own. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not participated in this discussion, and have never yet been on a Wikipedia-related IRC discussion, but for the record, the law about recording phone conversations varies greatly from one place to another. In the USA, for example, in some states ("two-party states") both sides to a conversation must consent to any recording, exactly as Centrx says, but in others ("one-party states") either party to the conversation may record unilaterally (at least as far as the purely legal aspect is concerned). When the two parties to a call are located in different states with different rules, of course, things get complicated. If one then tries to extrapolate to an IRC channel with hundreds of participants, it becomes clear that this is not going to be a useful analogy one way or the other, for better or worse. Newyorkbrad 12:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A useful analogy is chatting around a table. You know who is present, and that they are trustworthy enough not to record your real-time conversation and advertise it elsewhere. If they were to record it, you would not speak freely or comfortably, and you may just go sit at another table altogether. If there is official business to be conducted, it can be done at the WP:AN table, but if a certain table is logged, people will simply choose to go to an unlogged private table, a private table that may be unsupervised and to which you have no guarantee of entrance. It is one thing to take notes at a board meeting, and another thing entirely to record every business (or totally non-business) lunch and post the transcripts in the company lobby. Surveillance will not solve the alleged problem, it will just send it underground, and has other effects besides. —Centrx→talk • 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that my contributions in IRC are not released. They remain my copyright. If anyone were to log them and offer copies to over 1,000 admins that would surely be a breach of copyright, freenode policy, and the law in certain countries. I would strongly resist that, for a whole host of reasons. With 1,000 potential logs (even if for private use) it would impossible to enforce a 'no publications' rule. If logs are published, then they are searchable. If someone can search through my informal chatting on IRC, then they can almost certainly compromise my pseudonymity. Slim this is dead in the water. I would seek to enforce my copyrights.--Doc^g 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I propose to only publish logs (or hand them out to everyone who was involved) when an admin action was involved. I understand your point, and I also don't see a point in publishing day-to-day chit-chat, but discussions that lead to a block should be available to those involved, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you have any copyright over that material, but as I said above, that really ought to be beside the point. If secrets are being discussed, they should be discussed privately by e-mail. If they're not secrets, but ordinary admin business, then any admin should be able to see the logs. The current situation, where they're sort of secret and sort of public, is untenable, at least for admin business, because it leads to absurd situations like the above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I wrong to thank that the best place for further discussion would be the talk page of m:IRC guidelines? As a note on confidentiality - right now the channels are considered a private place, and anything said in there is between the parties therein. Releasing it without the express permission of everyone therein is a breach of trust, which is punishable to various degrees in various countries. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I love the smell of IRC secrecy in the morning. It smells like ... victory. El_C 02:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems what we need is a little Wikilove, I think you are forgetting we are in this to make an encyclopedia, and everytime we try to punish people for their wrongdoing we allways seem to lose our sense of community, we need to stop worrying about little things and move on. Wizardry_Dragon said at the top, that wikipedia is not a battleground, though scrolling down it would seem that this is often blatantly ignored. If a user is bothering you, ignore them. ArbCom is too much like a court, 90% of the time we end up separated over small arguments which end up affecting more and more users as they go through arbcom. If you can't stand somebody, have a nice cup of tea and sit down and then ignore them for a while and try and realise that they want to make an encyclopedia as much as you. You don't have to be paranoid of everyone out to get you, if we let the little things get to us then our encyclopedia will suffer. TehKewl1 11:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Today... is Christmas! There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty! Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God, and a few Marines! El_C 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me offer my two cents, with the disclaimers that I am an admin but I almost never frequent IRC. I strongly support the notion that IRC logs should be logged and public unless the channel is restricted to a given group, like admins. In that case at the very least the logs should be available to all admins. That said, I do not think that the admin IRC channel should be password protected in the first place; I don't believe that anything we admins discuss needs to be 'secret'. Wikipedia is an open community, and this should apply to all levels of our decision making.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Utterly and absolutely not. When I use IRC, I am chatting informally. I may inadvertently give away personal information. I choose to do that knowing that there are 10-50 people in the room, and I run certain risks with my privacy. My choice. However, if any of 1,000 admins could have the logs, that changes the dynamic: it would then be impossible to prevent logs being published on the web. Personally, I would cease to use the wikipedia IRC channels immediately. Now, no doubt some will say that if people stopped using the admins channel that would be a good thing. Well, think again. The advantage of these channels is that there is a cross-section of Wikipedians in them. They are not a select cabal. If an admin says something inappropriate about user:x, there is a fair chance that someone else will question it. (Indeed, in the recent Giano blocking, bishonen, I and others were in the room and able to question the block, and ultimately have it removed.) If these relatively open IRC channels become totally public, what will happen is that private channels will be used. Admins who are seen as 'hostile' to whatever group controls them will be excluded. There channels exist already. I have occasionally been in them. And the potential for abuse (or at least 'group think' developing) is FAR higher. I'd have to see them become the norm.

IRC can be abused, and disastrously. But I've more often seen it used in excellent ways. It can be used to bring together users who only only scream at one another on wiki. It can allow someone considering a course of action to get a sanity check, good advice, or a quick explanation. People are people; media are neutral. The wikipedia IRC channels have the excellence of being more discrete than the open wiki, but more representative than back channels. Let's not wreck that. I respect those who would like all interaction between wikipedian admins to be public, but sorry, it isn't going to happen. Opening the logs of the wikipedia IRC channels will have quite the opposite effect to the one you desire.--Doc^g 01:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want privacy, use email — otherwise, you should expect minimal onwiki accountability. El_C 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Or instant messages, or have a private channel on IRC. As a wiki admin, I think I should have the right to view the logs of past IRC admin chat whenever I want to, just as I can view the records of ANI discussions here. Perhaps, seems this seem to be an issue that comes back often enough, we should have a separate discussion on it and a policy about it drafted? Shall we start at Wikipedia:IRC channels?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You've missed the point of what I've said. Basically, if you proceed down this route, then I may, or may not, invite you to carry on this discussion in #Doc-cabal-wp, where I an my friends will be able to discuss blocking whoever we like, safe in the knowledge that only like-minded people will be there. But, personally, I think that's a much more dangerous route. --Doc^g 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We may never be able to stop certain people being so childish, but it would at least stop the practice of certain admins using #wikipedia-en-admins as their own cabal playhouse; a place for their "friends" to coordinate actions against their "enemies". I have seen the log where Chairboy's block of Giano was organised, and the behaviour was simply vile - they decided to block him, and then tried to work out how they could nail it on him (I have the logs to prove it, and I'll be damned if I won't post it if I need to - this should not go overlooked because of bureaucracy). It was also striking how suddenly their tone changed to one of politeness and civility when Jimbo entered the channel and brought playtime to an end. Frankly, I think it's about time we dumped the pretension that what goes on in IRC is somehow seperate from that of the project; that conversation makes a damned good case, in my mind, why Chairboy at least, and quite possibly Betacommand, should be desysopped. Rebecca 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusion ill-fits the facts. I'm not disputing that Chairboy et all may have acted totally inappropriately (actually, I can't comment on that, as I missed that bit of the conversation). However, think what happened next. 1) Bishonen was in the channel and objected to what had happened. 2) I called jwales into the channel to get the situation resolved and the block lifter without a wheel-war. Had the admin's channel not existed, or been so public that people felt uncomfortable using it, the IRC conspiracy would almost certainly still have happened, the block would have occurred, but the conversation would not have been heard by independent persons and the block would not have been lifted. Even at its worst (and plenty good goes on in IRC) the admins channel is far better than the alternatives.--Doc^g

Perhaps so, but #wikipedia-en-admins is being used repeatedly by one clique in this dispute to further their disputes with the other; I saw the same again in action last night. This behaviour should not be tolerated at the best of times, and it should certainly not be tolerated in a major Wikipedia channel. It reflects badly on the project, and leads to good people having good reason to feel threatened in using a channel that is supposed to be for Danny and similar folk to contact other editors in the event of some kind of emergency issue. The fear that people might take bad behaviour underground is not an excuse for letting it go on in public. Rebecca 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But your point is it isn't public enough....or is it that it is public and would be better underground...sorry you're loosing me. Personally, on IRC I see disagreements, discussions, debates and sometimes quite heated ones. I see no clique. But if you remove the broad IRC forum then you will get more cliques elsewhere. I'd hate that.--Doc^g 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with your assertion, Rebecca, I think this is a fine opportunity to help fix this problem. As I did not coordinate or conspire to block Giano, I would like to formally request that if you feel my actions were improper that you initiate an ArbCom case to that affect. That way, the complete logs could be provided to the ArbCom and the matter could be resolved. I have asked Geogre, Giano, and Bishonen to do this, but they have not for their own reasons. I respect the strength of your convictions, Rebecca, and ask you to step up to the plate so we can fix this. The community is being fractured by this and this drama weakens the goal of producing a world class encyclopedia. If a formal review by uninvolved people is required to resolve the situation, I gladly volunteer for the scrutiny with which it comes. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With this in mind, I will proceed to do so sometime in the next few days. (This may be after New Years, as I'll be pretty busy.) Rebecca 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If I thought it would help, I would create the case myself, but I think that would look theatrical. If there is anything I can do to assist, please let me know. I know that I did not collude or conspire to block Giano and that my decision to block him was based completely upon his behavior when I asked him not to attack other users. If the ArbCom feels that I have acted maliciously or with disregard for the project, then I will take whatever lumps they proscribe. The integrity of the project is the most important and anything that distracts from the goal of writing an encyclopedia is a Bad Thing. Best regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this is being discussed argued about turned into a major dispute here as well. Can't this all be kept in one place? Is there enough of an agreement that something needs to be done to create a proposed policy page, and shunt all the discussion onto that page's discussion page? (I don't for a moment think the answer is 'yes', but I thought I at least ought to ask.) Does the nature of the dispute make that impossible? – Gurch 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am pleasently surprised to learn about Rebecca's position. Sometimes, it is good and humbling to be wrong. Keep up the good work! El_C 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic bot

User:Ganeshk has again unleashed his WikiProjectIndia template-adding bot. The bot is tagging hundreds of articles re Bollywood actors and actresses with the India template. Here's an example: [11]. The bot was stopped on November 6 and he restarted it on December 23 ([12]). This is just plain pointless! It fills up the top of the talk page with huge templates (you have to scroll and scroll to get past them into actual discussion) and it's unnecessary. What possible good does it serve, other than the egos of the Indian editors (we own XXX,XXX articles nyah nyah!). This sort of thing spreads. A Pakistani editor tried to claim Salwar kameez for Pakistan (even though the items of clothing in question are worn in many countries) and one editor insists that Dhoti belongs to India and Hinduism. This is bad enough when you have one editor adding project templates one at a time -- fending off an attack by a bot is hopeless. Can we please BAN template-adding bots? And revert the dang bot edits? If it isn't important enough for someone to spend the time to add it by hand, after discussion with the regular editors, then it isn't important to the project. Zora 00:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll second this. I'm fed up with this high-level project nonsense, where people in some special-interest clique make decisions and then enforce them on dozens of articles they've never worked on, regardless of the sentiment of those who are. A bot to do this? Terrible, terrible, terrible. This is how we loose good editors who just work away at one or two articles. Can we block the bot, and ban this type of nonsense? --Doc^g 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:1.0/I depends on these templates. It helps editors identify at a glance which articles need more work on, and as a result, are not suitable for inclusion into any of the stable releases. Zora, if any editor is saying, "ooh, we have 100 articles, and you don't, nyah nyah", go have a chat with that editor. Doc, I haven't heard of one case of an editor leaving Wikipedia because a tag is added to a talk page. That neither one of you finds adding more organization to pages useful does not mean that others share your opinion. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot for now. I wouldn't be against rolling back the edits. Grandmasterka 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel the bot block is really unfair without a discussion here. The bot tagging helps out with WP:1 and also help identify articles that need improvement. There are about 250 projects participating in this. Ganeshbot works under automation project of the India project tagging India-related categories with India project banner. This discussion here is not about this particular bot, but about whether assessments are needed for Wikipedia. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what exactly is the problem here? If it's just a concern about template bloat, it would be trivial to have the bots/people/whatever use the small-form templates, avoiding the whole "scrolling past the templates" issue. Is there some fundamental problem beyond that? What's wrong with letting interested WikiProjects enter relevant articles into their assessment process? Kirill Lokshin 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the "assessment process" is producing any results. We had a list of "to-do" items at WP:INCINE and the response (even from me, and I should be be more dedicated) has been tepid. WP:INCINE is the project devoted to Indian cinema ... if we can't get editors to work on actor/actress articles, then what good is an India template going to do?

If adding templates doesn't help produce better articles, then it's nothing but ethnic/religious/nationalist tagging of the sort that has mired thousands of articles. Are we adding US templates to all the US actor and actress articles? NO .... but I did find a great example of the idiocy of template-mania: have a look at Talk:George Clooney. He hasn't lived in Kentucky since 1982, but someone has claimed him for WikiProject Kentucky.

We let anyone start a project and plaster templates all over heck and gone and there's absolutely no discussion or approval required. This is something that can't be done with links? or even categories? No, we have to have a great big graphic that says "Kilroy wuz here". That's bad enough, but automating it? The last time Ganeshk turned his robot loose, it was tagging articles related to Iranian history with WP:IN templates and the Iranian editors were extremely upset. Please, let's turn off the bot until we can have some high-level decisions about projects. Zora 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, did you notice the part where I pointed out a way to make this a small, out-of-the-way graphic? If it's merely a layout issue, we have technical solutions for it. ;-)

As far as producing results: it's been my experience (with WP:MILHIST) that the process is very helpful in motivating and tracking improvement (if not, perhaps, in an entirely predictable way). Your experience may, of course, be different. I don't entirely disagree with you on the subject of projects not getting discussion or approval; but I think that going after one particular project (and WP:INDIA doesn't seem like a project whose existence would be controversial, in any case) is hardly the best way of approaching the issue. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to poke into other people's affairs,but Ganesk has been doing this for along time now.The last dispute ganshk had(along with an edit war) was with user:Szhaider when he put Indian tags on Pakistani history articles.Again i don't mean to come in uninvited or anything,but Ganshk why not inform other editors of what you're about to do before randomly tagging other countries history pages with indian tags?You seemed to have upset more than just Szhaider and I by continuing this random tagging.If more than just Szhaider and I are complaining about this to you,then shouldn't it mean something?Please think about it. Nadirali 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that the bot-tagging is (presumably) driven by categories, I'd guess that there's something funny about the category structue involved that's bringing in unrelated articles. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, The bot always runs on India-related categories. In Zora's case, it was Category:Indian actor stubs. Nadirali is pointing to Indus Valley Civilization that is part of Category:Indus Valley Civilization which is a sub-category of Category:History of India. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ownership" of Indus Valley Civilization is hotly contested subject. Claiming it for India without even considering that this claim might be controversial is thoughtless. It's also not at all clear to me that if someone is an "Indian actor", the Indian part of the concept takes precedence over the actor part. Why pick India, instead of cinema?

Real-life is not a UNIX file structure, with everything neatly hierarchically arranged. A particular article may be relevant to many categories or projects. Grabbing it for ONE project and ignoring any other areas of interest or relevance is provocative. That was exactly what was wrong with the Pakistani editor trying to claim salwar kameez. Since it's provocative, you don't do it by bot. If you want articles assessed, put up a SMALL assessment template, that doesn't claim the article for any one project. Zora 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about "ownership" or "claiming"? There's nothing unusual about having multiple projects add their tags to the same article (although you seem to be complaining about this as well?); and all the tags I've seen now say merely that the article is "within the scope" of a particular project, avoiding even the mildly controversial "part of" a project wording used in the past. That Ganeshk is only applying one project's tags is not intended as a slight to other projects; they're perfectly free to add their own tags (or even get a bot to help them do so). (While there have been some bots that have tagged articles with multiple projects' tags in a single run, this usually requires more coordination than it's worth, in my experience.) Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Tagging does not mean "ownership" or "grabbing" or "claiming". It means taking responsibility to substantially improve the article to FA-standard. Indian actors are tagged with cinema=yes parameter so that they fall into the Cinema workgroup of the India project. If someone is a Indian actor, both Indian part and the actor part apply. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the indie bot tagging bollywood stuff. Indian cinema project is listed under the wp india. The actors are also indian. this is perfectly acceptable. As for indus valley civilization, it has the word indus in it. islam and the islamic state of pakistan didn't even exsist. indian women also wear salwar kameez. there's nothing wrong tagging it.--D-Boy 06:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the template should be made as small as it could be. If possible, it could have a show/hide option defaulting to hide, so that those not interested see the discussions straight away. I thought adding a project template does not imply ownership, and that articles can be tagged under several different projects. As far as the bot is concerned, since the project templates/assessment, etc. are relatively new things, we do have a big backlog of articles, and so a bot is handy. Of course, merely tagging doesn't achieve much, and it's true that many bot-tagged articles run at the risk of being forgotten again. deeptrivia (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ownership" of Indus Valley Civilization is hotly contested subject. Claiming it for India without even considering that this claim might be controversial is thoughtless.

