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

Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig

Isarig (talk · contribs) has been disruptively editing several pages, and his behavior seems to be a result of a dispute between he and I over the Juan Cole page, which is now in mediation. A couple of days ago, he showed up on the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 and began obsessively reverting an edit that I had made (I had deleted the reference to "piss christ" from the article). I thought my edit was reasonable, but it was strongly objected to by an anonymous user. Isarig, who has apparently never edited that page before, suddenly showed up to defend the anon editor and to revert my change. He was asked to stop disrupting by other editors including myself. I sent the page to RfC and I explained the main reasons why I thought the "piss christ" reference was both irrelevant and trivial. I also explained that it was better situated on a general article about desecration rather than the article about a specific incident of Quran desecration that occurred at Guantanamo Bay. He never bothered to add the link to the general desecration article, but insisted that it belongs on this more specific article, even though his main argument is that they are both forms of general desecration and/or religious intolerance. This suggests to me that the only reason he is making the change on that article is to "get back" at me by reverting a change I made rather than because he actually believes his own arguments. I feel that such behavior is disruptive and I asked him to stop. I stated that if he felt strongly that "piss christ" was something specifically related to the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 then he should be willing to write a couple of sentences indicating what the link is between the two and enter those sentences in the article, so that the reference does not seem to come out of nowhere. He refused to do so. It seems his only interest is in one-upping me, and indeed, in another dispute a few weeks ago, he admitted as much. Instead of allowing other editors to comment on the RfC, he has continued to repeat himself on that section of the page, without responding to the arguments I brought up. That section has become a long mess of tit-for-tat arguments, making it unlikely that many other editors will take the time to sort the arguments out there and actually move the dispute forward. It is alarming to me that such energy has been expended over something that seems to me utterly noncontroversial -- adding the words "piss christ" to a totally unrelated article.

While this dispute was ongoing, I made an edit to the article Qur'an desecration, another article that Isarig had never edited before. Again, he showed up out of the blue just to revert me, and has already reverted me three times in 24 hours. I asked him to stop stalking my edits and he threatened to report me (which to me was the final straw, leading to this report). This is a pattern in my interactions with this user -- he revert-wars over petty items; he refuses to acknowledge any POV other than his own, he accuses me of personal attacks while at the same time personally attacking me. He constantly threatens to report me over minor infractions while at the same time engaging in personal attacks that are often vicious (witness, for example, this comment and this comment, from a while back, where he specifically attacks me for my occupation, tells me that I am not fit for employment in my job. While those comments are from a while ago, he again brought up my occupation as a means of attacking me -- a direct violation of WP:NPA, which suggests that personal attacks include "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Throughout the discussion on that page he charged me over and over with "insulting other editors" yet never cited a single example of where I had done so. I am tired of being sucked into arguments with him over petty reversions. I am here to improve the articles, not to get into shouting matches and ego battles with other editors. I don't like reporting people to WP:ANI because I prefer these matters be settled in discussion; however, when he threatened to report me for accusing him of stalking - which he has demonstrably been doing - I felt the time had come to make a report. I hope his disruptive editing, and previous blocks for incivility (in particular, a libelous comment made a while back about the subject of a WP:BLP) will be taken into account when determining how long of a block his behavior merits. csloat 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This might have risen to a legitimate instance of Wikistalking, but you're harming your own case through forum shopping and selective presentation of evidence. You fail to mention that six weeks ago I responded to those same diffs at WP:PAIN and rebuked you for conduct unbecoming the dignity of the academic profession.[1] If dispute resolution has failed so badly that you feel the need to post a biased plea for intervention here then I could open a request for arbitration - the duration and scope of the conflict make that a realistic option - yet I caution you that arbitration is slow, messy, painful, and embarrassing. Would you like to proceed? Durova^Charge! 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming the dignity of the academic profession? I'm sorry, but this has absolutely nothing to do with my profession, that was my point. And if you have a complaint about my behavior in the classroom, or other aspects of my profession, please take it to my supervisor -- I will happily provide you with all the personal information you need about me to register your complaint. In the meantime I will ask that you, Isarig, and anyone else, refrain from using my profession to personally attack me.

In your "rebuke" you said neither side was above reproach, and I agreed with you. I did not cite the older incidents above to make the same complaint again -- I cited them to establish that Isarig's reference to my profession was out of line and followed from a historical context of such comments; that it was not just a single offhand reference. I most certainly did not expect to receive a similar insult from an administrator. I am not "forum shopping," and I resent the accusation. I cited the older incidents only to establish the history of the current dispute. Please note that when you "rebuked" me you removed your comment specifically directed at my "aggressiveness" and that I responded to you, explaining why I responded to Isarig the way I did. I have backed off of being so aggressive, as you recommended, but Isarig's abusive behavior continues. I feel the most recent wikistalking is something that cannot be resolved in WP:DR. I initiated mediation on the Juan Cole page, and we were asked by the mediator to avoid editing the article, but Isarig has continued to edit war with other users on that page even though I have backed off of it completely. Meanwhile, he stalks me on the Quran desecration pages, making arguments that seem tongue in cheek at best if not complete sophistry. I have opened an RfC on the Quran page, and presumably that will eventually reach some resolution, but what is to stop him from stalking me to another page and starting this whole mess over? I am trying to follow your advice from before and not get sucked into these wars, but he is pursuing me relentlessly. I feel that your approach is to reward the more abusive user by signalling that his abusive actions will be successful (and even joining in on the insults directed to my profession!) I don't know what you do for a living, but how would you like it if I started saying that your conduct on Wikipedia made you a disgrace to your profession? It doesn't matter if you are a teacher or a janitor; the insult is out of line. csloat 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most blatant examples of bad faith and sheer Chutzpah I've seen on Wikipedia to date. csloat accusing me of incivility? After telling an editor to "grow up", and this and this (accusing other editors of not being in "their right mind") - all examples of incivility from just the past 24 hours! This from an editor whose user Talk page is full of warnings about personal attacks and incivility, from numerous editors.And the nerve of accusing me of "stalking" him, after he suddenly appeared on a page I had been editing, reverting an edit of mine and then accused me of stalking him on that page! I've warned him twice today to cease making false accusations of stalking, and I guess he believes that the best defense is an attack. Isarig 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution is over there, guys. Not here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem, JP, is that I sent them to dispute resolution six weeks ago and they're back to square one. I'm one step away from giving the matter to ArbCom. Since this is here on the board anyway, does anyone have a softer alternative? Durova^Charge! 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is the objectionable behavior to stop. I could go through and point out the distortions in his comment above (e.g., my first edit to the Said page was not a revert of anything Isarig did; in fact I had no idea he edited that page at all until he reverted me -- which is why I thought he was stalking me there [something he subsequently did on other pages; see above]; or I could point out that the admonition to "grow up" - the one thing that I said that could be characterized as a personal attack in the recent disputes with him - is something I subsequently struck out and I asked Isarig to show good faith and strike out his accusation that I was a "liar", which he did not do). There is currently mediation on one of the pages we have a dispute over, and there is now an RfC on another page -- I think individual disputes will eventually be resolved but my problem with Isarig is that it has become personal and he is now following me to unrelated pages and reverting things out of what seems to be spite. If he is willing to back off, I am too. But someone besides me ought to tell him that this behavior is objectionable.csloat 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have wikistalked me to at least 3 pages (Edward Said, Middle East Media Research Institute, Efraim Karsh), you falsely accused me of stalking you on one of them when it was in fact you who were stalking; you falsely accused me of stalking you despite being warned not do to so; you repeatedly use uncivil language when addressing me and other editors, and have been called on it (the above 3 are merely the tip of the iceberg from the last day alone); you are continuing to misrepresent facts (i.e.: I struck out the description of your comment as a "lie" after you had struck out your own uncivil comment) - and have the gall to complain about my behavior? Isarig 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the false accusations Isarig. I did not stalk you on any of those pages, as you are well aware. You demonstrably stalked me on two pages about Quran desecration -- the only reason you showed up on those pages was to revert my changes and to pick a fight with me in talk. The above "3" only identifies one instance of actual incivility and it is one I struck out and apologized for. (I had not seen that you struck out the word "lie" as you never mentioned it in your comments; I thank you for that, and perhaps we have some basis from which to move forward). I have the "gall" to complain about your behavior because it is beyond the pale, and because you continually threaten to report me for nothing while at the same time relentlessly violating the very rules you accuse me of violating. As I said above, all I want is for this behavior to stop. I just don't have time for this. Wikipedia is something I find valuable and rewarding, but my interactions with you have soured me on the whole enterprise. csloat 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those pages I have mentioned are pages where I had been editing, and you had not, and you suddenly showed up shortly after one of my edits there to either directly revert one of my edits, or introduce a change in a section I had been editing that is contradictory to what I was writing. By your own definitons, these constitute stalking. Each one of the 3 above constitute an instance of incivility, and if you don't think that saying that an editor who defends a certain position is "not in his right mind" is uncivil, then that is perhaps the root of the probelm - you have no concept of what civility means. Isarig 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I never showed up to a page that I had not been editing just to revert you. On the Said page I edited for the first time; I was reading student papers at the time that were about Said's work, and it occurred to me to take a look at his wikipedia page. As I stated above I had no idea you edited that page before me - I don't always examine the history page before editing a page - and as another editor has confirmed, I did not revert you -- it was you who immediately reverted me. Stalking does not mean editing the same page as someone else -- it goes to the motivation for the edits. When you are going to the page specifically to revert war against someone that you had another edit war with in the past, it is considered stalking. The MEMRI page, as you know, I first went to the talk page and engaged the discussion; I did not revert you until it became pretty clear that your position in the discussion was indefensible. And you are really distorting things on the Karsh page - my first edit there appears to have been fixing a name problem on the Juan Cole link that another user had created. My first edit that you objected to was a month later, and it was an edit that you immediately reverted without discussion. All of that was months ago; to say I stalked you there is absolutely untenable. However, your actions on the Quran pages are clear cut -- you appeared there out of the blue and focused all your energy there on reverting warring against me, and you got quite abusive in the talk section. Your claim that I "have no concept of what civility means" is rich; it is itself more uncivil than the comment by me you claim is uncivil! When I said I don't think anyone in their right mind would go to the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 looking for information about the Piss Christ, I was making a rather obvious point that the two have nothing to do with each other, not attacking a particular editor. Can you say with a straight face that if you wanted to know more about a controversial artist from the 1980s you would type in Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005? It seems to be a stretch, at best, to call that a personal attack. csloat 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your motivations are (or were) when you appeared on the pages you had editied shortly after I did to introduce a different POV than mine. Perhaps it was all an inoccent coincidnce as you allege here - orperhaps you were wikistalking me. The point is - that the same is ture of my actions. You have no idea what motivated me to edit the Quran desecration page (and never bothered to ask), you just assume I was stalkign you given the same set of circumstance that apply to your own 3 cases of stalking. Either all of them are, or none of them are. The when I defed a certain edit (as I did), and you say that whoever defends such an edit is not in their right mind you are attacking me, and being uncivil. UIt is plain and obvious to anyone who reads yoru comments. If you want certain alleged behaviour to stop, you need to stop. Isarig 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an "innocent coincidence" -- I said you were distorting the facts, and as I have shown, they are extremely different in the instances you cite. My POV was obviously quite different from yours long before we started editing any of this stuff, so POV difference is not evidence of any stalking. Specifically showing up to start revert wars is. I did not say you were not in your right mind; I said nobody in their right mind would come to the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 looking for information about the Piss Christ. It is plain and obvious that you are distorting my words. I am going to take a break from all of this for a while, so forgive me if I don't respond when Isarig repeats his comments. I think I've made my case. csloat 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this misrepresentation. What you wrote in the edit I linked to above was "I can't believe anyone in their right mind would defend the addition" - which is what I did . I am quoting you verbatim - there is no need todistort your words - they are damning in their own right. Misrepresentations will not get you anywhere. Isarig 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You also linked to this edit above, where I wrote, "The fact is, nobody in their right mind would come to this article expecting to read about the Piss christ." It is amazing that you immediately accuse me of misrepresenting things when you know for a fact that I was not. You are right about the other link but it is not a personal attack -- I said "I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would defend the addition." I did not say that anyone who defends the addition is not in their right mind. You could infer that but you could also infer that I don't believe you; given our prior interactions that would be the more obvious conclusion. But in any case it is a ridiculously minor point - there is nothing "damning" about any of this. The real issue here is the aggressive edit warring, the smearing of other editors, and the wikistalking. On the first two of those charges at least, it is pretty clear that I am not the only editor who has found your actions unacceptable. csloat 01:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig on some points and disagree on others, but his/her smearing and slander really has to stop. Isarig is far too eager to call other Wikipedians "liars" if they disagree with him and I am willing to pass on to an administrator proof that his similar past accusation against me (which remains unretracted) was false. Famousdog 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig behaves like a pathalogical edit warrer, bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea. Abu ali 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali brought this to my attention, presumably since I was involved on the Said page. Obviously I don't know the full situation, but I can say a couple things: 1. Sloat's first edit on Said wasn't a revert of Isarig, but an edit of information put up by Jayjg.[2]. 2. Isarig then reverted Sloat and has proceded to edit war against a number of editors on that page over several days, [3] including Zero0000, Sloat, Filius Rosadis, and me. I'd note that Isarig's last comment in talk on that page is on Dec 29,[4] which was responded to, while he has reverted the page four times since then.[5] That's all I can really say about the situation. Mackan79 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the stalking behavior, but I've certainly found Isarig to be obsessive and unreasonable on both MEMRI and Juan Cole. Also see this example of way over-the-top biting a newbie [6] The newbie's sin was editing his own talk page. Sheesh. Time for a wiki-holiday, Isariq. --Lee Hunter 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following these disputes, but I see little wrong with the 3RR warning Isarig left on Jgui's page, mentioned by Lee Hunter above. I also find Abu Ali's comment above to be way out of line, and possibly indicative of the kind of attitude that Isarig has been up against. There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general. In addition, there's often obvious sockpuppetry involved, and therefore a reminder not to bite the newbies misses the point.