You might want to look closely at User:Nadirali's contribs (which include claiming Panini for Pakistan]] & running an off-wiki meatpuppetry forum)... No one is claiming IVC FOR INDIA. We already have different project tags for pre-1947 India.

Seriously, i find Zora to be mildly Indophobic ( See [13]). She assumes bad-faith with virtually every Indian editor. She seems to be on one-man crusade to rid Wikipedia of what she considers to be assertive Indian nationalism. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 11:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ganesh's and Deepak's comments that template tagging does not mean ownership. The literal meaning would be "This article is associated with this WikiProject." The size ohwever, is a contentious issue. Since some articles will have many templates, a size reduction is inevitable and necessary. As others have mentioned, the bot is extremely efficient compared to humans and only a small proportion of the articles it tags would be considered controversial "taggings." At times you can't blame the bot. Take Dhoti as an example. Zora mentioned that Dhotis are worn by people outside of India but the all but one sentence in the entire article talks about Dhotis being worn outside of India and even that sentence is unsourced and randomly inserted. Someone should be bold and write firstly about Dhotis being worn in other parts of the world in Wiki-style. Personally if I read the article, I would have doubted that they are worn outside of India. Most importantly, more than one template can be added, therefore template tagging does not suggest ownership but rather association. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora is merely indophobic. She should stop seeing Hindu fascists/Indian imperialists/etc. around. She accused a very neutral Indian editor of acting like "a tank division heading from Islamabad. Just because documented India-bashers are upset is no reason to stop a bot which is organizing things to make the pedia better. Wikipedia shouldnt fall prey to fringe, politically charged, rants.Bakaman 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A) Whether or not someone is an "indophobe" has no bearing as to whether they can edit or comment constructively (we all have our biases). B)Labelling someone an "Indophobe" is a great way to create "Indophobia".NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Bots that are disputed can always be taken to the BAG or a b'crat for deactivation. As to Nina's comment, I would merely point out that, unfortunately, some users are simply disruptive, in such a large environment as the English Wikipedia, that is inevitable. While we respect everyone that contributes here, some simply aren't able to truly contribute because of their negative attitudes. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Whats more, it irrates me when i'm accused of claiming my own cultural icons. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 22:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feel free to have at James McCune Smith. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem these are Indian actors being added with a WP India tag. Its logical. Editors that disagree either have not fully understood the rationale for tagging or have issues that need to be worked out. Judging by the consensus formed (in which only one editor thinks tagging Indian people with a WP India tag is offensive) I think Ganesh's bot should be reinstated with all priviledges, and Zora reprimanded for disruptive behavior and blatant racism.Bakaman 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I read what some of these editors have written about me.That forum is not "meatpuppet" or what ever you want to call it.Zora is not Indophobic.Other members on Pakhub have informed me that some of these facists are part of a Hindu fanatic site.And thanks alot Dabrood for vandalizing the article we wrote on Pakhub.Please read the warning I posted on your userpage.

"But Someone from Wikipedia, who I had an argument with, went on this forum and asked his Hindu freinds to spam this site "to hell"

Here is the screenshot: http://upload.pwnage.nu/files/upload2/pakhub-threat.JPG "

I don't mean to assume bad faith or be prejiduice against indian wikipedians in any way ,but it seems if they can't have their way around,they either start ganging up on other wikipedians and launch personal attacks or they call upon Indian administrators to help them in their battles.Look at the example below:

Yes bhai, I do remeber you. I am a brahmin myself and will get an Indian admin to indef ban this user.Bakaman 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I continue,I confess I have lost my temper in the past,been incivil,reponded to personal attacks against my with personal attacks of my own and did carry out a few violations unintentionally or out of anger.

But ever since that,I have either tried to ignor these Indian nationalists and tried to reach out to make a truce with them as I did to Bakaman here

Before wikipedia turns into a nasty battle-ground and eventually gets disrupted,I propose one thing: Admnistrators should NOT be allowed to help resolve disputes IF it is related to their nationality or ethnicity in anyway,because it only causes them to take sides.Please consider it carefully

Merry Christmas and Happy new year to all. Nadirali 02:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Number one use diffs. Otherwise I'm going to assume all "quotes" you provide have been tampered with. I got a user indef blocked becasue their user name was "Brahmin-gaand-maaru" (meaning "Brahmin ass fucker"). Per WP:USERNAME its offensive. Obviously an Indian admin would also know what that means. Calling me a fascist (when I myself am democratic is a horrible personal attack). I feel no need to treat nadirali (talk · contribs) & company as contributors anymore merely as trollsespecially those that call me "fascist". The last user that did that got banned for one-year. There was no battle in the first place, and your prejudice for Indians is so obvious its like finding hay in a haystack. There are no truces on wikipedia, wiki is not a battleground in the first place. So other members on a meatpuppetry forum think I'm a member of Hinduunity? Great.Bakaman 03:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I disagree with Bakasuprman, he calls me anti-Hindu, Indophobic, racist, Muslim, etc. [14], [15], [16]. (That's just the last few days. I could get more if I went back further.) If I were a racist, I wouldn't have spent the last few years editing Indian cinema related articles, working on Indian clothing articles, Desi, Partition of India, etc. If he calls me anti-Hindu and racist, it's in the same partisan spirit that some rightwing US politicians and commentators call their political opponents anti-American and suggest that they're working for Al-Qaeda.

If I'm anti-anything, it's anti-nationalism. Of any kind. I've pulled back from the Iran-related articles because of lack of time and sheer weariness at being the constant object of attack, but when I worked on those, I was regularly accused of being anti-Persian, an Arab-lover or an Arab, etc. We have a problem on WP, in that cadres of patriotic editors (often of one political tendency) stake out their turf and fight off interlopers. It's hard for many US and UK editors to see this, because they may not be familiar with non-US or UK political struggles, and it is easy to believe people who claim to represent a whole ethnicity, nationality, or religion. If it were a US editor showing up and claiming to represent all Americans, he/she would be hooted off the stage with a shower of rotten tomatoes.

It's not just me objecting to the India bot. Others have complained. Ganesh says that he has the best intentions and I just don't understand but ... if various people, who otherwise have had no other association with me, complain about having a huge India template slapped on a talk page without so much as a by-your-leave, then he is doing something that upsets people, and he should reconsider what he's doing.

If articles are to be assessed, I suggest that a simple, tiny box on the article would produce more assessments. Many encyclopedia users don't know that the talk pages exist. Just put up a button that says "Has this article been helpful? Click to assess it." Or some such wording. This would pop up a questionnaire or a rating bar. Start with a few high-traffic pages and experiment with different versions of the questionnaire or bar, until we know what works. As for the templates: if they were one-inch square and stuck off on the right side of the monitor, and said only "Interested in working on other articles related to X? Click here" (click taking you to project page) that might work. Or better yet, just one button that says, "If you'd like to work on more articles like this, click here," and then a menu of related projects would pop up. All the same size. No competition to draw more editors with a bigger template.

There's a great book called The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, about computer interface design. It's tricky stuff, and programmers and systems engineers are notoriously bad at it. I suggest that a rethinking of our interface is in order. Zora 05:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at the pattern. first, we have paks complaining that the indie tag is imperialistic. Ganeshk goes out of his his way to make the thing as neutral as possible. At is still called hijacking history. NEWS TO EVERYONE! there's plenty of room for everyone's tag. pak call the tag offensive. well, you know what, I find the pak tag offensive. they would never change their tag and tag flag off it. seriously, let us be. we don't hurt anyone. India was the country where Gandhi was born. It's people are under attack from islamics, maoist, and some questionable missionaries. The president is muslim, the pm is sikh, and and italian women who never gave up here italian citizenship almost became pm. Also, india tag should be on bollywood articles, because for one thing, bollywood originated in INDIA! Indian actors are from india. it's not abouyt nationalism. it's commonsense. the bot tag helps out a lot and save manpower helping directed for other things.--D-Boy 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood actors are Indian actors. Putting templates on their talk pages does not imply any kind of ownership; but only categorisation of articles so that editors of a particular project may work on those articles. Terming the bot "nationlistic" does not seem very appropriate on your part. However, I would request Ganesh to stall bot operations before this issue is sorted out and discussed. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not all Bollywood stars are Indian - there's Yana Gupta for instance, or if you want more notable examples, how about Manisha Koirala and of course, Helen Richardson. The trend of non-Indian Bollywood actors also seems to be increasing[17]. Bwithh 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes looking at WP actor/actress articles. None of the North American/English/European articles had any nationality tags (though I did find that Greer Garson, that quintessentially English actress (Mrs. Miniver), has been claimed by the state of Texas). I spot-checked a few other actor/actresses (Egyptian, Iranian, Japanese) and the only actor page with a nationality tag was Toshiro Mifune. I don't think that Ganeshk can claim that tagging actors/actresses by presumed nationality is standard procedure. It's not just "common sense." If we have Cinema of India tags, surely that's all that's necessary. (I'd be happy to see those hidden behind a button, BTW -- no special treatment.) Zora 10:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yana gupta may not be Indian but she makes her career INDIAN cinema. So do other actresses you mentioned. I'm sure ganeshk can program the bot to make the indian cinema tag appear if that's your main problem. You can even do it yourself by inputting the parameter.--D-Boy 11:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of hindu extremists on this board, and with them being members of forums like HinduUnity, you cant possibly call them Neutral in any way. I dont bash Indians here, however they have been on my back ever since I tried to correct the articles where they are blatantly stealing Pakistani history. Anyone willing to understand would understand my argument but people here refuse to read it, so go figure. You talk about Bollywood being Indian, because its located it India. Fair enough. I am sure the same applies for the Pakistani history. Unre4L 18:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all are agents of Hindu Unity. I havent seen anyone "steal" Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Choudhury Rehmat Ali or etc for India. Therefore your charges of hijacking are baseless. I read your argument and found it impotent and unsourced to boot. Zora, merely joining with Pakistani users to attack Indian users and indian imperialist bots is not forming a consensus. I agree with dboy, that the Pakistani flag is offensive especially when claiming Hindu history for an entity not even conceived at those points in time. The only time a tag intersection should occur between Hindu and PAkistan is he article is on Rana Bhagwandas, Krishan Bheel, Ramesh Lal, etc. According to the group angry at a robot (already a weird source for anger) I am a "rightwing, Hindu Unity, Hindu extremist". Great descriptors.Bakaman 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So how does a republic of India flag make it onto so called "ancient Indian" history articles. Your argument is ridiculous. Just because you havent stolen all of our history doesnt mean you havent stolen most of it. Pakistans flag is just as valid as having an ROI flag. Both countries were born in 1947. And India was never united prior to the British Invasion. Yet you still refer to Ancient India as if it has existed long enough to claim the history of the entire subcontinent. Unre4L 23:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Never united? Ahem Ashoka, Akbar, Rama. United before British invasion? Please explain how Chanakya and his Indian army beat back a Greek assault, how Aushada Pandit (a noted Buddhist scholar) and King Videh united 100 Kingdoms of India. Ancient Pakistan is cited on educational websites 55 times while Ancient India is cited 39300 times. Thats about 880 times to one that the truth is cited on educational websites.Bakaman 03:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I had thought about hiding Indian project tag when cinema parameter is set. But this does not work in cases where actors have turned into politicians (Talk:Rajesh Khanna). In these cases, both cinema and politics are set to yes. The India tag is on so that other sub-groups can be tagged to the article talk page. Too many checks make the template complicated and hard to maintain. If template size is an issue, there are ways to make it small. Ideas such as "link-only", "category-only" should be discussed at the Wikipedia-level and not be forced on one project (India in this case). Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora, you're completly missing the point. Wikiprojects don't take ownership or claim articles There is no reason an article cannot fall under the scope of Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Iran and Wikiproject Pakistan. The more projects involved in working on an article the better. It seems to me that you're the one imbuing nationalistic overtones into something that should be neutral. 75.105.178.150 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution?

Wow, thats a long discussion! I think Zora's ire was meant to be vented towards my bot as that is the bot that has been doing most of the tagging of WP India articles. So I am sorry that I took so long to respond. I was off to a Xmas vacation. Hope you all had a great one too!

Now that the discussion has already gone on long enough, can we start moving towards the resolution? I am trying to put down the problems and their solutions point by point:

1. Large templates eating up talk page space: We already have the small template solution for that.
2. Irrelevant articles getting tagged: Both Ganesh and I exercise extreme caution while tagging articles. We pick them up from categories and leave out ambiguous cats. Errors are however bound to creep in and we can remove them in good faith.
3. Nationalistic tagging: I told Zora before and I say it again. This is not the Indian government trying to own articles. Wikiprojects exist to give a structure to related articles and that is all that we hope to do apart from giving them more visibility. I am also one of the early members of Wikiproject Pakistan and planning to run my bot for Pakistan related articles as well.
4. Assessments: There are quite a few people assessing articles even if not at the desired speed. We are trying to get more editors to do it.
5. Blocking of the bot: I feel blocking of any good faith editor, even a bot, should not take place without discussion. Why block when you can discuss especially when the bot has been specifically approved for this purpose??

I hope we can get to an early closure of this. — Lost^(talk) 08:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not tag Pakistani history articles with Indian templates.It has led to disputes and edit wars between us and the Indian editors.I don't see how you're helping the situation by continuing this random and unecessary tagging.

No one is stopping you from adding tags to your own history articles,but please refrain from tagging other countries articles with Indian tags as they serve no purpose other than creating more fights and arguements. Nadirali 08:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which points of mine you are referring to. I wrote that I plan to tag Pakistani articles with the Wikiproject Pakistan template, not with India template. I also wrote that I do not tag ambiguous categories. The purpose has also been detailed above. What exactly is random and unnecessary? — Lost^(talk) 08:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan didn't have a history until 1947...--D-Boy 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, neither does India ;) 75.105.178.150 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, what did Ibn Battuta, Marco Polo, Zheng He visit? Ancient South Asia? The history of Akhand Bharat is India's history as the google search (see above section) shows that scholars use the truth 880 times to one. The majority of hits for "Ancient Pakistan" include blogs, geocities links, propaganda sites, and wiki mirrors.Bakaman 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman. That was a start. I clearly remember you saying that there was no such thing as Ancient Pakistan. At least we have made progress. Anyway. I am not talking about a few time empires. I am talking about united as a nation. Ancient Roman empire had the entire Europe united, does that mean they can claim the history of the whole of Europe. According to you, they can. Think about what you are saying. India was only united because of the Brits, and Pakistan didnt stay united with British India for too long. And I distinctly remember Pakistan being part of the Alexanders empire while the rest of India was not. That must clearly mean Greeks can claim the Pakistani history...right? Unre4L 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

India didnt exist prior to the 1800s. The whole region was SCATTERED with provinces, THERE WAS NO UNITY, so please for the love of god understand, that Ancient India is referring to the entire subcontinent, not a country. And the reason why Pakistani history is different from Indian is because the entire Subcontinents history should not be grouped together. Just like you dont group the entire of Europe's history together. And another reason why this shouldnt be done is because India is now a country, and confusion is created regarding which India ( out of the 10 or so you have in your dictionary) you are referring to. Unre4L 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

United as a nation, under Ashoka, Akbar, Videha, Rama, even (sigh!) Aurangzeb. Unless you are 3000 years old, you cannot "distinctly remember" Sikandar's invasions. There is no Pakistani ethnic group, the country is an artificial construct. The one thing that makes Pakistani people Pakistani did not come into being until the 7th century. Even then there are over 140 million Muslims in India, and over 150 million in Bangladesh. Do refer to 561k hits for "Ancient Indian" history compared to a paltry 160 for "Ancient Pakistani" history and refer to Matsya Purana, Ramayana, and Vishnu Purana.Bakaman 23:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Word.--D-Boy 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please dont throw random figures around in the air. Those numbers mean nothing to me, since people like you are in direct control of them. Empires have risen all over the region. And India wasnt necessarily the middle of them. Pakistan was a part of the Persian empire, but we dont claim to be a part of Iran. I will repeat what I have said at least 100 times before, and you fail to understand. You should know your history better. Its a fact that India did not exists as a country prior to British Raj. The greeks were never good at Geography. They preferred to name continents rather than countries as they didnt care about them. Greeks called Africa, Libya because it was the country they entered first when they went into Africa. India was the same concept to them, the entire region was grouped together. In your mind, the Sindhi's and the Baluchis are Indian? Well guess what, they have never been known as Indian except the British Raj. Yet their history is still classed as Ancient Indian. Great work.