It gets tiresome having to deal with it, but I don't know what the solution is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the 3RR warning itself (although it was blunt to the point of rudeness) it was the strange hissy fit (see the edit comment) when the user removed the warning from his talk page. --Lee Hunter 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR warning was a polite explanation of the 3RR rule, and a request for self-revert, as a gesture of courtesy for a newbie. There was nothing blunt nor rude about it, and it is probably much softer than WP's standard 3RR template. You come here to complain about uncivil behavior, and you call my edits a "hissy fit"? Have you no shame? Or at least, a decent mirror? The user removed the warning with an edit summary that called a valid warning for an acknowledged 3RR violation "a bogus threat". Isarig 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary of what? Are you folks seriously suggesting that my dispute with Isarig is part of a vast antisemitic conspiracy? I don't think Abu Ali's comment was reasonable either, but it is hardly evidence that he or I are part of some kind of neo-Nazi conspiracy, and I find the accusation out of line. csloat 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's comment "There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel" is a thinly veiled [[WP:NPA|personal attack] and attempt to accuse me of antisemitism. As SlimVirgin is an admin on WP, he should know better. Abu ali 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Turnabout is not really an answer, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is no justifiable reason for posting that someone is bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that SlimVirgin has repeated his accusation of antisemitism against me below Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Soliciting negative comments about an editor by User:Abu ali. Any examination of my edit log will show that this personal attack is baseless and defamatory. Abu ali 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is this accusation of antisemitism? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He wrote of "an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel" and stated that "some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general." That seems pretty clear to me; what isn't clear, exactly, is who he's referring to.csloat 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's not clear that he's refering to you, then don't go out of your way to take umbrage. There was no accusation that you or anyone else is part of a neo-Nazi conspiracy. Setting that up as some kind of strawman is at least as abusive as anything anyone has said to you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not setting up a strawman; the words he used were "increasingly concerted effort" that "often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general." I didn't take umbrage; I just asked who he was referring to. How is that abusive? csloat 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, my comments were deliberately not aimed at individuals — for obvious reasons, but also because my intention was simply to highlight the problem in general. Regarding your own edits, I'm not familiar with them. My only criticism of you is that your comment above was out of order ("Isarig behaves like a pathalogical edit warrer, bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea"), and perhaps illustrative of the hostile atmosphere Isarig finds himself editing in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If your criticisms were not aimed at me, then who precisely are these editors who you refer to.

There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general.

You are making a serious accusation. So as a minimum you should be specific. Abu ali 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how more specific I can be. There are editors whose life's work seems to revolve around making all things connected to Israel look bad. Whether you're one of them, I have no idea, because I've never looked at your edits. It gets to be a bigger problem when it involves making all things connected to Jews look bad too. I'm not going to start giving lists of examples. I've given an example below of User:Kiyosaki, but the specifics don't matter. What matters is what we do about the general issue.

Wikipedia is not here to be used as a platform for pro- or anti-Israel editing. Or do you disagree with that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Kiyosaki has been banned. The specifics do matter. If there are other editors who have behaved in an antisemitic manner, name them so that the can be investigated and dealt with. If there are no others then please be so kind as to withdraw the accusation. Abu ali 10:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that SlimVirgin has still not withdrawn his accusations of antisemitism. Neither has he substantiated them. Is this conduct acceptable from a admin? I also note that Arbitration Committe member Jayjg describes SlimVirigins accusations as an "Excellent summary". Is this the same Arbitration Committe which is supposed to discuss the issues at hand? Abu ali 10:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - There is occasional anti Semitism on WP. And homophobia. And racism and prejudice of all kinds, as well as appalling incivility etc. SlimVirgin as someone who is easily identified with Jewish and Israeli topics is better placed than most to notice an increase. It's our jobs to find the incidents, remove them and deal appropriately with the malfeasants, not to slap down the editor who brings the problem to our attention. --Dweller 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm staggered that you can actually condense this whole thing down to "a bunch of editors out to get the Jews". Where the heck is that coming from? One of Isarig's (and his "teammates"') most egregious rv wars is his belligerent insistence that the Juan Cole article include a defamatory insinuation that Cole is literally a protocols-of-scion anti-semite and that the article must not include Cole's response to the charge. I'm offended by your remarks. --Lee Hunter 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel offended. I can only repeat: I'm not familiar with this dispute, or with your edits or Abu Ali's, and I keep repeating that the individual accounts don't matter anyway. What matters is that there is an extremely hostile editing environment around some of these articles, as Abu Ali's comment to Isarig amply demonstrates. It's this general problem that we need to take seriously. Perhaps you could address that substantive point — but not with reference to any particular article or editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage in misrepresentations in order to make a point. The dispute you are referring to on the Juan Cole article is currently in mediation, and I have proposed and accepted several compromises there, and explictly wrote both that the specific quote you object to is not one I am insisting on, as well as stating that Cole's response to the accusations against him (from serious academics published in reliable sources) should appear in the article. Isarig 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this was solicited. I personally have not had any problems with Isarig. There were some disputes between Isarig and others on the talk page for Al-Aqsa Intifada. There were disputes between many people on that talk page. But it seems like the disputes have been resolved in the last few days. I think, though, that part of the problem I am feeling from reading the incident noticeboard, and various talk pages, is that people are taking sides, instead of attempting to maintain NPOV wikipedia pages. I urge people who have strong viewpoints about the issues on such highly-charged topics dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflicts to set them aside while editing wikipedia pages. I hope people from all sides of these issues sign on to Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict and pledge to work on related wikipedia pages in an NPOV way. NPOV does not favor or block viewpoints on the Arab-Israeli conflict pages. NPOV allows all significant sourced viewpoints to be put on those pages. Some people from all sides have been favoring particular POVs by selectively censoring or diminishing other sourced viewpoints. And some of the discussion on those pages has been really over-the-top instead of being focussed on the article content and meeting wikipedia guidelines. People have been making too many reversions without discussion. Resulting in slow-motion edit wars. --Timeshifter 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why a complaint about "bringing the brutal methods of the Israeli Arab conflict to the pages of Wikipidea" is considered out of line but a complaint about "an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel" is not. I would say we'd do well to avoid both. I would add, however, that I've seen relatively few statements like the former, and when they do appear it's usually from some short-lived crank like Kiyosaki. Statements like the latter, on the other hand, are routine on articles related to Israel/Palestine, and they are quite common even from influential editors with administrative powers.

As for Isarig, he and I have had our share of encounters. I think he can be a wilfully obstinate, baldly ideological revert-warrior (in the current Juan Cole dispute, he is claiming that Cole's dismissal of charges of antisemitism as "outrageous" constitutes an ad hominem rebuttal, and therefore cannot be included alongside the article's coverage of said charges). Beyond that, however, I've never once even suspected that he might be stalking me, and as regards personal remarks I've never found him to give worse than he got, and I'd know. I think csloat is a good and reasonable editor, and we share a position in the Cole dispute, but I don't think the stuff about Isarig's personal attacks amount to much. Csloat says hey you'd fail my class, Isarig replies hey maybe you're not qualified to teach – this is all just rhetoric. Who says talk pages can't have a little verve and color.

I don't know what policy on this is, but temperamentally I'm inclined to agree with Jayjg that going around user pages gathering up a posse seems like harassment. --G-Dett 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "harassment" above, where I should have said something like "bad form." Harassment has a technical meaning, and I have no idea if the action in question qualifies.--G-Dett 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me there was full transparency to what he did, which is what we should want. Mackan79 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, Mackan79.--G-Dett 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)--

Soliciting negative comments about an editor by User:Abu ali

After a WP:ANI report about my conduct was filed, User:Abu ali, with whom I have had several content disputes recently, has been soliciting negative input about me from any editor I have been engaged with. Today alone, he as solicited more than a dozen such editors to partcipate in the report. I find this to be a severe vioaltion of numerous WP policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs).