And now I can expect you to not read my post and copy and paste the same reply above below this post. Why do I bother...? Unre4L 01:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi all, this discussion was not really meant to be about the history of Pakistan or India but about using bots to add project templates to talk pages. That is the reason I had started a new subsection. I request all to concentrate on the matter and bring it to closure — Lost^(talk) 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Since there is no response, I have cross posted to WP1.0. I am looking forward to some sort of closure on this. Thanks — Lost^(talk) 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Since unre4l cant bring a factual response to my google hits, notes on kings that ruled a united India, or references in historical scriptures, its safe to assume he's made up his mind about this. I find the Islamic Crescent amazingly offensive on a Hindu figure like Panini, and Hindu figures of ancient India. The Ashoka chakra is not even a Hindu figure and has a secular meaning nowadays as a symbol for peace. The only time the Pakistani flag and WP Hindu template should intersect is on figures like Krishan Bheel, Rana Bhagwandas, Deepak Perwani, and etc, Hindus living in the actual country of Pakistan.Bakaman 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a more neutral pic should be chosen on the wp pakistan tag. The indian tag was forced to have a neutral pic, why not the pak one?--D-Boy 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the article on Historiography and nationalism. The projection of nations back in time is now viewed with suspicion by a growing number of historians. Neither India nor Pakistan tags belong on ancient history articles. Nor, I think, do Iran tags belong on Achaemenid articles, etc. However, it is going to take time -- a lot of time -- to convince editors to stop distorting ancient history to fit it into nationalistic narratives, especially when many academic historians are still doing this. However, the bot campaign that sparked my complaint was not aimed at history articles, but actor/actress articles. I do not see why Indian actor/actresses should be annexed into the India-project empire. Actor/actresses from other countries aren't being tagged in this way. I don't think it makes any SENSE to divide up all of WP along nationalistic/ethnic/religious lines. Especially when actors and actresses travel widely and work on projects in various countries. This hasn't been the case with Indian actors/actresses, but it's starting to be. Aishwarya Rai, for one, is acting in non-Indian films.

I'm starting to see the project tags as spamming. What are they but invitations from one or more people who have declared a "project" to get others to join the project? Big splashy ads, that's what they are. Note that when I say this, I'm condemning myself too, since I started a WikiProject (WP:INCINE) and acquiesced when Ganeshk started putting up tags for it. I don't think the projects are a bad idea, if they give people working on similar articles (similar being loosely defined) a forum for discussion, but advertising for them is a blight on WP.

Instead of filling up talk pages with competing ads, how about my suggestion that we have just one button that says, "Click here if you'd like to work on other articles like this"? That would pop up a page of ads for projects. All the same size and format. Arranged alphabetically, so that there's no squabbling about getting top billing. Then another button for assessments. Don't link the assessments to projects -- that's giving projects, and the people behind the projects, "ownership" of the articles. All you need is another button that says, "Click here to assess the current state of this article." Two small buttons. Each an inch or so square. One on the right, one on the left. A big improvement on the Times Square billboards that greet editors now.

I'm going to start pushing for this in various fora. In the meantime, please keep national bots out of actor/actress articles. Zora 02:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, but there is no technical way to accomplish this using a single template and have that template be manageable at all. First, every single project can make an assessment, both of quality and of priority. Those assessments do not have to match, as an article that covers a broad subject can be of great quality in one aspect, but deficient in another. Moreover, it is very, very common to have the importance/priority assessments be different. Then, different projects have different parameters and different methods to process articles. One single template cannot conceivably accomplish all the things the various WikiProject banners can do.

Perhaps, the best solution will come once Stable Versions are enabled, and metadata can be stored directly on the database. Until then, these can be considered "hacks" to accomplish some technical issues still left unaddressed by MediaWiki. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that "it can't be done". How about this: we have a new tab on the bar on the top. Right now there's five. We can add a sixth, for templates. Call it "Relevant projects" or something like that. Again, all templates to be the same SMALL size and arranged alphabetically. That's a very top-level hack that shouldn't be too hard. I've noticed -- and imitated -- something similar to this, on user pages. When barnstars start taking up too much room, you put them on a separate page and add a link. Heck, add another tab, for "Assess article". Tabs instead of buttons. OK? Zora 03:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking

Malber (talk · contribs) despite previous warnings, seems to be continuing to go after Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs) --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 17:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Also seems to be hostile towards Pilotguy (talk · contribs)

Perhaps we should consider a block or community ban for this more and more clearcut case of wikistalking. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Disruptive actions like that should be stopped. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Go after"? "Be hostile toward"? Have vague and uncited statements like this become a valid basis for blocks and community bans?

Say I make a point of ignoring consensus to delete the contributions you've made, and ignore all pleas, or reasons given, or rules cited, for me to stop. I also delete other people's entries on your talk page so you can't get the messages; and I delete your own questions when you start asking them. Then I block you for objecting to my behavior. At that point, would your looking closely at my record, and complaining about my abuses, mean that you are "going after" me and "being hostile", and you should be blocked or banned for it? Boy, that would sure be nice for me. Thanks, guys! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 02:38, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I agree with the first few commenters; people who dedicate this much time trying to 'shame' other contributors into what they view as 'the right path' aren't what we want here. --InShaneee 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some diffs here? I'd like to see some evidence to support these claims. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, diffs are always good to prove that these actions are not spurious and the result of off-wiki discussion in IRC #wikipedia-in. InShaneee, I'm disappointed. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well after I supported Sir Nick against malber somewhere on the pedia, a user subpage of mine (which I made and consequently forgot about in early september) mysteriously went up for MfD. [18]. If that's a coincidence, then aliens from planet Xarkon are running wikipedia.Bakaman 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:WikiprojectOWU

What is the general feeling about role account WikiprojectOWU (talk · contribs)? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems {{SPA}}ish to me, but borderline. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw that username a while ago, I, too, was a bit confused. But s/he's definitely contributing positively to Wikipedia. S/he's doing good work rewriting Ohio Wesleyan University (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Ohio Wesleyan University). Gzkn 03:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPA is an essay and the guidelines WP:AUTO and WP:COI discourage such editing, but we don't have a policy prohibition that I know of. In light of Gzkn's statement above, I'd rather have this conflict of interest out in the open than see the editor blocked.--Kchase T 03:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a message at her talk page. Perhaps she can clarify things. Gzkn 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...seems User:WikiprojectOWU has become a bit discouraged from editing in light of all the above. Zoe, Wizardry Dragon, could you perhaps clarify what exactly you wanted WikiprojectOWU to do? Gzkn 05:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All I did was to ask a question. I was just concerned that this is a single purpose account, and wanted input. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And now I'm being threatened - [19]. I have tried to be polite with this User and to explain that I have not accused them of anything, just asked for other people's eyes to look over the situation, but their attacks on me have deteriorated to this point. I will not respond to this User again. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this issue slightly. As a person who is on the other side of many of the debates on the OWU page and a person who suspects a fair amount of sockpuppetry on the OWU pages, User:WikiprojectOWU is one user who I don't consider to be a sock. I don't always agree with User:WikiprojectOWU but I do believe that she is trying to make the OWU pages better---while trying to be open-minded. There are other users that I do suspect of being puppets to push specific agendas... but, and I may be niave, User:WikiprojectOWU isn't one of them. She may be single minded on this subject, but so too are a lot of other Wikipedians... I don't partiularly care for her name (it is too easy to misinterpret) but she is a solid/concerned editor. I personally don't consider her comment to be a threat... she will consult with others to see what her options are? So what, she'll find out that you did nothing wrong. It is her perjogative to inquire with others as to her options if she thinks she has been wronged, but it'll go nowhere. Balloonman 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First, a disclaimer - I know nothing of OWU, but came across WikiProjectOWU's work via either peer review or FAC (I can't recall which). I've seen how hard s/he is working on Wikipedia and at learning policies and guidelines, and as I do for many articles that come up on FAC, FAR, or peer review, I've been providing feedback on improving the articles s/he is working on to FA standards. I've been around Wikipedia for almost a year, and I actually don't even understand what the question or issue being raised here is - is s/he supposed to change the username, or what?

But, what I do know, is that I had to ask Zoe several times to apologize to another editor on another article back in July August,[20] [21] [22] [23] when she deleted a legitimate article written by him as an attack page, and issued a warning to him on his talk page when a simple Google search would have revealed that the page was quite legitimate (the criteria for diagnosing Asperger syndrome). [24] [25] [26] I could never understand how anyone could interpret it as an attack page, or issue a warning to a user who was trying to write a legitimate article, which today is part of a featured article. I understand that mistakes happen, and that Zoe's deletion of the page and warning to the user was a simple mistake: what I don't understand is why I had to ask her more than once to please issue an apology or clarification to the hard-working and well-intentioned editor, so that his talk page wouldn't show that he had created an attack page. (This was again a situation I became aware of only because the article came up on WP:FAR.) I raise this now because, like then, I'm concerned that apologizing or clarifying doens't seem to come naturally to Zoe. Admins should put out fires, not start them.

WikiprojectOWU appears to be a hard-working editor: an apology or explanation in this case would go a long way towards maintaining good will and avoiding "bite"; I don't understand why a seasoned editor like Zoe should feel "threatened" over something that should be quite simple to explain and resolve. Someone just please explain to WikiprojectOWU what policy s/he has gone afoul of, and how s/he can fix it. Sandy (Talk) 19:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did attempt to explain to this User what my concerns were. They removed my comments from their talk page. I have never accused this person of anything, as I told them, I merely wanted other eyes to take a look at a User with an SPA-echoing name, which has only made accounts to OWU related articles, articles which have a long history of edit warring. I will not comment on this further unless this user's and other people's attacks on me continue. Note that I have never said anything derogatory about this user. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

... <sigh> ... Sandy (Talk) 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> back at you. I have no idea why you feel your opinions on me should matter, but I will explain to others who might be interested as to what your attacks on me started from. For admins: The original edit to the article which User:Natche wrote was here.. Note that I was the second admin to delete this, not the first. To me, the edit read like an attack. I am not about to go around reviewing all of the edits that read like attack pages to verify that "Johnny is a fag" is a real attack or not. Things like that get deleted. When an explanation came, I apologized to the User and explained why I had felt the article was an attack. I see that Sandy hasn't bothered to link to that, but it is still on Natche's Talk page. Why that has any bearing on this, I cannot fathom. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect - I did link to your eventual apology (above), and since the diff you gave is admin only, I can't see it - I only have what you left on my talk page then, which contained no attack. Sandy (Talk) 19:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I'm very saddened that you don't see the connection. It's not that the article was wrongly deleted (that happens all the time) or that the editor was wrongly warned - no big deal, never was. It's that you didn't immediately issue a clarification to the editor as soon as it was brought to your attention, and I had to ask more than once - that is the similarity. Admins and seasoned editors need not become defensive over minor "stuff that happens" all the time, and should be quick to put out fires, rectify wrongs, avoid being defensive, and help out newcomers. Natche24 was not an experienced editor, nor is Wikiproject OWU - a teensy bit of good will can go a long way towards preserving them as editors. De-escalate the situation rather than escalate it. That's all, I'm done. Sandy (Talk) 19:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I left this message, and received this in reply. Hopefully everyone has a clearer understanding of the situation now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good - I was confused about the SPA issue; when I was new to Wiki, I was certainly thousands of edits into being a single-topic editor before I had the courage to expand into other topics, and I distinctly recall that finding my way around Wiki's policies and guidelines was no small chore. I guess I'm lucky that my username didn't indicate the single purpose topic that initially brought me to Wikipedia :-)) Sandy (Talk) 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought it did... weren't your first edits all dealing with various beaches... Sandy beaches??? Balloonman 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Zoe, there is a difference between role accounts and single purpose accounts. In your initial question above you described WikiprojectOWU as a role account... which so far as I can tell was was not only an 'accusation', but an apparently false one. Which could be extremely upsetting to someone given that actual role accounts (those with a password shared by a group) are generally banned on sight... as stated in the link which you sent to WikiprojectOWU. Likewise you stated that WikiprojectOWU had only edited one article... again, an 'accusation' which wasn't quite accurate given that they have contributed to several articles... though all are on the same subject (OWU). Getting defensive and insisting that they are complaining about nothing because you haven't made any accusations also wasn't true and didn't help the situation. To go back to your original question on 'general feelings' about a user who is apparently minding their own business and contributing positively to the encyclopedia... 'thank them' seems like an appropriate response. There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with 'single purpose accounts'. Yes, many single purpose accounts are created to push a POV or vote stack or otherwise violate policy... but everyone involved seems to agree that isn't the case here. If a 'single purpose account' makes alot of contributions and doesn't do any of those things... then that is a 'good user' and ought to be left alone. Or given barnstars. Not falsely accused of committing a bannable offense and then berated for getting upset about it. --CBD 12:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait ... role account? Where was this raised? I noted an account for a single USE as his/her edit, but I dont read what's here as a role account problem? Maybe I misread? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd never intended to provoke such words and exchanges. It seems there was more than I realized when I came up with that username. WikiprojectOWU 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • At your discretion you may always have it changed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk

The SoS dispute aside, I've noticed a clear block-->unblock-->reblock wheel warring pattern by RadioKirk. I've always held RadioKirk in high esteem and respect but I believe he has clearly abused his tools here and has been vehemently insisting that his actions were completely acceptable. Considering the seriousness of his actions and the severity of the actions taken against wheel-warring admins previously, I'm very surprised at the lack of reactions to this. If RadioKirk continues to claim that his actions were not wheel warring, or were acceptable, this should be taken to arbitration. --Srikeit 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I pointed that out to him on the main AN board, and I believe he said something along the lines of "then let me be sanctioned here" (might not have been exactly what he said, but with that idea). – Chacor 12:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In a previous discussion on AN, at least two arbitrators indicated an interest in hearing cases involving wheel warring, and indicated that such cases would be quickly accepted. The problem is that no one ever brings them. For myself, I agree that the general level of respect admins have for each others' actions has greatly declined, with Radiokirk's block warring being only the most recent example. Thatcher131 13:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Srikeit, you indicate that you have concerns about RadioKirk's blocking "aside" from the Santa dispute. Are you suggesting there are prior examples of a blocking/unblocking/reblocking pattern involving him? I took a quick look at his logs and I couldn't quickly tell what other incidents you were referring to. Could you expand on what other situations, if any, you believe RadioKirk was involved in? Also, have any of them (other than Santa) been discussed with RadioKirk? Newyorkbrad 17:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rereading the sentence, I thought he meant "the dispute over the merit of the block aside, he still wheel warred". Dmcdevit·t 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, though there was also the word "pattern" that threw me. If Srikeit's comment refers only to the episode the other night, then while I don't at all agree with the way that was handled, I can't consider it the stuff of an arbitration case, either. As Dmcdevit and Thatcher131 and Srikeit know, at the moment there are 9 open ArbCom cases currently in the evidence phase and 2 more ready to be opened, in addition to 3 being voted on. I can't really see adding "Santa on Sleigh Wheel War" to the list. Newyorkbrad 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NYBrad here. An arbcomm here would be a complete waste of time and create more bad blood than it's worth. Bucketsofg 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did mean "the dispute over the merit of the block aside, wheel warring was apparent". I definitely didn't mean that I have seen RadioKirk has do something like this before. I brought this matter up because, as Thatcher said above, several admins have become remarkably disrespectful of each others actions and these kind of tussles are now occurring with alarming regularity. Considering the interest displayed by arbitrators in this matter, I'm sure they will be quite interested in accepting this case. Also the addition of seven new arbitrators will decrease the workload considerably. I think taking this to arbcom is very important to remind administrators the seriousness and absolute unacceptability of wheel-warring. RadioKirk has gone on a wikibreak, fully protecting his user/talk pages so I have sent him an email informing him about this thread. --Srikeit 07:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Standard holiday drama. I was rather hoping we might avoid it this year... Guy (Help!) 09:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by Skantada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure what to make of this editor but their very first edits were on a talk page and specifically mentioned my username in a quite trollish manner. I have now removed this trollery twice and been reverted once. I do not have a history of disputation with any particular editor on the particular article so I'm a bit perplexed as to the origin of such pointed commentary surrounding me. Perhaps someone else can take a look at this and let me know if I've got this material incorrectly pegged as trolling or not? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:07, 26 December 2006

I've blocked this user indef after checking this edit on Ryulong's talk page. The edit shows that this user is another sockpuppet of banned user Cplot the famous US Admin agents' conspirator. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Be careful. Admins who take on Cplot get desysopped. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So what should be done? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the ArbCom approves of the trolling. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagreed with the ArbCom decision to which Zoe is referring and said so at the time, but this comment is most unfair to the arbitrators. No one here has any use for the offensive content that Cplot and his socks/collaborators have been spamming throughout the site. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any link to the ArbCom case? I've never heard about it. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan. For taking on Cplot and Encyclopedia Dramatica MONGO was desysoped. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where Cplot fits in this story guys. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot is part of the 9/11 conspiracy POV-pushing squad which MONGO was trying to keep under control. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zoe and others. Well, i blocked the user above w/o prior knowledge. I also blocked the account because of harrassement and trolling anod not only because of block evasion. If you think the block has to be reviewed than no problem w/ me. However, i don't think i can do it myself because i believe i did the right thing regardless of the Sept. 11th conflict between MONGO and others. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the case, MONGO was only desysopped for the following reasons: protecting and unprotecting pages he was edit-warring on, blocking a user he edit-warred with, and general incivility. You have nothing to worry about. jgp ^T_C 18:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he was desysopped for unprotecting a page he had never edited. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Zoe's point of fact. You have a great deal to worry about if you use buttons around Cplot, and I advise adminstrators and users to tread lightly with respect to doing so. If you insist on attempting to constrain Cplot, you will first get a nice attack page at encyclopedia dramatica. Then, you will have your name constantly spammed around this encyclopedia by Cplot sockpuppets attempting to reveal facets of your personal life. This will be followed by individuals Cplot contacted via email participating in an ongoing harassment campaign against you (likley taunting remarks on your talk page). If you respond to this with any level of anger whatsoever, you will probably be desysoped. The alledged reason for your desysopment may state that you unprotected pages you were involved in editing, but they will neglect to mention that you had not edited the pages for weeks, and the sum-total of your editing was to correct a few gramatical mistakes, and that on unprotection, you did not edit the page whatsoever. This appears to be because Cplot's harassment is quite effective, and very few people wish to stand up to it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a real drama! However, getting desysoped because of enhancing wikipedia doesn't worry me as Havemind has never worried me. I am just worndering if there are any other alternatives to fight those vandals! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the best summary I have read thus far of the case, H. *sigh* KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The latest User:Cplot sock=User KnowBetter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's back to restore the trolling. (→Netscott) 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being over alarmist here. Can you provide some diffs showing where Cplot has been out to get administrators. And even if Cplot held a grudge against administrators, how would that hold sway among a group of administsrators. You make Cplot sound omnipotent. --360P 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Some five edits in your edit history. Are yoi aware of the significance of the disruption that Cplot and his sock puppets have caused? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry and other issues

Originally, while viewing the above section concerning 12ptHelvetica's changes to Free Republic, I had reverted to the last apparently non-controversial version, and inadvertantly got into an edit war. This is when ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) started editting. While it does appear to be a content dispute, I would think edit summaries like this and comments like this are an issue, as he has had no other contributions other than to Free Republic and its talk page (and then Aywong...'s user talk after I commented on his removal of the account from AIV).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who protected Free Republic; stepping on this landmine is not exactly my idea of spending Xmas afternoon so I invite more eyes to look at the situation on that page. Kimchi.sg 08:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor note, the capitalized "DU" in "DUmmies" is an explicit reference to Democratic Underground, what I take as a rival site/forum.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryūlóng. at the very least it is meatpuppeting. I have filed a formal complaint, but the sockpuppetting complaint page is very backlogged. And notice that they chose a holiday weekend to start this stuff, assuming rightly that very few of the adults would be around to supervise. Yes, DUmmies is a pejorative word for members of Democratic Underground, and indeed some of those editing the article are members of that site. I am not, however, and it appears that you are not either. This seems to be some sort of political game they are playing with Wikipedia in an attempt to force an untrue article about Free Republic to be accepted as consensus by means of a revert war where they wear down the other "side" by having more people doing the reverting. Of course it might also be sockpuppetting as well as at least three of these editors are from Palatine, IL. Basically I smell a rat. --BenBurch 01:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ben, and note that Admin Jossi worked long and hard with all of the editors and came up with a balanced NPOV article. As soon as certain pro-free republic editors saw that it would include a small amount of well-sourced criticism they started reverting the article and breaking WP by doing such things as making massive edits and summarizing them as 'spelling corrections' and adding totally unsourced POV claims. I ask that this article remain locked indefinately and all changes submitted and approved by an admin, possibly Jossi, who has acted as a fair and impartial informal mediator to the article for the last several weeks. After the sock/meatpuppetry issues are settled perhaps it can be unlocked. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my response at the talk page, permanent protection is not possible (to the best of my knowledge).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some articles get that treatment, but this is simply not an important enough article for a durable protect. But the issue of an intentional, recruited-for edit war is an important issue, and ought to be dealt with. --BenBurch 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise. Ben and FAAFA agree with one another.

As always, BenBurch has left out several important details and spin-doctored others in his relentless efforts to make this article as negative as possible. Early in the process, I sought formal mediation and BenBurch rejected it. [27] BenBurch has acknowledged that he was a member of Democratic Underground before being banned from that site. [28] The archives of his Talk page are loaded with evidence of his extensive participation in bad faith edits and edit wars. [29] [30] Much the same can be said of his tireless friend, defender and agent in all things Wiki, F.A.A.F.A., another problem child [31] -- formerly known as NBGPWS, [32] an abbreviation of "Neocons Be Gone ..." etc. [33]

As the archives of their own Talk pages clearly demonstrate in exhaustive detail, both Ben and FAAFA have extensive track histories of bad faith edits, vandalism, personal attacks and edit warring, that stretch back at least six months. This went so far as directing the following remark to me, and then quickly deleting it after he knew I'd seen it: "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." [34] Recently these tactics have evolved into the use of warning templates and even a sockpuppet investigation as vehicles for harassment.

They invited an informal mediator of their choosing to the Free Republic dispute and, rather than acting as a true mediator, Jossi has acted as an arbitrator. (I hope that the administrators understand the difference.) The version he has imposed upon all editors was not agreed upon, and was produced during the holiday weekend. Personally, I had announced in advance that I wouldn't be present during this extended weekend; previous delays for the sake of BenBurch and FAAFA were welcomed by this mediator, but in my announced absence, he proceeded to a "final solution" without my participation (and, it appears, without the participation of some of the others who were opposed to the efforts of BenBurch and FAAFA).

The resulting rewrite by Jossi contains negative material in its lead paragraphs that relies entirely on a self-published and unreliable conspiracy theorist by the name of Todd Brendan Fahey. Following is a summary of Fahey's self-promotion campaign to become the next Hunter S. Thompson. [35] This Fahey material, by some strange coincidence, was first introduced by FAAFA. Jossi's final version also included an abundant amount of other material introduced (and spin-doctored) by FAAFA that hadn't even been discussed by any other editor. [36] When 12ptHelvetica removed the Fahey based material -- which consisted of just one sentence plus a link -- but left the rest of Jossi's version intact, BenBurch reverted back to a pre-mediation "hit piece" version. [37] This evidently triggered the most recent volley of reversions.

This dispute calls for administrator intervention. -- BryanFromPalatine 05:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The conduct of BenBurch and FAAFA is a textbook example of the word "trolling." They deliberately try to provoke angry and inappropriate responses, and then complain to the site administrators about it. Any misconduct by other members must be viewed in light of this continuous hectoring and baiting. Bryan's Talk page is only the most recent example. BenBurch, in addition to being a banned DU member, tried to mislead WP administrators by saying "I am not [a member of that site]." This was not the whole truth. He was a long term member who was banned for life. Also, he is the webmaster of the White Rose Society website, which argues that George W. Bush and the Republican leadership are fascists. They take their name from the White Rose Society of Munich, which distributed anti-Nazi pamphlets in 1943 and have adopted the slogan, "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascists." BenBurch's trolling here is agenda driven, and it may reasonably be inferred that FAAFA shares those motives for his own conduct. FR supports Bush, while BenBurch and FAAFA strongly oppose Bush. Their bias in addressing the topic of FR in a Wikipedia article is self-evident. - DP1976 14:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

more sockpuppetry

DP1976 claimed:

Will you ever learn? I have an unregistered and diverse history of edits of my own going back about a year, [38] mostly relating to Clemson University, my alma mater. Look at the edit history of this page and you'll find my IP address. - DP1976 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

On 12/14 that IP (claimed by DP1976) added:

Lawyer2B, I am opposed to including the "Bahrain Centre for Human Rights," "Death Threats" and "Cyber Stalking" sections as violations of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The entire organization should not be characterized by the actions of a handful of eccentrics who violated FR policy and were immediately banned for it. FR Has done everything that any reasonable person could expect to protect its reputation. -- 209.221.240.193 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) link

on 12/14/15 that post became Bryanpalatines!

Lawyer2B, I am opposed to including the "Bahrain Centre for Human Rights," "Death Threats" and "Cyber Stalking" sections as violations of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The entire organization should not be characterized by the actions of a handful of eccentrics who violated FR policy and were immediately banned for it. FR has done everything that any reasonable person could expect to protect its reputation. Also, I think the lawsuit by The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times might deserve further scrutiny. The plaintiffs won over $2,000,000 through summary judgment; and then it was appealed; and after oral arguments but before the appellate court decided the case, the newspapers' attorneys settled for $10,000. That's a reduction of over 99.5% of the summary judgment. Something happened in the appellate court that scared the hell out of the newspapers' attorneys. They thought they were going to lose. That is the only possible explanation for a reduction of over 99.5% in a negotiated settlement. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) link

DP1976, IP 209.221.240.193 and Bryanfrompalatine are all appraently the same user. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Good detective work, FAAFA. If you have not by late tomorrow, I will file a new sockpuppet complaint and ask for checkuser on these accounts. I wonder how many of the other "people" in this dispute are the same guy? --BenBurch 03:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that he has dared us to checkuser him... I suspect that he may have a number of legitimate or illegal proxy accounts. He might in fact be ALL of the members of this supposed "consensus team" in the Free Republic article. --BenBurch 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

RELATED Sock/Meat puppet complaint here - Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine --BenBurch 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mall majors and anchors - without source

I am baffled as to how to deal with this problem. User:66.66.165.85 has been adding information regaring anchors and major tenants at probably hundreds of malls. The information is useful, encyclopedic, and no doubt accurate, but has no source provided. I have searched endlessly to find a source for his work, but I have been unable to find any online source for the data added. If I could find the source I would add the reference and try to suggest how this user could did it on his own, but not knowing the derivation of the information makes this impossible. I have pleaded with this individual to provide a source, provided suggestions to add the information to the articles, my talk page or his talk page, but received no response whatsoever from the individual. I have indicated that the information could be removed as original research, but nothing has helped. I really don't want to start reverting useful work, but nothing seems to get through. Any ideas as to how to proceed? Alansohn 15:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at User talk:66.66.165.85 I see that there are unanswered requests for sources of edits going back to July 2006. Looking at Special:Contributions/66.66.165.85, I see zero talk page contributions anywhere and zero use of edit summaries. Dealing with this user does not (yet) require the use of administrator tools. And the proper venue for addressing the user's conduct is RFC, not this noticeboard.

  The way for you to proceed as far as the actual content is concerned, as opposed to the user's total unresponsiveness, is to start tagging or simply removing the information that you have been unable to find a source for, explaining on the talk pages of each article where you've looked for sources and pointing to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If you've made a reasonable attempt to find sources for unsourced content and have come up empty-handed, then either tagging or outright removal of the content is the next step. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#How to deal with unsourced content for some advice.

  As for the assertion that the information is "no doubt accurate": You have no way of knowing that. Wikipedia editors and readers have no way of confirming its accuracy. You yourself have tried and failed to find some way of checking it, remember. Uncle G 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One could actually go to those malls which are local, and check; unless Alansohn and 66.66.165.85 are in the same geographical area, a high accuracy rate is indicative that the information is probably accurate. But doing so would constitute original research. I'd be surprised if most of those malls have websites which would give the information which 66.66 is providing; if he has lots of time on his hands, it might not be that onerous for him to look up the mall website, and add the info; possibly even assuming that if there's a link at the bottom of the mall's WP article, that that constitutes sufficient citation. If the user is well-intentioned but lazy, cleaning up after him will be a big job. Argyriou (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Many large malls have published maps which, though not available online, are potentially citable as dated published matter (if memory serves, the more formal of these maps for largest malls have publisher and date information printed on them). I've never cited such a document myself, but this might be part of a route forward. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The mall's own website would not be a reliable source. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The mall's own website would be, under the criteria of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, be a reliable source for basic factual claims which are subject to outside audit or liability for false advertising. A claim that "Shopping at the WikiMall is the most fun you'll have this december" is unreliable, but a claim that "There's a 90,000 square foot Macy's store in our mall" is, at least for countries with functional commercial legal systems, pretty reliable. More reliable than a newspaper's self-report of circulation, at least. Argyriou (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the mall's own website would be reasonable for factual verification. It would not be a reasonable source for establishing notability, though; third party references would be required for that I would think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the notability guidelines would not allow establishing notability through the mall's own website. But the original point of contention was that an editor has been adding factual information without stating his sources. While the easy answer is to tag the additions with {{fact}} tags, and delete them if no source is provided, that could be wasteful if the information does have a reliable source, but the editor in question is too lazy to provide it. Argyriou (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in understanding why Zoe feels that the mall's own website would not be a reliable source for verification of factual information. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read WP:RS? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be snide. I asked a simple question. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you think my response was snide, as I really didn't intend it to be. I said that, according to WP:RS, we cannot use the mall's website as a reliable reference, you asked me why I feel that way, and I asked if you had read WP:RS. WP:RS is why I feel that way, but since you asked, I assumed you had not read it. At any rate, I feel that way because WP:RS says the sites of the subject of the article are not reliable sources. I hope I have taken away any residual snideness you still feel I am expressing. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

inserted comment - proximity clarifies Thanks for the clarification. I'll honor your request not to get into a full blown debate on this matter - it's an important topic, but not one that's core to this thread. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:RS: "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author". There are a few qualifications, but unless the information is disputed/controversial or if the source is disreputable, it's fine. jgp ^T_C 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't post my original comment in order to get into a dispute about the interpretation of WP:RS, but did you also read the part which says A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. ? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a handful of user names that are doing this. I don't know if they are all the same person. I assume it is someone with a financial interest in some ways in shopping malls. One was blocked for spam[39], and had the same pattern of posting mall articles, non-notable malls, with lists of stores, and looks exactly like User:66.66.165.85, with repeated ignored discussions on talk pages of various malls, and the user's own talk page, and the same style of articles, the same content. This information is readily available to all sorts of small business owners in trade journals, through local library resources, and in on-line merchandiser databases that are not free to search. Not everything is on the Internet in the Public Domain. In a discussion about the issue, though, as to whether or not the malls were notable (some are strip malls of 6 stores in a city with 30 other strip malls of the same size, hardly notable), someone else mentioned the utility of being able to find out what stores are in the local mall. While this isn't precisely Wikipedia's purpose, I hesitate to speak out against something that potentially provides a lot of utility for users. KP Botany 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Backing up a bit as a response to Argyriou: Going to a mall, seeing Macy's as an major store, and adding that to Wikipedia is not Original Research. It's not novel or interpretive, doesn't define something for the first time; it's not original. SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• If the person has edited information about Woodfield Mall, Schaumburg, IL, you can check it here; [40] This might provide some indication of the value of the rest of the edits. --BenBurch 06:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Schmucky here. This is, for the most part, basic information pertaining to public buildings which are still standing. Whether it's accurate or not is much easier to verify than the average history-related article (which is under-referenced, yet rarely challenged by anyone). Also I suspect "vandalism" to be poor word choice. Which of the (dozens of) descriptions at Wikipedia:Vandalism do you feel that this matches? — CharlotteWebb 12:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree with Schmucky because there's no verifiable chain. Original research is where the person who adds the information is also the source. It's not verifiable if I have to phone Schmucky to confirm the verifiability of the information. We don't particularly care about accuracy as much as verifiability. Ascribing a paper source will also allow information to be better presented. If I visit Schmucky's mall and find no Macy's, what ensues? An edit war, with no ability to determine the truth? However, had Schmucky provided any source, such as a local newspaper report, we could date the assertion and allow contextualisation by dating the assertion. It may be that Macy's had closed between Schmucky's visit and mine, but we can't substantiate this. That's why attribution is important. It creates a trail and a context, which allows information to be presented at all times in the best manner. If Macy's website does not list Schmucky's mall amongst its locations, but Schmucky provided that local paper reference, we have a trail and a presentation of information to the reader. Paper said store exists at this date, whilst official website, accessed on this date, makes no mention of a store existing at this location. Thus the reader can determine their own truth from these assertions. Steve block Talk 12:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to call me and ask. You can go there and look. It's verifiable, period. Verifiability doesn't have to be easy. If it is no longer true then the information can be removed by the next editor when it becomes no longer true. At that point if it is still important to reference it historically we probably need something more verifiable - though for something non-contested I'd still accept the original editors assertion. SchmuckyTheCat 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Steve going to look would also be OR. We need secondary sources, such as a newspaper article which says "A new Macy's opened over at Ourtown Mall.", or even "Police arrested a shoplifter at the Macy's in Ourtown Mall." User:Zoe|(talk) 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What's original about viewing a shopping mall? There is nothing novel or interpretive, interpolated, extrapolated; ie original, about taking the public bus to the mall and viewing a Macy's. If an editor was making a claim like "there is a lot of crime at the public mall near the Macy's" then there is an act of interpretation that needs more sourcing. A simple statement that there is a Macy's at the public mall isn't OR. SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • You're hung up on one word, of the title, even. Please read the actual body of the Wikipedia:No original research policy and think about the rationale that underpins it. Firsthand testimony of a Wikipedia editor as to the existence of a shop in a mall is primary source material. Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not the intention of Wikipedia that readers be required to take Wikipedia editors, with pseudonyms such as "Uncle G" and "SchmuckyTheCat" and about whom readers know nothing, at their words. Readers must be able to check all content against sources outside of Wikipedia. And everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge.