If you examine my contibutions, you can see that I informed other users of Isarig's WP:ANI, and did so openly and onwiki. I did not tell people to contibute to the ANI report or tell them what to say. The charge that I was "soliciting negative input" is false. The comment to the effect that this is a "severe vioaltion of numerous WP policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA" is baseless, and coming from Isarig, hypocritical. Salam/Peace/Shalom Abu ali 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. Abu Ali asked me what I thought, since I was involved in the incident. This report wasn't even filed by Abu Ali, was it? So, on behalf of Sloat, Abu Ali solicits comments on an ongoing ANI. This is inappropriate? Mackan79 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying my comment from the thread above, as it seems to be relevant here.

I haven't been following these disputes, but I see little wrong with the 3RR warning Isarig left on Jgui's page, mentioned by Lee Hunter above. I also find Abu Ali's comment above to be way out of line, and possibly indicative of the kind of attitude that Isarig has been up against. There's an increasingly concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel, often involving violations of WP:V and WP:NOR and poor editing in general. Some of the criticism is perfectly legitimate, of course (when it comes to Israeli government policies), but some of it definitely isn't, and it often veers toward apparent hatred of Jews in general. In addition, there's often obvious sockpuppetry involved, and therefore a reminder not to bite the newbies misses the point.

It gets tiresome having to deal with it, but I don't know what the solution is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing these users of anti-semitic editing? If not, I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Mackan79 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to partially agree with Isarig here. Based on the strong phrasing and large number of these messages, they appear to constitute canvassing for support and near-harassment of a particular user. I would strongly advice Abu ali to stop. You don't explicitly tell people what to say, but a message like "Have a look at ... disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think?" give the recipient a pretty damn strong hint of the response you want. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong phrasing? Abu Ali wrote "Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think?" on each page. What else was he supposed to write? If someone has been edit-warring inappropriately, how else do you uncover this other than through the comment of those who were invovled? You can point out that Abu Ali brought this to others' attention, but to act like it was some sort of breach of the peace seems pretty out there. Mackan79 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Daveyweeb, Ali's quoting the actual title of the section on this page there, not writing those words himself, so it's a little unfair to say he's leading people on with that comment. I also don't know of any wikipedia policy against letting other users know about WP/ANI reports about users that they have had negative (or positive) interactions with in the past. Finally, Slimvirgin, can you explain what any of this has to do with antisemitism? I found your comment only tangentially related at best to the earlier dispute when you posted it the first time, but I fail to see any connection at all to the dispute here. csloat 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking around for people who you think have been in conflict with someone you don't like, then canvassing them to go beat up on him on AN/I, is harassment. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That doesn't appear to have occurred here. csloat 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have occured here? What do you call the selective solicitation of 14 different editors who have been in conflict with me, to come and comment on a complaint against me? Isarig 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that editors who have been abused by you in the past are perfectly entitled to have their say here. Abu ali 10:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well at least Abu ali admits it. <<-armon->> 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is Abu Ali admitting here?--G-Dett 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing. <<-armon->> 15:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Csloat, my concern is that there's an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel. I've been editing for over two years, and while we've always had that problem, it's clearly getting worse, and the lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism are becoming ever more blurred. A good example of that was User:Kiyosaki who turned up a few weeks ago to disrupt Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It was obvious to many of the editors used to editing these pages that Kiyosaki was a bigot, pure and simple, but it wasn't obvious to some of the anti-Israel editors on the page. It took us some weeks to work out whose sockpuppet he was, but he was finally exposed as the account of an old-time, well-known antisemitic editor. During the time he was editing that article, however, he caused a lot of disruption and bad feeling.