          If you, as a Wikipedia editor adding content about a mall, cannot point to a source that has already done the research of what shops exist in the mall, and that has a reputation to protect and thus will have checked its facts; and cannot even show that these data are part of the corpus of human knowledge in the first place; but can only say "In order to check this article you must repeat my primary research of physically travelling to the mall and investigating. Failing that, you only have the word of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor for any of this.", then you are violating our Wikipedia:No original research policy. We don't accept Wikipedia editors' sole words here. Some other encyclopaedias require that readers take the sole words of their authors for article content. Wikipedia does not.

          66.66.165.85's edits require sources just as much as edits that give the detailed geography of Sweden require sources. Uncle G 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read the policy many times. If you are viewing a mall and see a store the location itself is the primary source. Reporting that as a basic matter of non-interpretive fact isn't a matter of OR nor is it creating a primary source. It's verifiable and that is our requirement. Nothing says verifiability has to be easy. Even published sources may only be available in private archives. Does viewing a mall introduce a theory? No. Introduce original ideas? No. Define a new term? No. Provide a new definition of existing terms? No. Introduce a new argument? No. I've got no opinion on this specific user that started this conversation and have never looked at the edits. If an edit is contested, it's an excellent idea to get better sources. But contesting basic facts without a good reason is bad faith. Now, if there isn't a good published source about something it may not be important but that is something else entirely. SchmuckyTheCat 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To state the obvious: stores are also listed in multiple hardcopy yellow pages, one of mine lists the local mall with its stores, also, on-line in the yellow pages, and white pages, and larger malls may have web sites, and I can find the book store in my local mall by going to its on-line site and entering my zip code in the store finder, probably Macy's also. In addition there are the aforementioned trade journals for mall operators, mall directories, and other resources. Just because the reference is not on-line, doesn't mean the person who listed it used original research. I supsect the poster, as I said before, is using trade listings, as they are listing malls from all over. When I go to market, I get trade publications, lists, e-mails from buyers, publications that lists all of certain types of buyers, all sorts of information about who will be buying at market, on-line, in other ways. Of course going to the mall and looking at the store is original research, and it seems it requires more than just going to the mall, like solid usable original research does, you must verify through the management at the store and probably headquarters that the store is not in the midst of closing, has not been sold in the past week, and plans to stay open. That's part of the reason for not relying on original research, whoever did it, Wikipedia editor or otherwise, the amount of work necessary to certify it. That's where secondary sources come in--they certify the usability of the OR. But really, is the expectation that Wikipedia use only resources that one can find on-line? KP Botany 01:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bluecord

I have indef. blocked Bluecord (talk · contribs) for making this legal threat. He appears to be a new User associated with a blocked anon who was causing trouble earlier. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have received an email from Bluecord claiming his friends used his computer to vandalize. I have asked him to explain how it is that the anon IP and the logged account both committed vandalism, unless his friends had his password, but he has yet to reply. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If his account has been compromised, he can register another one (Bluecord the 2nd or something that at least harkens back to his old username; we can make an exception to any such rule in this case). The caveat is that he needs to get a better password or friends. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ilena's persistent abuse, self-promotion, disruption, etc.

I probably should have brought this here a while ago, but User:Ilena is an account belonging to Ilena Rosenthal. She has had a long-standing real-life dispute with Stephen Barrett which has included several legal cases. She has opened the above account here and used it to insert links to her personal website (http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org), which contains a lot of anti-Barrett attacks, solicitations for donations, and off-wiki abuse about editors she's had conflicts with. She's continually posted lengthy attacks on Barrett on the talk and article pages of Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and The National Council Against Health Fraud, and accused those who've tried to explain how Wikipedia works of "censoring" her. The following edits ([41], [42], [43], [44]) are selected examples. The admin KillerChihuahua tried to help, and Ilena attacked him as well. I'd just ask that her contribution history be reviewed, as well as her talk page (note that she has systematically removed a number of warnings, negative comments, etc from her talk page). Without judging the merits of her argument against Barrett, her importation of her feud with Barrett to Wikipedia has been intensely disruptive, as has her categorical refusal to listen to suggestions, policy explanations, warnings etc and her insistence that she is being "censored" when her edits are reverted for violating policy. MastCell 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that an ArbComm decision made in the past few months made it clear that it is allowable for a person to remove warnings from their talk page, but they are considered "acknowledged" for the purpose of determining whether the person is aware of the warnings. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious question - which ArbCom decision was that? Newyorkbrad 19:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Her deletions of warnings is one issue, but her flagrant and continued disruptive editing, personal attacks, and violations of multiple policies here is another. That's what needs to be observed and corrected.

Is there such a thing here as administrative mentorship, where abusive and disruptive users are assigned an admin who can "walk the dog" and "pull its chain" when it misbehaves? Maybe that's the only way to deal with someone who only has one mode of behavior -- attack mode. -- Fyslee 19:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is probation, but that is for arbcomm to impose. Bucketsofg 19:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If a user is going to require full-time supervision in order to prevent them from breaking the project, then it seems a waste of time ... Surely administrators have more important things to do than to "mentor" users who have already rejected advice and warnings?

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." --FOo 20:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I attempted to discuss the situation with the user here on her talk page, and received as a response "For the mutt and others attempting to bully me ... Woof Woof Woof ... I don't respond to anonymous dogs. " which I found singularly uncooperative, but completely consistent with her interactions with other editors. She seems to be a SPA and is hostile in the extreme to any discussion of her nasty attitude and POV pushing, or even requests for sources. She has a "you're either with me or you're trying to censor and oppress me" attitude. She is a time and effort sinkhole. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

SPA - Single Purpose Account. She has been the recipient of aggresively adverse edits that are pretty thin for such experienced editors. I see some of this as "political" where one side *is* larger. That said, perhaps you (all) should try to get an agreement *from her* about what she does here (i.e. restricting her site links to other editors on Talk) and perhaps *helpfully* explaining an issue, one at a time (I've see three letter policy blasts that are literally "well some of it must be right"). I have seen early multipronged accusations around her in forms that I think are "unhelpful" (I am not saying she's innocent) and would boil my blood, too. RfARB???--I'clast 00:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus is that this should go to ArbCom, rather than here at AN/I, I'll follow up there. I just didn't want to go straight there without posting here for community input first. I agree with KillerChihuahua that WP:DBTN has been observed and extensive attempts have been made to constructively address Ilena's behavior, all of which have been fruitless (and described by Ilena as attempts at "censorship"). MastCell 20:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User was blocked one week in July for "spam, extream [sic] POV pushing" ... looks to me like those problems continue, in which case, a longer block would be fully justified. Before I do this, does anyone object? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support that block, of whatever duration. The anonymous mutt who is trying to bully her will even do it, if anyone thinks that might make an impression not gained by MrDarcy (she may not read Austin.) ArbCom is not an option, there has been no Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a 'formal' warning based on this AN/I, with specific examples of what would, in this case, warrant a longer ban? I do think comments like "She is a time and effort sinkhole" are themselves uncivil. I am not defending the conduct objected to, and have stated the same here, where I was not exactly tactuful. Maybe all of us have something to learn from these incidents - including admins. I also think an editor should be given a 'formal' warning, including behavior to be stopped & consequences if not stopped. A sort of Wiki due process, if you will. Also, thanks for the tip, Fyslee and Mastcell re 'pinpoint' citations in Wiki. Jance 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that Ilena has had tons of warnings, of varying severity, from a number of editors - and none have had the slightest discernible effect on her disruptive editing. A more "formal" warning seems unnecessary and unlikely to accomplish much - she's been cut way more slack than the average editor already. MastCell 23:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

She has had numerous formal warnings, informal warnings, and outreach attempts. That she has chosen to remove them from her page indicates that she saw them. I also call trolls "trolls" oddly enough. I do not speculate on editors' sanity status or iq; but I'm not going to tippy-toe around terminology about someone who is clearly been a time and effort sinkhole - people have spent considerable time on her and the only result is her removing their attempts, occasionally accompanied by hostile responses. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not speculate on any editor's sanity, but I did speculate on the edits. Perhaps that would be a good thing for all to do, instead of attacking the person. Just a thought.Jance 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Ilena is a new editor that has been overwhelmed/outnumbered by adverse edits (-ors) in a hot subject where she has a definite point of view and her learning curve is insufficient to deal with the experienced crowd that doth sometimes protest too much. There are scattered, less obvious early edits that might provoke a newcomer that may seem to rudely contradict her edits rather than truely help and inform. I realize that she has to become more rules saavy, but I also see provocative stuff that is not easy to spot for the uninvolved, where the adverse editors presume they are righteously correct. Ilena has contritbuted points that were not spotted / corrected by her counterparties. I would ask User:Levine2112's input, first, also.--I'clast 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "Ilena, you seem to be having some difficulty fitting in with Wikipedia. Whether you realize it or not, we consider WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA important. Do you not understand these, not think you are violating them, or not care? I would appreciate a clarification of your position on these. Thanks much" and she called me a bullying mutt, and refused to respond? Um, this is not a "newbie" problem. This is a "self-rightous uncivil" problem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you entered in the middle of something hot that includes an actual WP:BLP problem (hers) where the involved (offended) editor doesn't yet viscerally understand a lot of Wiki policy issues and is in fact outnumbered by her much more experienced, polar counterparts. Not saying this is how to run a railroad, but that the problem is wider, more complex than it appears. She clearly suspects some others' edits, where in her eyes WP:AGW has been long breeched w/o redress and now others are POV'g the articles w/o completeness or accuracy. She as well has a point of view. I don't think her handling has been done helpfully or effectively. Some others' santimoniously quoting the rules back that she perceived to have been breeched (i.e. CIVIL) is not helpful. She is still coming to grips with various policies, how much it affects her edits and how this works.--I'clast 02:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that I came in after the conflict started: I was asked to try to reason with her. I have failed. Feel free to try yourself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO encourages the removal of links to sites which "out" or attack Wikipedia editors. Ilena's site does both. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let me update your information. My edits were removed from the moment I came to Wikipedia exposing NCAHF's questionable (and apparently non existent) corporate status. State records were called POV and removed. Within moments of posting links to NCAHF's corporate suspension, Barrett's assistant listmaster, fyslee would remove them. When I first began to read here ... Barrett Vs Rosenthal was unrecognizable to the facts of the case. I have recently defeated Stephen Barrett in court and his team is doing the best they can to gang up on me and remove my opinions. I made a Wikipedia page of my website to explain my treatment here. I am very familiar with being ganged up by people defending Stephen Barrett and his questionable operations. What is called a "feud" is his losing SLAPP suit that went on for over 6 years and ended up in The Supreme Court of California with all 3 plaintiffs losing. The Barrett information here is biased and unencyclopedia. Thank you and have a lovely holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me as if you have Wikipedia confused with a soapbox. Others have made the same mistake, of course. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see that Ilena has experienced editors (Levine2112 and I'clast) advocating for her - I think that's important for a fair hearing here. That said, claiming that Ilena is the aggrieved party doesn't add up to me. She's not been raising "WP:BLP issues"... she's been using Wikipedia as a front in her war with Barrett. Again, I have no idea who's "right" or "wrong" in that particular war; I just know that expanding it into Wikipedia is inappropriate. The biggest issue here is has moved past any supposed provocation - it's the fact that she has now had reams of suggestions/warnings, starting relatively friendly and ending up pointed, that her actions are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Yet I've seen no indication that she's internalized them or modified her behavior in any way. I'd also argue against I'clast's suggestion that action now is precipitate; she's gotten away with far more in terms of disruptive editing than most editors, and I'm discouraged by the history that any further talk-based intervention will be successful - hence I brought the issue here. MastCell 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, her first edit under that username was in July, and she has over 200 edits in total. She's not a newbie. And as you can see from her post above, she is still playing the victim and offering no evidence that she understands that we have policies that must be followed. She's been blocked for POV-pushing, and is pushing just as hard today as she did before the block. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Over 300 edits, actually. --Ronz 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I see things differently. From July when I posted, my edits were immediately reverted and me threatened with POV. When I discovered that the Barrett Vs Rosenthal article (I'm Rosenthal) was unrecognizable as to the facts of the case, every edit I made to correct it was reverted .. sometimes in seconds. In the last 24 hours, people I've never heard of have gone through and removed every edit of mine and replaced it with the Barrett/Quackwatch/NCAHF POV. As the winning defendant in Barrett Vs Rosenthal, Barrett's links are allowed and mine removed. On the Stephen Barrett page under Critics who have been in litigation with him ... again my link removed. This reminds me of the Gladiator Days ... I'm going to write about defeating Barrett & Team in the Supreme Court of California, but Killer Chihauha and MastCell rule on Wikipedia. Have a lovely holiday season all. Ilena 05:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Then this is a textbook example of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, at which it appears that Ms. Rosenthal is not heeding.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

MastCell, Levine doesn't seem to be editing right now. IR said the WP:BLP issue as it comes naturally to her, not as a Wikilawyer spouting TLAs, most true "newbies" don't know the rules that well (and I am always suspicious of newbies that know them much better than I do). Ilena's is a newbie in the sense that she has been locked in on issues that seem elementary to her, (remember the SPA charge above?) rather than a diet of successful learning steps. Ilena seems to have improved some, just not at the rate you prefer. There *are* points where the pro-QW editors have seemed substantially partisan. I feel that there has been an undercurrent to the responses to her early edits that is not high level obvious or is "mainstream" but can be a specific insult not appreciated by the unfamiliar. I think there are issues that she has got to understand and internalize but I also think that some edits she found corrosive, because I was annoyed when fresh to the scene by these edits too. I think that some QW proponents editing earlier on seemingly simple factual stmts soured her outlook on some counterparties' AGF. I think Ilena's has issues that needed to be talked out in a different way to see whether she can climb the learning curve, or not, and that we can identify and meaningfully address her concerns, which in my eyes includes the WP:BLP issue. But I'll agree that her language has to change, as do some others' attitudes.--I'clast 05:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG mentions one arbitration case above. I'll mention a far more apposite one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Bring an external controversy, such as the aforementioned Barrett v. Rosenthal lawsuit, to Wikipedia, and you will all — both sides — be barred from editing, and subject to ban. I suggest that the editors on both sides of the lawsuit take heed of this warning. Edit neutrally, citing solid sources for everything, or not at all. Uncle G 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

COI has been cited to Ilena, with the result that she claims we're all Barrett bullies, censoring her attempts to get the TRUTH out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is she feels attacked, and she is responding in kind. I've left her a message, let's see how that pans out before we do anything rash, as I really think she is acting in good faith. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw your message, which was a well phrased non-threatening offer of help, and wish you the best of luck. You have my full support. Be aware, however, that patience has run thin for this hostile, agressive user. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that some claim she is learning, but I haven't seen any evidence yet. Please show us the evidence that she is learning

• to colloborate with editors who hold opposing POV;
• to stop attacking other editors;
• to assume good faith by heeding warnings and suggestions;
• to stop claiming that responses to her policy violations are attacks on her POV;
• to stop wasting all our time by forcing us to reinstate deleted comments and warnings, moving her all-caps comments from the top of pages to the bottom where they belong, adding her constantly forgotten signature, removing her link spam, etc..

I would love to cooperate with her, including adding things that are negative towards Barrett, Quackwatch, NCAHF, God, and the rest of the world (you see, we are all her enemies if we don't immediately agree with her), if only she would do it in a collaborative manner, using good sources, and not fighting with other editors and constantly attacking them.

Anyone who will take about 30 minutes to study her mode of thinking on Usenet and other groups will discover that she is using Wikipedia as if it was Usenet, and that she is incapable of functioning in anything but the attack mode. Believe me, it's an eye-opening experience! She doesn't seem to have a learning curve. If she does, I'd like to see it. Many other editors have been blocked indefinitely for far less than she continually does, even in the face of numerous "last" warnings. She doesn't deserve anymore probationary time, since it will just be wasted. -- Fyslee 20:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I've seen lots worse. Last one was ok since he's a doctor. I bet he would still be editing here if he hadn't bitten those last 10-12 admins at the end of June. Bad hair day.

These Usenet comments make me wonder if there wasn't baggage here, waiting for her at the station when she arrived.