That example isn't isolated. We see antisemitic editors all the time trying to take advantage of anti-Israel POV to cause ill feeling and problems for editors they perceive as Jewish. Usually they out themselves over time, because they get more and more extreme, but not always. It's a problem I would hope all editors of goodwill would help to look out for, because it affects both "sides" of the Israel debate equally. It makes editors who tend toward support for Israel feel stressed and under constant attack, and it makes editors more critical of Israel look bad when they find themselves supported by antisemites. It makes Wikipedia look bad to have these articles veer back and forth between POVs, with bad-faith sockpuppets gleefully holding sway on talk pages and threatening regular editors with the ArbCom. The same problems crop up, for the same reason, on pages to do with Jews and Judaism. I see it as a problem we should all work on together. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that antisemitic editors should not be welcomed here, but I just don't see how it's relevant to this particular discussion. I'm not anti-semitic or anti-Israel myself, and I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else in this discussion is. True, Abu Ali's comment comparing Isarig to the Israeli military was over the top, but it wasn't anti-semitic. I think we could all stand to take a deep breath and relax here, and I'm going to volunteer to be the first to do so.csloat 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was Abu Ali who has tried to switch the focus to antisemitism, but it's not only a question of that. It's that there are concerted efforts to make Israel and Jews look bad, for whatever reason. The motive is sometimes antisemitism and sometimes an unexplained obsession with making sure that Israel looks evil. The motivations don't really matter just as the individual accounts don't. What matters is how we deal with it, because Wikipedia isn't here to make Israel or Jews look good or bad, and that was the discussion that I was trying to open up. I see the complaint against Isarig as possibly an example of the problem, given Abu Ali's inappropriate comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it was you who brought up the false accusation of antisemitism. And I note that you have not apologised or retracted your accusation, on the grounds that you are not familiar with my edits. (look here Special:Contributions/Abu_ali) Several edit wars with Isarig and his friends from WP:Israel concern their insistence on inserting libelous accusations of anti-semitism or association with anti-semites to discredit authors who are critical of Israeli government policy. Any accusation of antisemitic behaviour should be thoroughly investigated and dealth with. But accusations of antisemitism (or of any other form of racism) should not be thrown around in a light minded manner. Abu ali 10:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I have seen a great deal of hostility coming from all sides of these debates. Mackan79 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with csloat, Abu Ali and Mackan79 on these last points. I'd add that if "the lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism are becoming ever more blurred," it is in large part because editors like Slim are tenaciously blurring them. Indeed the whole point of alluding to "an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel" is precisely to blur those lines. I have been involved in a lot of contentious pages related to Israeli-Palestinian issues, where Isarig and Slim have also been heavily involved, and with the exception of a couple of sideshows produced by cranks like Kiyosaki, I have never seen this "concerted effort by a number of editors to blacken anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel." On the other hand, on any of these pages one can find a concerted effort to blacken anything to do with individuals – Jewish, Arab, or other – who are prominently critical of Israeli occupation policies. Isarig is involved in one such blackening effort right now at the very article that precipitated the present discussion (he's arguing that the article on Juan Cole should include an accusation that Cole's writings "resonate powerfully" with the central argument of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but should exclude Cole's dismissal of the attack as "outrageous"). Slim has tended to either condone or actively participate in blackening efforts of this kind, often by "blurring" lines as she has done on this page, and creating an incredibly specious spectrum of guilt by association, beginning at one end with anyone who disagrees with her about the root causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and extending all the way out to the antisemitic fringe.--G-Dett 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the allegations of antisemitism are actually irrelevant and beside the point here. I am an anti-Zionist Jew, and I am being stalked and harassed over the pages of Wikipedia by a series of one-off accounts and sockpuppets who do not like my edits to articles on Israel-related subjects. Every day, I have to search to find which articles have been vandalised with derogatory comments about me. Today, it was Gilad Atzmon, Roberto Rosselini, Pig and Camel. Yesterday it was Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, Folke Bernadotte/temp, Israel Shahak, David Raziel, Convoy of 35, Al-Khisas massacre, Roberto Rossellini, Farouk Kaddoumi, Great White Records and Gilad Atzmon. And there have been dozens more. The person responsible (and I'm definitely not pointing the finger at Isarig) is not making antisemitic attacks on me, but is certainly making a concerted effort to make me -- a forthright critic of Israel and Zionism -- look bad. So when SlimVirgin notes "an increasingly hostile editing environment around articles to do with Jews, Judaism, and Israel", she should recognise that it is not only supporters of Israel who face this hostility and abuse. RolandR 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had to put up with that. I've blocked the latest account that was attacking you, and you should feel free to let me know if it happens again. You're right that the hostile environment affects everyone. The problem is not only antisemitism. It's also that some editors feel that using Wikipedia to paint Israel black is a legitimate way to use the encyclopedia, and of course it isn't. We end up with toxic talk pages, terrible articles, and editors who feel victimized and bullied. It would be good if good-faith editors on all sides could try to come up with a solution together. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the second part of this entirely; I just wish people could acknowledge the extreme partisanship on all sides of these issues. In my view, there's simply an extreme shortage on the assumption of good faith. People immediately revert edits without making any attempt to follow the guidelines in WP:Revert. If they've seen something generally similar before, they simply assume its included for the same dumb reason. All in all, many seem to have stopped caring, if they ever did, about the spirit of editing on WP. I think this failure to be civil and assume good faith, much more than any latent bigotry of WP editors, is the source of hostility. Mackan79 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali was simply performing a useful service in alerting me and others to this complaint. Isariq has been relentlessly belligerent and the displeasure of his fellow editors should be addressed. The fact that he has offended such a wide swath of the WP community is evidence of the disruption he has caused. There are many other editors who share Isarig's POV and sometimes his stubborn streak, but they don't create nearly the unpleasantness. --Lee Hunter 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This "useful service" has already been described by several editors here as harassment. And here you are applauding it. No more needs to be said about you or your contributions to this debate. Isarig 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lee even if you got the "alert", showing up here to to put the boot in regarding Isarig's belligerence, is a bad look when one could arguably call you even less civil at times and note your own hair-trigger rv button. Isarig has little patience for weak arguments and off-topic soapboxing on talk pages. If his opponents refuse to "stay down" and keep coming back with more of the same, usually peppered with personal attacks, instead of staying on point and forming better arguments, he won't let up and will keep knocking them down. The problem for them is that most of the time he's right. True, perhaps not the paragon of civility, but on the other hand, I've not seen him attempt to suppress anything contrary to his POV so long as it was reliably sourced and written according to policy. This can not be said of the editor who filed this ANI, and the "wide swath of the WP community" you refer to, are for the most part, composed of trolls like User:Will314159 who you didn't see fit to comment on. I don't expect you to like the guy, but I had expected more grudging respect. <<-armon->> 12:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note Armon (who has supported) Isarig in various disputes used the phrase "he won't let up and will keep knocking them down" (my emphasis). I think that this acurately descrives Isarig's style of editing and discussion, a style which Armon oviously approves of. Abu ali 10:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I approve of anything, it's that from what I've seen, Isarig generally stays on point and makes better arguments than his opponents. The problem is that most people, when they lose an argument, especially when it's shown to be weak, turn their embarrassment into anger at whoever "beat" them. This in my view explains a lot of the hostility for Isarig here. I believe that, like Felix-felix below, "I don't think he ever gave worse than he got" and I've also seen cases of him giving a lot less. Should he be more civil -sure. <<-armon->> 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well call me Isarig the Second, because I didn't see that as an example of being uncivil so much as firmly pointing out to Elizmr the absurdity of asking for "respect" for her suggestion that Cole was, as she put it, "internalizing" the themes of the protocols of Zion. I don't mind saying that anyone who proposes such an appalling and incendiary idea will lose my respect immediately. Regarding Will314159, I don't know anything about him and I don't know why you bring him up. --Lee Hunter 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

She was making a general comment in response your protests (or sloats) that Cole objectively couldn't have "internalized the themes" because his is a prof. The inability to respect anybody who doesn't share one's POV is likely an insoluble problem for a lot of editors, but it's not something to be proud of.

As for Will314159, we edited the same pages with him for months and you didn't notice how out of line his behavior was? OK, but it amazes me. <<-armon->> 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. The only person who talked about "internalizing the themes" was Elizmr and her comment came completely from left field and out of context with the previous discussion. She wrote: "And to throw my 2 cents in, like it or not, it is a well known fact that (very unfortunately), the protocols are very prominent in the ME media. It is not suprising that ME historians and scholars would have internalized some of these themes." This after demanding that we respect her opinion. Respect is earned, it's not a God-given right. --Lee Hunter 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, calling most of the people who commented here "trolls" is uncivil at best. Your claim that Isarig has not tried to suppress anything contrary to his POV is incorrect; as you know, you and he are involved in mediation on that very issue on the Juan Cole page. Your claim that I have done so is also totally inaccurate; that has not occurred.csloat 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The mediation is public. It seems I'm more opposed to using a particular post from Cole's blog as a source to reframe criticism into a Cole/Karsh fight than he is -and I've also submitted 2 alternatives which I believe are better and from RSs to use instead. Poor evidence for "suppression". <<-armon->> 12:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the podium is but well i can speak throughout the window. It's a pitty that the discussion has taken this way. In brief, i have to say that SlimVirgin's statements are not helpful and harm the community IMO. I read that and feel that there's much bias when you say there exist some antisemitic editors. I feel bad because the scope of the accusation is so large. Please give us names Slim. Abu Ali was clear on his accusation though i don't agree with the brutal ways of Isarig. That accusation was directed to one user who could of course reply or rebute that. Yes, true that Abu Ali started it but let's not forget that it was directed to someone who can easily respond to it and not to a group of phantoms. The problem w/ Slim's accusations is that nobody can reply. It is a kind of unsourced edits in wiki jargon. But i will do reply and say that whether there are an orchestra made of anti-semitic editors and their fans or not over here, remains irrelevant. I will ask about names indeed especially when Slim uses the term obvious.

It should also be noted that i've heard the same accusations re anti-arab and anti-islam editors for more than a dozen of months. Have we reached a solution to catch those anti-x (in case there are) wherever they are here in wikipedia? Unfortunately No! Why? Because established editors and concerned admins think the phenomenon got only one side and is only limited to the side admins think they are victims. That's wrong, anti-x editing is well-spread around wikipedia but i don't believe there's infamous orchestras. There are individuals who carry much POV and fight for that and don't risk banning as account recreation is made easy. So let's stop making vague accusations and be concrete to try to get rid of these problems. At least, let's try it. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I've had recent and fairly brusque encounters with Isarig, who, as outlined above is an obsessive, ideological, and pretty rude edit warrior.(on the Oliver Kamm page) However, much like G Dett, I don't think he ever gave worse than he got, but I haven't experienced stalking by him, to my knowledge.Felix-felix 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this comment by Isarig to be offensive: "This 'useful service' [soliciting comments] has already been described by several editors here as harassment. And here you are applauding it. No more needs to be said about you or your contributions to this debate."

I was one of those editors solicited. I had not had any negative interactions with Isarig, and I so noted that here. I noted that I thought some disputes had been resolved at Al-Aqsa Intifada. Boy was I wrong. Today, there have been 2 mass reversions. One by an admin. I would appreciate if this utterly toxic atmosphere would end. If it keeps up I will be making an incident report here , and I will be soliciting comments from others who have had interactions with these 2 editors. --Timeshifter 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)‎

Durova blows the referee whistle

This particular dispute has always been tough to adjudicate. The main participants are well informed and highly articulate, yet some of their methods violate policy in ways I rarely see among editors who know how to spell. The mediation looks like it may indeed succeed at its own narrow aim. Yet the dispute is larger and spreading. I find it oddly appropriate that the Edward Said biography has joined the affected pages: during his years at Columbia University that English department had a reputation as street brawling for Ph.D.s.

In specific reply to csloat, my rebuke spoke to that dichotomy. The debate about libel and slander touched an area I studied in graduate school and your knowledge of that subject does appear to be professorial as does your articulate writing style. Topically these are high level discussions. That contrasts with forum-shopping, personalizing disputes, bad faith assumptions, incivility, edit warring, and deceptive complaints - behaviors more characteristic of a weak undergraduate. My criticism has nothing to do with how you conduct a classroom and everything to do with this website where expert contributors in the humanities are uncommon and too many of the weak undergraduates I normally referee are eager to assume the worst of any authority figure. If the opinion hurts your feelings I am sorry; I know of no milder way to express this earnest evaluation.