Fyslee, I checked her last dozen or so comments & replies, looks like she signed them.--I'clast 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also it looks like things have slowed down here, perhaps a good sign--I'clast 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fyslee, your accusations are simultaneously inflammatory, uncivil, and hampering a good faith attempt to help this editor become a solid contributor to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith and let the honest efforts to diffuse this dispute proceed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

She responded to my query

She replied on my talk page here. I will let everyone come to their own conclusions, but it looks like she is a good faith editor trying to contribute to the encyclopedia that simply does not grasp the WP:NPOV policy fully and got bitten a little bit. I think if further discussion proves to be favourable I'll try to mentor her, as she seems to simply need guidance. Any objections to me doing so? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Ilena's response sounds good. If it's followed by a change in behavior, that would be even more encouraging. Thanks for your efforts. I do think that excusing her behavior may be counterproductive in the long run (as pointed out above, she's hardly a newbie)... and furthering a persecution complex ("Last one was OK cause he was a doctor"??) is unlikely to move the situation forward either. Anyhoo, given the positive response from Ilena, perhaps we should step back and give her another chance. However, I also think that this discussion should be archived as a clear, formal, official, what-have-you indication that a continuation of her previous editing style is not acceptable. MastCell 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's learning curve is different, and I don't really feel that serious attempts were giving at addressing her mistakes in a way that would be proactive until the AN/I notice (throwing around "zomg arbcom ruling" and "your link is bad omg" without a good clear explanation tends to get bad). I really find that to be a shame, and hopefully she can be guided a little bit and become a productive editor. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

She also apologized to you, KillerChihuahua, albeit on my talk page. Might want to check yours :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible editor issue

Not sure if NotoBritishirredentism (talk · contribs) (no to British Irredentism) warrants a {{Username-Warn}}, but the user's edits certainly verge on POV-pushing. Likewise, edit summaries like British Isles is never an alternative for the simple reason that the Irish people are not British. Such unbridled arrogance push the bounds of WP:AGF. I wanted to check here before posting a {{civil1}} or {{npa2}} warning on the user's talk page. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Username needs to change. Only four edits to date. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy. That's not an acceptible name. Bucketsofg 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• For my education, exactly what provision of WP:USERNAME does the name violate? It's certainly political, but not really inflammatory (as, say, User:ShootAllBritsOnSight would be). The edits and edit summaries are another matter. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:31, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
  • I took a look at WP:USERNAME (for the first time, mind you) and I think the name falls under the sway of the passage "Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names," which I read to mean that the username in question is 'potentially inflammatory'. Granted, all political-bending usernames are potentially inflammatory - I suppose it is a matter of how high the level of controversy is with the political statement made by the username. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • oh boy . . . I think "assume good faith" is one aspect or facet of a principle also called "give the benefit of doubt" or sometimes "better to err by being too gentle than by being too harsh". I don't think we should push "potentially" so hard. As I've pointed out elsewhere, even the name Jimmy Wales could be construed as "potentially inflammatory" if that's what you go looking for — "Jimmy" refers to a marijuana cigarette or a burglar's tool, offending the Anti-Drug and Anti-Crime folks; while gamblers get angry about "Welsh" (swindle, cheat), whose noun form you doubtless know. Wow, let's go block him right away! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:47, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).
      • Naw, your going the reductio ad absurbum route. I personally don't find a problem in the name - I'm pointing out the section that might be invoked - and I am not a judge of the local political climate where the name might have meaning to say whether or not such a name could be an incitement to violence (verbal or physical). There are some political climates that are extremely and deadly volatile where a word here or there is spent and next the bullets come flying or the hooded folks with cuffs come knocking. Thank goodness I don't live in one of those environments — and I can't imagine what it would be like to live in one. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The username coupled with the first edits and summary indicates that this account is all about trolling. If the user wants to choose a non-trolling name and try again, no problem, but this is patently and probably deliberately inflammatory. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pluto.2006 (talk · contribs)

This user is out on a defamation campaign against me, and has attacked me personally despite several requests and warnings. Please find the diffs below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concerts_by_Dr._K._J._Yesudas&diff=prev&oldid=82819416
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albums_by_Dr._K._J._Yesudas&diff=prev&oldid=82819586
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Venu62&diff=prev&oldid=82820573
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatveer&diff=prev&oldid=82822115
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pluto.2006&diff=prev&oldid=82822350
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carnatic_music&diff=prev&oldid=82823935
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srkris&diff=prev&oldid=82837406
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carnatic_music&diff=prev&oldid=91168041
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srkris&diff=prev&oldid=94030259
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srkris&diff=prev&oldid=94467569
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K._J._Yesudas&diff=prev&oldid=94475722
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srkris&diff=prev&oldid=94481891
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Venu62&diff=prev&oldid=94482982
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&diff=prev&oldid=94483133
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harikw&diff=prev&oldid=94483249
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HighInBC&diff=prev&oldid=94483382
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A4ay&diff=prev&oldid=94483615
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hrisforu&diff=prev&oldid=94483721
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatveer&diff=prev&oldid=94484075
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Husond&diff=prev&oldid=94484147
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=94667664

Please take appropriate action against this user. As you can see, these attacks are with a wilful intent to attack me personally, so WP:AGF is inapplicable. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 13:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This was posted on WP:PAIN but it looks like a more serious case of WP:STALK than WP:NPA so I am cross-posting it here to get some opinions. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the way Pluto.2006 handled this, but there does appear to be more to this story: [[45] appears to document some questionable edits and suspected-but-unproven sockpuppetry by User:Srkris. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have already been penalized for those "unproven suspected sockpuppet edits", as you can see from [46], but I dont see how that is even related to user:Pluto.2006's harassment and personal attacks. He has been attacking me since long before I was accused and penalized for suspected sockpuppetry. You can very well see that this has been going on for more than two months now, and he does not even tender a word of apology, leave alone removing his offensive remarks. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 06:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like Pluto.2006 was trying to draw attention to what he considered policy-violating behavior. I don't see that he's done anything against you in the last eleven days; if he resumes what you consider harassment, then post a new note here with fresh diffs and I/we will take another look. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, MrDarcy, the misconduct of one user does not excuse the wrong actions of another. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mr. Dodge, I never said that it did. My point was far larger than that. Pluto.2006 is not simply harassing or stalking Srkris; he appears to have been trying to report questionable behavior by Srkris, and went about it the wrong way. That's a huge difference. Regardless, until the issue is live again, I see no need to act on it. Even a warning is likely to be ineffective when it's so far removed from the edits in question. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If I did not feel there was misconduct here on Pluto's part, I would have just turned down the request on PAIN. However, it appears to me that there is definitely some WP:STALKing going on. What you appear to be saying is that it is justified, which I would strongly disagree with. Please explain to me if I misunderstand what you are saying. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Srkris is a valuable editor. Only a few weeks ago he was being harrassed by another user and the case came to ani. The stalker should be blocked on the spot.Bakaman 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:WorkingHard

I came across an anonymous editor (72.14.118.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) blanking this page with vague explanations. I, and several other editors, reverted this editor's blankings, until after 5 reverts, I protected the page. I'm not sure what the underlying issues are or how the anonymous user is related to WorkingHard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but as far as I can tell, the user has not requested deletion of his or her pages as per m:RTV. Since then, the anonymous user has placed several messages and "warnings" on my talk page ([47] [48] [49]), including requesting that another administrator look into my actions, so I am posting here. I will not take further action against this user or on the page in question. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Some explanation: It looks very much as if the IP is in fact WorkingHard (talk · contribs), as his other actions were to repeated unblank another user talk page (User talk:Fame live4ever), belonging to someone who had exercised her Right to vanish. WorkingHard is the father of a wannabe teen movie star whose article was deleted last summer. Fame live4ever was another teenage girl with pretensions of stardom whose article was also deleted around that period, and they had a feud some months ago. No action from either of them in months, but I guess he carried a grudge. Fan-1967 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that he threatened you with Redvers's name, as Redvers blocked him for 48 hours once (before Jimbo blocked him for good). Fan-1967 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, such silliness. Thanks for the clarifications, Fan. —bbatsell ¿? 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IP madness

The IP User talk:24.187.99.83 keeps vandalizing the Super Transformation article. The means used is revert vandalism. Many extensive changes have been made to the page including a complete layout overhaul and many new citations and footnotes. This IP chooses to revert to a page made by itself that only adds speculation and fancruft. It has been asked to post on the talk page, which it refused. I sent it a warning earlier today which it ignored. It does not leave comments when it posts and seems determined to prevent the article from advancing. I asked that the IP please be disabled from editing the article.GrandMasterGalvatron 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article, which means that only registered users can edit it. The IP's edits were disruptive, but necessarily vandalistic. He might be trying to make misguided improvements. I encourage you to look closely at his edit to see whether there is anything that is useful and try to use that to build consensus with him. Bucketsofg 03:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried but he refused to reply. :/ I invited him to discuss matters on the talk page as there were already lengthy debates in progress. Thank you for doing this.GrandMasterGalvatron 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Overcategorization

Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) insists on wikilawyering the guideline as disputed,but I'm really more concerned about the sudden popping up of Fresheneesz (talk · contribs) who began arguing with radiant over points related to WP:CCC that are completely irrelevant to the guideline as is currently, and borders on Wikistalking to me. I'm not doing anything because I'm also involved in the "dispute," if it can be so called. Circeus 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fresheneesz? Editing disruptively? How unusual. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Fresheneesz may be banned from policy articles he disrupts. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if that is "disruptive" yet, but it is definitely of concern. Circeus 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock of User:ShakingBot

This bot was approved for a test run, but was blocked according to WP:USERNAME, Full block reason is here. I unblocked as the bot has approval for testing at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#ShakingBot. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks solid to me. Bot has approval for trial, so it kind of needed unblocked :) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you corrected an honest mistake, good work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/J.cajindos

Late entry into the "Top trolls of 2006" sweepstakes... ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL hilarious. Reverted, blocked, ignored. Grandmasterka 05:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, don't ignore yet. Who's sock is he, really? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you check the RfAr page history you'll find the leading theory. Newyorkbrad 05:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fwiw, Justin Cajindos is a member of the Illinois Student Senate. I'm not sure if this is an imposter here, but he and Bambenek don't seem to like each other much. Seems like campus politics gone haywire. ~ trialsanderrors 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND is a relevant link in this situation. Picaroon 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Campus grudgematches on Wikipedia. :-/ Grandmasterka 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we're here, let me ask a question about the John Bambenek article. A User claiming to be Bambenek (User:JohnBambenek) wanted the article deleted, and claimed that it was a copyright violation from his webpage. Indeed, the two articles are the same, and the Wikipedia article has been duly flagged as a copyvio. My question is, how do we know that Bambenek didn't just copy our article to his page and then came here demanding we delete the copyvio? If somebody with a website doesn't want their article here, it's pretty simple just to copy our article to their site, then demand we take ours down as a copyvio, and we are hardpressed to determine which came first. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, playing that game don't guarantee they won't have an article about them on wikipedia. All it guarantees is that that particular version of the article will be nuked. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but in this case, his article wouldn't survive on here for a long time anyway. If a new article is up for deletion, hopefully we'll remember this and he wouldn't be able to use the same trick twice. Grandmasterka 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of the above, my nomination for edit summary of the year. Newyorkbrad 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Shock images put in templates

More of it again. It looks like nasty trolls have found a good game. I suggest to think about semiprotecting all templates: Why would newbies have to edit them? IMO in this case vandalism potential (one shocked template hits dozens of articles) overweighs convenience. `'mikka 06:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And maybe stop them from uploading new images too. This latest one is getting absurd. Kimchi.sg 06:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked Essjay to file an ISP report, and he said he would look into it. This might all be one person. Even if it isn't, it sure looks like it's going to shape our policies in big ways. Grandmasterka 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading today's Signpost I wonder if we can use some form of patrolled editing to help. Kimchi.sg 08:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it enabled in wikipedia? Besides, it is not so easy as it looks. Not to say that the instructions of meta:Help:Patrolled edit are rather sloppy and our own policy is required (BTW meta says so as well). Is this thing discussed in wikipedia? `'mikka 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons only allows registered users to upload. Maybe some of the images could go there. OTOH, it still allows anonymous newbies to screw with all the licensing, summary, and source information, which is a PITA to undo. Some changes should be made at both places. Good kitty 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote for bug 8322 to make it easier to find and revert this vandalism. --NE2 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bizwhiz

Oh no. I just blocked this user for page move vandalism on Santa Claus (he was also blanking People and noticed little evidence of vandalism prior to September, when he stopped editing and left a note of resignation on his userpage. This look like a compromised account? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Maybe not. Does it really matter? If they want to come back and request unblocking, the account would require slightly more scrutiny, that's all. Grandmasterka 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait until the user actually says "oh shit, please unban me" before doing anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

[restored from archive]
User:Nnatan keeps re-inserting his original research, cited only to his own self-published work. He has now stated explicitly that he is "not going to discuss with editors who refer to commonplaces and cliches of dictionaries or nomenklature encyclopedias" and he will continue to re-insert the material until he is blocked. Since I have been the main person disputing his citation of himself as a source, I am probably not the one who should act in this matter as an administrator. Given his promise to keep inserting inappropriate material until he is blocked, would someone please indef-block him? And perhaps then semi-protect the article Solomon's Temple? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes: he has been duly warned. In fact, other than an initial welcome, his user talk page consists of nothing but increasingly strong warnings about this matter. - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nnatan looks like a single-purpose account existing only to push his original research. I'm inclined to support an indef block. Beit Or 21:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[end restored]

The above was archived after less than 24 hours with no action taken. I have restored. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I poated a warning, and will act when he actually moves along with his threat. This may well be just a voice of an anoyed person. `'mikka 07:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No edits by that user since Saturday, so I'm with mikka - let's wait until he does something wrong before moving to a block. I do share Jmabel's annoyance at his attitude, though. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

mikka is surely right here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view: Multiple users attempted to discuss his edits with him. He declined, then made an unambiguous threat. Assume good faith or not, blocking was appropriate and, at any rate, is moot since the block has expired. Solomon's temple is an important element of Christian eschatology and, just like every other aspect of it, there are eleventy billion different theories about it and the possible future third temple. Plenty of people have come up with their own unique interpretation of scripture and feel that Wikipedia is a place to push their views. I keep a good number of eschatology articles watchlisted and it's very frequent that you'll see someone spam their own website and add their own theory that they made up in seminary one day. It's obviously original research and if someone persists adding their own theories to an article after being asked not to, and, in fact, explicitly refuses to discuss the issue, a preventative block is 100% appropriate. BigDT 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia and possible wheel-warring

Deleted by Duja (talk · contribs) -- see AN notification here -- but undeleted by EVula after a speedy deletion review here. No sign of notifying Duja of the reversal that I can see, nor any acknowledgment of the earlier endorsement of the deletion. At the very least the deletion review ought to last longer than a few hours. --Calton | Talk 08:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not intended to be wheel-warring, I assure you. There's been some talk about this at User talk:EVula#Serbophobia issues; like Duja said, it's a case of two bold editors butting heads. :)

(and I didn't notify Duja because... well, I didn't see any template about it in the DR instruction area, and I honestly didn't even think about it)

So... yeah. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And the speedy close of the deletion review -- despite previously expressed support for the original deletion -- was why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 23:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This illustrates the danger of invoking WP:IAR on controversial issues. IarWar :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 02:47Z

Another Bobabobabo e-mail?

I've just received an e-mail from MexicanMuger (talk · contribs):

email text

from MexicanMuger <address removed>

to Aecis <address removed> date Dec 27, 2006 2:49 AM subject Wikipedia e-mail mailed-by wikimedia.org

Bobabobabo is a group of 15-year-old kids, including one 16-year-old called Grace. Even Tony Sidaway is involved in this game.... he created some Bobabobabo sockpuppets too, he told me via email! (it's true, Tony Sidaway is Tony Two-Ways!)

Please unblock the IP address 72.177.68.38 as it's used by libraries colleges schools you know.... and IS a shared IP.

The guy who blocked them is wrong, and he should know it.

Anita Horne

Is this e-mail from Bobabobabo as well, like the one sent by Titanicprincess (talk · contribs)? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 09:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Already dealt with a few sections before this. Kimchi.sg 09:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore that and move on. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposing community ban for User:FasterPussycatWooHoo

Lately, User:FasterPussycatWooHoo has been proposing an extremely fringe and nonsensical merge for Tokusatsu. The merge has been unanimously rejected by everyone who has commented on it. The merge template was removed, and User:FasterPussycatWooHoo has continued to disruptively re-add the template to the page multiple times despite being the only person in support of the merge. He has now taken it a step further: in a fit of WP:POINT, he added a speedy deletion tag to the page [50], and posted a long rant on the talk page with personal attacks against his opponents. Thus, I am proposing that User:FasterPussycatWooHoo be banned from both Tokusatsu and Talk:Tokusatsu, since his actions on those pages consist entirely of disruption, and the community is tired of it. jgp ^T_C 16:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the proposals, edits, statements, and justifications made in this matter, and it seems like the main problem is a lack of discussion to find common ground, which is what Wiki is supposed to do. User:FasterPussycatWooHoo seems to be just as much a fan and knowledgeable as others there, and I believe quite a few of his/her points are valid. What is lacking is that there is very little discussion between the parties and mostly action, by proposing deletions and making edits without consensus. That is not enough for a ban. I am not an admin, but I'm just trying to save another admin from spending too much time researching this. Gohiking 17:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion • Before we block someone over what is, essentially, a content dispute, there should be a good faith attempt at mediation through WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A clean block log cannot warrant a community ban. Try to discuss or file a request for mediation for now. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on FPWH's talk page, suggesting that s/he review the policies on civility and no personal attacks, since a big part of this problem seems to be that user's belligerence in the talk page discussions. I don't see any justification for a ban, but a short-duration block would be in order if the nastiness continues (perhaps after one or two direct warnings to stop). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the proper procedure. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right--maybe I should have waited for him to rack up an even larger record of disruption before proposing this (he's certainly on his way), but I was hoping to nip this in the bud before it gets even uglier. He's already been quite disruptive, and his actions today have escalated the disruption to a new level. When the entire community is against him, and his only response is to go on a spree of disruption, there's a serious problem. I really don't think mediation will work, since he is the only one advocating his viewpoint. Thank you, however, for looking into this. It's quite appreciated. jgp ^T_C 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Jgp clearly asked for a community ban on simply the two pages s/he is disrupting, not a ban from Wikipedia. From the comments, I'm not sure everyone understood that. —bbatsell ¿? 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I understood that, but still didn't see any of the intermediate steps I'd want to see before any sort of blocking or banning action was taken. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain this further (I was going to make a new thread, but I was directed here).

I have recently started up a WikiProject entitled Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu, which covers the areas of Japanese television and cinema that primarily features special effects. The English language Wikipedia has an article on Tokusatsu, and it is obviously central to the WikiProject. The article needs a clean-up, but that is something that the WikiProject will be working on.

When I went to the article last week, I saw that it had a merge tag on it, with a merge to the article on Special effects. I removed this tag, and clearly stating my reason for the removal. I then saw FasterPussycatWooHoo's thread on the talk page about the tagging, which I replied to and explained myself, but it immediately fell into an incivil volley from FasterPussycat.

The next day, FasterPussycat replaced the template, and the discussion continued on the talk page, at which point an uninvolved party removed the template citing the consensus against FasterPussycat on the talk page. After that, every single edit of FasterPussycat's to the article was to restore the template (twice), and undo our work as to improving the article to make it clearer that the subject of the article is unique in many ways from special effects.

Today, FasterPussycat posted this on the talk page peppered with many incivil comments, even calling Keitei's username "inanely pretentious," something that definitely violates WP:NPA. This was immediately followed by tagging the article with a speedy delete tag. While a community ban is a bit overzealous, FasterPussycatWooHoo's edits to the article need to be discussed by people other than those at Talk:Tokusatsu, as this has gone beyond anything that could be construed as a content dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that entire history, but FPWH was never warned on his talk page that his actions might lead to a block. Another admin just blocked him for the talk-page comment, but since that preceded the warning I issued and I don't see any post-warning edits, I've unblocked him. He's been warned; if he crosses the line now, he can be blocked. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Alansohn repeatedly removing cited information.

User:Alansohn continues to remove cited information from the article Voorhees Mall and then engaging in a psychotic rant on my talk page (after telling me, in a moment of supremely stupid irony, to put in the very source he removed). —ExplorerCDT 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NPA warning issued to ExplorerCDT, who's crossed the boundaries of civility - crz crztalk 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• And he doesn't get yelled at for removing cited information without a decent reason and then saying "put it back"? Geesh, dualistic standards. —ExplorerCDT 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 and "Jewish atrocities during the Ukrainian famine"

User:Hillock65 has been repeatedly inserting material about "Jewish terrorism" claiming "Jewish atrocities during the Ukrainian famine" into the History of the Jews in Ukraine article; e.g. [51] He's basing this on his own original research concerning an article written by Winston Churchill in 1920 for the Sunday Herald, and on the fact that Lazar Kaganovich was an ethnic Jew from the Ukraine.

After being reverted by a number of editors, he claimed to be leaving, returned to the Ukranian Wikipedia, wrote an "Israel practises apartheid" article as "revenge", and started recruiting Ukranian editors for the purpose of edit-warring. He managed to recruit User:Oleh Petriv, who normally just inserts Ukraninan interwikis, to revert for him, and User:A4, who also normally just inserts interwikis, along with vandalizing Holodomor and removing warnings from his Talk: page. Oleh Petriv has, in turn, recruited more Ukranians on the Ukranian notice board. Rather ironically, both Hillock65 and A4 have most recently reverted using the edit summary "rv mass delition without discussion", though Hillock65 has not responded to several questions on the Talk: page, and A4 had never edited it at all (A4 obviously just copied Hillock65's misspelled edit summary). Now, based on this recruiting, User:Yakudza has shown up to revert, and "warned" me as well, while still not contributing to the Talk: page discussion.

My patience with this kind of nonsense is low; I'm recommending a preliminary block of 1 week each for Hillock65 and A4, and of 2 days each for Oleh Petriv and Yakudza, but I'm open to discussing other penalties. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever tried full protection? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't protect the article, as I've reverted the antisemitic conspiracy-mongering, and I think that it will take more than protection to discourage this kind of extremely bad behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm protected the article, though perhaps to the wrong version. I'm agnostic about blocks at the moment. Bucketsofg 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly on a wrong version, I'm uncomfortable with the article containing antisemitic conspiracy mongering in it. I also think blocks are called for here, based on the page history alone, not to mention the use of intimidation by bogus "warnings" etc. FeloniousMonk 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to the less controversial version. Bucketsofg 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Block them as contentious edit warriors. This nonsense is unsourced OR - remove it, ask others to help keep an eye on the article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This Jewish co-conspirator endorses blocks. Lazar, we will avenge this dishonor. - crz crztalk 19:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I'm hesitant about blocks that haven't been preceded by multiple warnings. Bucketsofg 19:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse also. I have the plans. Oops, I leaked it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock65, at least, has had multiple warnings. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, a short-block (less than a of one week for User:Hillock65. I oppose blocks against the others at this point. Bucketsofg 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:A4 has had multiple warnings as well; he just recently deleted them from his page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, he's been blocked twice for 3RR, false edit summaries, and vandalism. [52] I'm not sure I'm seeing the positive contributions that outweigh this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the proposed block for A4. Bucketsofg 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a block is justified for User:Oleh Petriv Bucketsofg 20:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He edits rarely and intermittently, mostly interwikis, yet he was the first recruit to show up to edit war for Hillock65, without any participation on the Talk: page, and he also recruited every other Ukranian editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but couldn't that be a heat-of-the-moment sort of thing? I would lean toward a stern warning at this point. Bucketsofg 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oleh Petriv is the user who called me a vandal for reverting him.[53] Beit Or 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A misused 'vandalism' accusation is pretty common in revert wars. Again, a caution seems to me more appropriate. Bucketsofg 20:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the proposed block on Yakudza. Bucketsofg 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock's defence

Allow me to clarify a few things. Apart from grossly misrepresenting the events the accuser makes several slanderous and unfounded accusations. First of all, there was no mentioning of "Jewish terrorism" it is a lie. You can check the original name of the article here. One can hardly equate Jewish terrorism with Red Terror and indeed no one even attempts to. As well, the mentioning of atrocities has been dropped out from the title, but the accuser neglected or purposefully mislead the others again. An example of twisted truth is also in allegation that it is based on original research. There was no research on my part, an article of Sir Winston Churchil and quotation by Robert Conquest are there to prove the point that Jews from Ukraine did indeed participate in the Red Terror of the Russian Revolution. This is a well known and proven fact, the article by Winston Churchill is only there to illustrate the point. Another monstrous lie is that I allegedly wrote an article "Israel practises apartheid", you don't even need to know Ukrainian to see where it links to and what are the titles of corresponding articles in English and Russian. However, I do encourage other people to familiarize themselves with it before the accuser can use his ignorance to mount personal attacks. I also consider slanderous, unproven and unfounded accusations that I recruited someone, as another example of personal attacks done in extremely bad faith. I attempted several times to discuss the matter civilly and to come to an acceptable mentioning of Red Terror and Lazar Kaganovich, instead, some people assumed ownership of that article and presume to decide what should and should not be included at all. I dare to disagree. I have a different point of view from theirs and I am intent on making it - personal attacks and slanderous accusations will not prevent me from recounting the well known facts and supporting them with credible sources. I would cordially advise whoever is going to look into this matter to look beyond prejudice and intolerance and see who is really trying to manipulate the truth for their own ends and check all the facts that I have mentioned. Thank you.--Hillock65 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may, Hillock65, the material that you're including is clearly not appropriate, as was explained to you on the talk page. The block that you're going to receive, however, is not only about the content, but your unwielding stubbornness in insisting on its inclusion in its present form through edit and revert warring. Bucketsofg 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see that I tried to convince them to include it. I was open to variants but numerous people reverted it without trying to reason. I also added completely neutral material from Encyclopedia of Ukraine and it was deleted again. Without any discussion. Where is my stubborness in trying to at least include that material in the article? What's wrong with that? --Hillock65 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, uk:Звинувачення Ізраїлю в апартеїді only translates the anti-Israel side of the enwiki article, ignoring all the pro-Israel counterarguments. You're beind disingenuous. - crz crztalk 21:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is what it is, I translated what I found relevant, I haven't had any objections from anyone yet. And that is beyond the point. The lie is that the article was titled "Israel practises apartheid", it is not. It is up to the people at uk:Wikipedia to improve it. --Hillock65 21:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you only find relevant what can be useful for Israel bashing. Beit Or 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You will have to prove that, where do you see examples of that? Even if the article is POV, as indeed many are - it is there to be improved. This is not the reason for slanderous accusations. --Hillock65 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on Blocks?

In summary, then, am I right to conclude that there is a consensus about:

• block Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a week
• block A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a week
• block Yakudza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for two days

If an admin doesn't object within an hour, I will go ahead. Bucketsofg 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do it. I am quite unhappy with the verbal gymnastics that serve as a crappy veneer to a vicious bias.- crz crztalk 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please report point WP:BP. I fairly well sign with rule, I bureaucrat on ukrainian Wikipedia. And I have not found the reasons for my blocking. I have one revert, recoil having written reason (Added text is founded on neutral sources. Does Not follow because of one POV sentence to delete whole text.). Such blocking will be a breach of the rules WP:BP. --Yakudza 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:BP: "A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." The consensus of admins above is that a block is in order. Bucketsofg 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You suppose that one enough clearly motivated editing, interferes with the process of editors? As your offer matches in such event to participate in discussing the article (refer to User talk:Oleh Petriv) with threat of the blocking. As Oleh Petriv or I can participate in discussion if he will be disarmed. --Yakudza 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't understand your meaning. Can you try again in different words? Bucketsofg 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You have written on User talk:Oleh Petriv:

The best thing you can do now is to join in the talk page and help work towards a consensus version of the page one step at a time.

А on this page You the proposed block on several user. As these Users can take part the article in discussing if they will be blocked? Why must be blocked Hillock65, which put into article sufficient amount sources. As he will discuss the article. You do not allow him to voice its standpoint. This censorship? --Yakudza 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He's obviously using robot translation. - crz crztalk 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. It is a behaviour issue. The blocks will not be permanent. Once they have passed, these users can join in the discussion. In your case, it seems clear that your English is not strong enough to engage in that conversation. I would strongly advise you in the future to avoid becoming involved in this kind of dispute, since your participation might be taken as meat-puppetry. Bucketsofg 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Per all of the above, I endorse blocking as well. Khoikhoi 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update. Yanksox has now blocked Hillcock65 and A4 and Yakudza. Bucketsofg 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my endorsement of these blocks. You do not balance an article with perceived attacks on Ukrainians with attacks on Jews, and then deny it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support for the block. I explained my position in detail at the talk page. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object to block of Hillock65. The user is a good content contributor, I have been collaborating with him on Bohdan Chmielnicki and several other articles. I'd strongly advice probation - if he breaks the 3RR again, then block him for two days given his block record, but for now his other contribs are quite valuable and I don't think his violations in one article are enough for a week long block PS. I don't see that the user has been notified at the talk page why he was blocked; what's the reason for such an ommission?.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Oleh Petriv

Regarding User:Oleh Petriv, if you look at the Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II article, he showed up there to revert war for Hillock65 and Yakudza; this was another article where, for some bizarre reason, Hillock65 felt it was necessary to remove fact about Jews being killed in WWI, and instead insert and revert yet another conspiracy theory about "Zionist-Nazi collaboration" [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. Anyway, after Hillock65 was reverted a half dozen times, Oleh Petriv showed up, first to vandalize the page 3 times as an IP editor [59] [60] [61], then to revert war under his userid and under his IP, violating 3RR in the process [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] I suppose he thought he could evade blocking by editing as an IP as well, so no-one would know. Based on this, I recommend a week block for Oleh Patriv as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand how we know that that IP is Petriv. Can you clarify? Bucketsofg 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that an IP editor had been doing multiple reverts on the page; it looked like someone was logging out in order to violate 3RR and not get caught. A CheckUser proved that to be the case. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collab article

Article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II was written sock puppet User:Hcirehcok and reverted sock puppet User:Yarillastremenog and User:SirMole. She is typical POV and Attack page, She contains several xenophobic phrases. And so she has caused indignation many ukrainian (and other) editors. (see Talk:Ukrainian-German_collaboration_during_World_War_II) --Yakudza 00:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jayjg. Enough of this anti-semitic POV-pushing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask to bring proof or apologizes for their own insults. What our editing the article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II is anti-semitic. This only attempt to bring about NPOV of the article by writtenned vandal-sockpuppet. --Yakudza 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion it seems a pretty preconseived matter. While everyone discusses at will who vindalized what, everyone seem to forget that many other users, like Jayjg resorted to reverting before discussing. And only because he filed the complaint his side it taken for granted. As of yet I haven't seen an objective and level handed judgement of this matter. Things need to be checked on both sided, not just one, and blame if there is any should be shared equally between users like Beit Or 27 December 2006, who hasn't left a single comment and reverted multiple times. Fairness goes both ways, not just one.--Hillock65 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're inserting gratuitous attacks on Jews, they're right to revert you without comment, and the edits of yours that I've seen did amount to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that a prejudgement coming from an administrator, I suppose. I guess bias agains Ukrainians is less gratuitous for you. Very balanced attitude. It speaks volumes.--Hillock65 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, active inciting and recruiting is going on in Ukrainian WP under the banner of Ukraine-phobia, assailed Ukrainian honor, patriotism, etc. [67] Our "victims" here are very proud to suffer for the motherland. Hillock65: "Take a look here. Christians and Muslims have religious terrorism. But Jews don't, even though redir leads here. So make conclusions who is in charge in English Wiki." [68]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

Big time. I actually had techinical issues with my computer while giving these blocks out, and I was under the inclination that I had alreadly posted messages on talk pages. Obviously, this was not the case, and to put it simply, I just screwed up. I've posted messages on the blockee's pages, and am willing to discuss this at further length with more depth. Yanksox 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats of physical violence

Since becoming a Wikipedian in February 2005, I've been on the receiving end of a fair amount of personal attacks and other incivility. This is the first time that I've felt uncomfortable enough to file a formal complaint.

As part of a dispute/discussion at Template talk:In the news, ExplorerCDT threatened to "hang the ITN editors by their balls" if they failed to comply with his demands [1]. In response to a comment that I made regarding another user's edit, he added, "And you'd be the first person I hang...with dental floss." [2]. I informed him that this such remarks were inappropriate and that I would seek administrative intervention if they continued [3].

Later today (while accidentally logged out), ExplorerCDT prefaced a complaint with "People like David Levy, (who I can't stand because of his being a strict constructionist and stickler for these blatantly wrong rules)" [4]. I responded by once again asking him to please stop these personal attacks [5]. He replied with the following: "Perhaps I may when you stop being a dick. Until then, I do not retract my comments and reserve the right to criticise you when I feel justified (as I have thus far)." He simultaneously replied to a warning issued by Nishkid64 [6] with the following: "I point you to WP:IAR as my only response to your remonstrance. Sometimes you people need a swift and mighty kick in the ass. Rules shouldn't be anally interpretted." [7].

Clearly, this type of intimidation is not to be tolerated at Wikipedia. Having tried and failed to resolve this situation with words, I now see no alternative than to seek intervention from another sysop. —David Levy 19:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange. His...methods of expression were exposed in his complaint above. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings placed in his talk page. Next instance of lack of civility will earn him a block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

(moved from WP:AIV)

• LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been blocked indefinitely for disruption, vandalism, and reintroduction of POV edits (flying in the face of consensus) at Holodomor article, a highly-charged and controversial topic. Ever since, a large number of the exact same edits have shown up from the same range of IP addresses in Portugal (which is where the blocked user was tracked to). See list of suspected socks (all IPs in the same 82.155.xxx.xxx range), except one username believed to also be a sock of this user). [69] I oiginally reported to Incident Noticeboard but was apparently missed. TheQuandry 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This report was not very suited for WP:AIV, and hence brought here for further and wider investigation. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the IP is dynamic, there is little that can be done actually. However, the article and the talk page were both semi-protected to avoid enless POV-pushing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR in practice (revived thread)

I was heavily bold and deleted Serbophobia, Anti-Croatian sentiment and Anti-Bosniak sentiment in the name of symmetry, brotherhood and unity, and WP:IAR. Those were poorly referenced, troll magnet, POV-exchange and hopelessly apples-and-oranges articles serving the purpose of proving a point of how poor us are prosecuted and tortured by them throughout the history.

I stand open to potential deletion review and, if called for, a request for comment and even recusal of administration rights, if the community wants it. Duja► 08:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say deleting them was a good move. - Ivan K 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the related articles were any indicator of the Wiki-ethnic feuding going on there, this was almost certainly a good move. Though Serbophobia would imo be better stubbed to referenced info than deleted outright, since it does seem to have enough references to justify its notability as a term. I think you can safely up your rouge application level to full in that userbox now. --tjstrf talk 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out—Acknowledged . I know that something could have been salvaged, but e.g. Serbophobia survived the AfDs mostly because it was a larger stub describing only the usage and origin of the term; meanwhile, it humongously grew to describe all acts of violence and discrimination against us throughout history. If I stubbed them, the vicious circle would undoubtedly repeat. Yes, some ethnic groups are hated by some people; that doesn't make the respective articles necessarily encyclopedic. Duja► 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Discriminations against us throughout history happened for nearly every nation. We have the whole category:anti-national sentiment. Singling out "Balkan wars" was way too bold. You must not sweep national disagreements under carpet. You know what? some shrinks recommend to do just the opposite. `'mikka 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Boy, the way those guys go after each other you'd think someone had started a World War over it. WAS 4.250

• That's a very bold move Duja. You are brave. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hah, that's ROUGE indeed. But I'm all for the deletion of such articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very bold, and effective. Viridae^Talk 11:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I can't believe that practicing IAR can be sometimes much more easier, funnier and effective than throwing a rotten tomato at the face of a rotten actor! Good job anyway. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, good stuff. All had gone well past the point of irretrievable nonsense. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hurrah. What we need here is coverage of ethnic conflicts and rivalry in the Balkans in general. Serbian-Albanian conflict seems to be one of the least bad articles like this, for example. Having those three articles, each of them being a POV fork, is just silly. Morwen - Talk 13:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• The pages sound like they are better nonexistant. But why IAR? Why not follow process? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because process is not policy, and process is not, in some people's eyes, required to produce an outcome consistent with core policies. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • True, true. But in this case, I don't see why process would have been a barrier to producing the same outcome. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• No objection from me, but I would say that being poorly referenced, troll magnet, POV-exchange and hopelessly apples-and-oranges articles serving the purpose of proving a point is a better deletion rationale than symmetry, brotherhood and unity, and WP:IAR. Eluchil404 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Pile-on support. This is a good application of IAR. JDoorjam Talk 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Duja's unilateral deletion, although he won't be rogue until he deletes Anti-Romanian discrimination and Anti-Hungarian sentiment... ;-) Khoikhoi 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  Which ones? I don't see them... Duja► 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  LOL. :-) I was actually sort of joking, but I agree that both of those articles are unneeded. However, since Anti-Romanian discrimination was restored, I'll restore Anti-Hungarian sentiment until we can get a consensus. Khoikhoi 00:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also Anti-German sentiment and Anti-Polish sentiment, both of whose neutrality is (surprise!) disputed. Kusma (討論) 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's in fact a huge big lot of them, conveniently listed at List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms. While I believe most of those ought to go, I don't think speedying them all would be a good idea. We need a proper discussion about what are sensible criteria for inclusion of such articles. Big ugly messy bloody group AfD, anyone? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! We can have the feuding factions all unite to oppose deletion of their personal victimhood pages. (Or maybe they'll vote, delete all but mine, and we'll get an easy consensus?) Non-sarcastically, please don't nominate too many of them at once. Keep it to an amount of articles you can read in one sitting, so that us outside editors have a reasonable way of evaluating them individually. --tjstrf talk 09:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable. Or maybe a centralised discussion page first, and then individual AfDs spawned off from that? In any case, it's going to be big and ugly and a lot of work, and potential drama. I wonder why we haven't yet seen any complaints of admin abuse for the ones deleted so far? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a few on my talk page, but far less than I expected.
However, Initially I wanted to clean up only "my" ethnic feud and I don't feel like spreading rougeness worldwide. But those articles should go. They're mainly unsalvageable soapboxes. Like Morwen said, pages akin to Serbian-Albanian conflict (i.e. Foo-Barian relationships/tensions/conflict) could have much better prospects, if only because they would be subject to edit-warring scrutiny of Fooians, Barians and neutrals. But I'm uncertain how to proceed at the moment. Duja► 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good move by Duja. Before people start nominating these for deletion, take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Polonism. (Don't know if other such "articles" also already had AfDs, this one I just knew from the top of my head.) Lupo 11:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, yes, there have been several "keep" precedents on such AfDs - and usually the existence of one page was cited as a reason to keep the other:
    • Anti-Serbianism: survived 2 AfDs (1, 2);
    • Anti-Croatian sentiment: survived 1 AfD)
    • Anti-Bosniak sentiment: survived 1 AfD
    • Anti-Iranianism: survived a particularly ugly and vicious one.

On the other side:

• • • Anti-Georgianism: deleted at AfD
    • Anti-Kurdism: speedied by myself today

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I strenuously object to how this was done. Anti-Romanian discrimination, which had hundreds of edits by over a dozen contributors, including quite a few administrators (none of them me) does not look to me like the sort of article that should have been summarily deleted. It contained significant material (including quite a few citations) that, even if this article is deemed inappropriate, belongs somewhere else in Wikipedia; such salvaging of parts of articles often happens in the course of an AFD, but there is virtually no chance for it when an administrator acts unilaterally. I'll also add that the article did not particularly read like a polemic, and even explicitly acknowledged regions outside of Romania where Romanians are treated well (e.g. "The Romanians living in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina are very well represented at the provincial level despite their small presence…"). At most, I think it should have been retitled more neutrally to encourage discussion of positive as well as negative treatment, but it seemed to me on the whole to be a decent article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. These articles have only produced bad feelings among wikipedians, and hampered friendly collaboration, promoting instead a clan sentiment. I disagree with any attempts to recreate the articles in question.--Aldux 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, are you just saying this on general principles, or did you actually read the article I am somewhat defending? - Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Romanian term for anti-Romanianism is antiromanism: of course, occasionally that same term (usually in English) means opposition to Roman Catholicism, but a Google search turns up literally hundreds of on-topic hits from what are usually considered reliable sources. Some of them are debating whether there is such a thing, others are assuming that there is, but it seems to me that there is plenty here for a topic. Again, there may have been problems with this article, but I would certainly have opposed simple deletion if there had been an opportunity for discussion, and I do not like the fact that discussion is taking place only in the face of a fait accompli. - Jmabel | Talk 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've tried to spell out my arguments for the deletion of these articles, on Duja's talk page, for the time being - not about the process, but in about the content. Still not sure where such a discussion ought to be conducted best now. We need some venue for assessing and reviewing the remaining articles, developing some kind of common criteria for them, and reviewing the deleted ones in the process too if that turns out to be necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to ask, because people have been known to follow up on my rhetorical questions by actually doing the thing in question, but does this objection extend to the article on Antisemitism?

No. See the link I gave exactly in the contribution above: [70]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

27 December 2006, cont'd

• Hopelessly apples-and-oranges articles serving the purpose of proving a point of how poor us are prosecuted and tortured by them throughout the history.

• Sounds great! We can have the feuding factions all unite to oppose deletion of their personal victimhood pages.

• These articles have only produced bad feelings among wikipedians, and hampered friendly collaboration, promoting instead a clan sentiment.
  • Um, I'm kind of curious about whether these views are going to extend to all the "Persecution of..." articles in Category:Religious_persecution (I'm sure there are few non-religious based persecution articles out there too) e.g. Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims... that whole series (probably not the one on Ancient Greek religion...). Also there's their opposite numbers, "Historical Persecution by..." in the same category Bwithh 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles restored as blatant violation of WP:IAR, accompanied with incivility. I don't see how these articles "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". This one-sided deletion becomes a dangerous practice and a spit into eyes of fellow wikipedians. We are not talking about deletion of obvious trollwork here. `'mikka 19:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Blatant violation of WP:IAR"??? "Incivility"??? Except for the word "crap" in the deletion summary which admittedly wasn't up to the highest standard, would did please quote the instances of my incivility? And have you read the comments above before you started the undoing, and why do you feel inclined to unilaterally unerase it? I am accountable for my deletions, and I stood up to community's criticism — up to giving up my administrative privileges. But how do those articles, in your opinion, improve the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia? Duja► 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I was referring to the word "crap". Referring to a text by several editors as "crap" is "incivility" and "disrespect" my mama told me. You are indeed not up to your privileges as of the moment, at least until you learn to see logical difference between my quote from WP:IAR "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" and yours how do those articles, improve the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia? . `'mikka 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My best friend Hannah always said, "you can strain at gnats all you want, but there are much more important things you should worry about." You're arguing over one word in one log entry. It's unnecessary, it's divisive, and I'd like to either see a flagrant serious policy violation or a retraction of your accusations. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And who, pray tell, was Duja being uncivil to? You'll have to find for a better rationale to use as a club, mikka. --Calton | Talk 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, was that directed to me o_o ... the indentation seems to infer so o_o; ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I was referring to Mikka's ginned-up "incivility" charge. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, we'd get rid of all of the troll magnet unencyclopedic articles we have here. Just because some self-important college professor or politician invents a word doesn't mean we need an article for it. Plenty of Wikipedians have stupid uncles, but we don't need an article on stupid uncles. But seriously ... ignoring process like this is just going to cause more problems than leaving the thing in place. Unfortunately, it's a fact of life that too many people think Wikipedia is a battleground, rather than an encyclopedia. There will never be consensus to delete most of these things because too many people get too much emotion invested in them. Heck, look at Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It was started as a WP:POINT article by a now banned user and will never be a good article, but people fall over themselves to defend it. Meanwhile, articles about actual encyclopedic topics are neglected. So these things need to be removed ... but the out of process deletions cause just as many problems as leaving them there. See also, userbox wars. BigDT 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the restoration of these articles. Almost all of the admins agreed with Duja's deletion - why does this have to be brought up again? The articles in question are simply POV magnets. Khoikhoi 01:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot-esque trolling by User:WarOnDrugs

The following is cut&paste from WP:AIV: Agathoclea 01:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• WarOnDrugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cplot-esque trolling. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • please provide some diffs that indicate this is vandalism or did you mean this, cause that was you Newyorkbrad. --WarOnDrugs 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically I have seen the term floating around, but not enaugh knowledge of making a snap block decision on AIV, and leave it to more eyes here. Agathoclea 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Snap block made. User shows up and the first thing he/she/it does is troll out JzG? Puh-lease - crz crztalk 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Add to that a snap checkuser which showed a whole mess of Cplot sockpuppets, all of which I've blocked. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work Mackensen. We can always count on you to stop Cplot. --USDHSUberAlles 03:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive stalker behaviour of user:Velten

I've tried bringing this to other administrators' attention, which hasn't got very far in solving the problem, but I certainly need to keep trying, because the problem isn't going to go away. I've been having problems for some time with Velten (talk · contribs), a user who formerly edited under the name Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) (among others) and was the subject of an arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox) a few months ago because of her extremely disruptive behaviour, which included harassing other users by following them to other articles. Her approach to getting revenge and "one up" over those with whom she has been in conflict in the past is to follow a user to an article they have edited recently and/or frequently, perform piddling, often nonsensically trivial or inaccurate edits, and then aggressively and persistently resist attempts by the editor she is harassing to correct her edits. (For a brief summary of evidence of this behaviour from before the RFAr, see the evidence subpage and this.)

Velten's stalking of me on Nelly Furtado-related articles after her return to Wikipedia, along with some other disruptive behaviour, led me to block her more than once in September and October (as documented at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Log_of_blocks_and_bans), though I later unblocked her the last time after a suggestion from another admin. After that, I'm guessing she's wanting to get her own back on me for blocking her, and has been turning up again and again at articles I've recently edited or articles whose subjects are strongly associated with the subjects of articles I have recently edited; see [71] , [72] (after [73]), [74] (after [75]), [76] (after [77]), [78]. Most recently, she's been persisting in her harassment of me on Nelly Furtado-related articles [79], [80], [81], most disastrously on Maneater (Nelly Furtado song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [82], where she continued to edit war even after being told she was wrong (see her song-and-dance on the talk page and in edit summaries for more information).

What on Earth can be done? I'm probably too involved in this situation, and with Velten's seemingly deep animosity towards me, I'm in no position to be handling it on my own; if I blocked her, she'd surely accuse me of making up "reasons" or "excuses" to prevent her from editing, because, of course, she'd never do anything disruptive. I've assumed good faith for far longer than I should have, tried my hardest to tell her what she's doing is unacceptable (see, for example, Talk:Maneater (Nelly Furtado song)), and all I get in return is, in true Velten fashion, complete denial of any wrongdoing and childish, sarcastic or plain snide retorts such as accusations of rules lawyering [83]. It's obvious that she hasn't decided to change her behaviour or attitudes since many months ago, and she's flat out refusing to acknowledge other editors' past or present concerns about her. This has dragged on and on for months and through arbitration, and as Velten's indicated on talk pages and in her editing elsewhere, she simply doesn't care. If she feels strongly enough about something, she'll do anything to get her own way (policy and guideline pages be damned), and that includes scratching away at and wearing down any unfortunate soul who happens to cross her path. How much longer do I or anyone else on Wikipedia have to put up with this?

Please help. Extraordinary Machine 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is User:Eternal Equinox, then I'm pretty sure you can indef-block based on the ArbCom decision. Are you sure this is the same user? I'm not doubting you, but I'm not familiar enough with the user or articles to say. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is User:Eternal Equinox, and this is the only account she can edit from per the ArbCom decision. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see it now - thanks. I was looking at the talk page for the EE account and I inferred something incorrect from Tony Sidaway's notes. I'll go have another look. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This edit would seem to qualify as disruptive (removing a valid source). So far, most of the others just look rather silly, but not violations. Still digging... | Mr. Darcy talk 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, this one strikes me as disruptive as well - using a bogus edit summary to cover up a controversial edit. I'm satisfied enough to block for one week per ArbCom and have done so. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpressionism

An anon who wants this article kept has (badly, prematurely and wrongly) closed this AfD as a keep. As I've participated in it, I'd be grateful for the sake of neutrality if another admin could re-open it and leave an appropriate note for the anon. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to revert vandalism like that :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius is an admin himself. I agree that it wouldn't have been grossly inappropriate to revert that despite being involved, but can't hurt to have someone uninvolved do it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 02:25Z

Ta. I think perhaps a misunderstanding of wiki procedures by an over-enthusiastic new editor rather than overt vandalism, in this case... :) Tyrenius 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated link spam

Over the last week I've noticed the continued addition of spam external links sohbetchat.tc and to a lesser extent canliizle.tv - initially I noticed it by Strmore (talk · contribs) and Shze (talk · contribs) - then I started seeing it from various random Turkish IP addresses. E.g. 85.108.124.61 (talk · contribs) and 85.102.88.17 (talk · contribs) and 85.106.144.85 (talk · contribs) - I assume there are quite a few more additions being made and reverted that I have not noticed. Note this diff where both get added at the same time [84] Is there any way of stopping those links being added? --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Prime candidates for the spam blacklist. Kimchi.sg 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also trsohbet.com. Grandmasterka 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

More... ugh [85]. Kimchi.sg 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I add URLs there or is it for admins only? --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is on Meta, not Wikipedia. Anyone can request blacklisting at the talk page here. You'll need to share some proof that the problem is widespread; a link to this thread should do. Grandmasterka 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

undermining wikipedia in articles

at this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder#Tranquilizers_.2F_anxiolytics_and_sedatives there is a link which brings readers to page to "read paragraphs that have been removed from view". These pages are hosted on wikipedia as articles, and instruct users to "Change what you find, however YOU think best". I'm nearly certain these are attempts to undermine wikipedia, and on its own servers.

I'm not sure if this is becoming a common problem now or what, but I'd like to find out where it's all coming from and keep wikipedia clean and consistent but didn't know how to go about it.

brandon.macuser 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was WP:Bold and removed at least some of the sections, which were pointing at other WP Workspaces. SirFozzie 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Researched it more, looks like User:A Kiwi put those work page links in. Really strange. Doesn't look like any harm or malice intended, but I'll leave him a message on this. SirFozzie 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, it appears that A Kiwi is inappropriately experimenting on main article space pages under the direction of one or more admins (cf. "inserting Farbutus inling comment & other admin's directive towards making subpage - which I will try, once more, to create") when the experimentation should be done in user space. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to explain it on his talk page, better then I can, Ceyockey? SirFozzie 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh

Would someone please block Vlh for an very extended time again. He has been through a couple of week-long blocks and his first edits back are always the same garbage he's inserting into pro-wrestling articles inserting WP:OR. He has been warned several times before and he's trying to start votes on talk pages to override already set policy on the issue. A week-long block probably won't do any good considering he just comes back and I have to Clean-up 7-10 articles going through his mess. semper fi — Moe 05:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

210.207.18.67 (talk · contribs)

(Copied from WP:PAIN)

Personal attacks-only account, targeting editors critical of Falun Gong. CovenantD 12:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewer Comment • SPA's like that should be reported to WP:AN/I where they can be summarily blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Been blocked for a week, you might want to file an abuse report. Yanksox 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by an "abuse report." CovenantD 06:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)