This does not, however, vindicate the other parties. Normally I would wait for mediation to work but this particular conflict has seeped onto too many pages and accumulated new disputants as it spreads. The main question I confront now is not whether but how to open an arbitration request: who and what are involved? Durova^Charge! 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you canvassing opinions here? <<-armon->> 10:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record I think both SlimVirgin's veiled insinuation and Abu Ali's outrageous rhetoric are damaging to this whole enterprise. For me, this issue boils down to the speed with which Isarig assumes bad faith, makes and then repeats baseless allegations. From my own experience: [7] A secondary issue is the fact that the Wiki guidelines on reliable sources are frankly open to interpretation, for example, terms like "expert" are weasley worm-can openers and the massive "previously published work" loophole doesn't help the issue. Finally, I, for one, was not "rounded up" by anybody. Cheers! Famousdog 15:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think arbitration is premature here. Most of the issues being discussed stem from the Juan Cole article, which is in mediation, and good progress is being made there due to the efforts of User:Martinp23. The broader issues brought up by User:SlimVirgin - the hostile editing environment surrounding Israel and Jewish-related articles may warrant a a differnt approach, but agian, I'm not sure Arbitration is the solution there. Isarig 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll hold off for now. I'll also caution you about disruption, Isarig. The only reason I haven't blocked you for the Quran desecration controversy/Piss Christ quarrel is because the waters are muddy. Everybody, please slow down and disengage. And try not to graft the Arab/Israeli conflict onto this already messy dispute. Durova^Charge 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig is one of a small group of editors (the others are Amoruso and Shamir1) who endlessly push a particular pov into mid-east-related articles. A large fraction of their edits are reverts, usually to reinstert the junk they have copied from worthless propagandistic sources. It would be a tough assignment to find any substantial improvement to any article due to their efforts over months. The proper place for this discussion is before the arb ctte. --Zero^talk 09:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The remark above is a personal attack against three editors and should be removed by the editor who wrote it. Elizmr 10:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The remark is not a personal attack, it is a complaint. I don't know Amoruso and Shamir1, but it is a valid comment on Isariq's work. --Lee Hunter 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Zero's remarks are based on evidence that has cited many times in talk pages and in this Request for Assistance. Isarig has become particularly disruptive. As well as removing well-sourced information, for example here, he posts abusive fake "warnings" on talk pages [8] [9] and refuses polite requests that he restore WP:RS-compliant material.[10][11] If action is not taken Isarig should at least be warned that he must abide by policy in future. Wikipedia simply doesn't need editing of this standard. --Ian Pitchford 11:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The disputed remark looks like a comment on behavior, not character or personality, and I accept it as such. I have cautioned Isarig in this thread. I'm not going to open an arbitration request right now, although I would probably do so if petitioned in the future, and any editor in good standing can initiate a request themselves at WP:RFAR. If someone chooses to do so now and seeks my advice in crafting the request I will provide it. Durova^Charge 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just checked Isarig's edit log and it looks like this discussion and the threat of arbitration has brought an impovement in Isarig's conduct. Long may it contnue. I agree that there is no need for arbitration right now. But someone should keep an eye on the Israel related pages to ensure that the truce is maintained. Abu ali 11:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and tag-team edit-warring

User:Siddiqui has persistently gone against consensus in several articles relating to Pakistan, most notably Pakistani nationalism and History of Pakistan, where he has been repeatedly adding unreliable sources (random unverifiable geocities links) and steering the tone in favor of fringe sectarian views. His edit-warring, as evidenced here [12][13] and [14][15][16], [17], do not involve discussions or debates but simply persistent reverts over long periods of time. This user has expressed such disruptive behaviour before, advancing narrow, nationalistic and politically inflammatory minority views (see this). Then, when it was clear that reasonable people fixed his edits, he decided to recruit tag-team meatpuppets. He started to post to a certain group of ideologically biased users, such as User:Nadirali, User:szhaider (who considers India a threat to world peace - look at his userpage) and User:Unre4L(who is on a mission to "reclaim Pakistan's stolen heritage")[18][19][20][21] [22]to try to revert-war there, which they did[23][24][25]. In addition, he solicited a meatpuppet from off wiki, a user named User:AliHussain. This is evident from the fact that this user, a new user, immediately posted to Siddiqui's page upon logging in for the first time [26] about "seeing what he can do" and proceeded to revert-war again [27][28]. The users Nadirali and Unre4L were involved in some ridiculous debate over the nonexistent concept of "Ancient Pakistan" (based not on scholarly sources but Pakistani historical revisionism) in Talk:History of India Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:Panini.They have been resoundedly refuted by several knowledgeable users like User:Dbachmann, User:DaGizza, User:Deeptrivia and User:Fowler&fowler but they continue to prowl the pages. There have been RfC posts by other users concerning their narrow fringe views[29]. in turn they tried to create a bogus article about an underground Islamic Fundamentalist/Pakistani nationalist website started by this group of singleminded editors that which got speedily deleted [30]. This problem is becoming increasingly difficult to contain and these users are rapidly getting disruptive.Bakaman 01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More instances of such behaviour:[31][32][33]Rumpelstiltskin223 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What an accusation ! The Indian contributors have been tag-teaminig on these Pakistani articles for many months before I got 3RR and the History of Pakistan was "protected" for more than three months. Now that I have some Pakistani contributors involved to represent the Pakistani perspective they have started this accusation. One can simply look at the history of these articles to see tag-teaming by Indian contributors before Pakistani contributors. I have invited many of my friends to wikipedia that does not mean that this "puppetry". One can accuse the Indians of the same regarding these Pakistan related articles.

Siddiqui 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially when I live thousands of miles from every other Indian user.Bakaman 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman is a Hindu nationalist who is constantly adding Devangari texts to Pakistan related articles and tagging their talk pages with Indian banners claiming them for India. He was quick to welcome[34] a user who abused me on my user page[35]. And look at his choice of words. Welcoming my abuser is a clear indication of his own behavior. I personally do not ‎accept any consensus which is developed by a bunch of like-minded Hindu-biased users ‎who are always aggressively scaring away whoever tries to interfere their propaganda ‎based intentions. Most of their citations are from those websites which promote ‎Hindutwa. They never accept any input from any user who does not agree with them. They insist on adding Indian script to Pakistan and Islam related articles and have been indianizing all such articles with twisted words and dubious citations. They force other users into accepting their citations no matter how questionable they are. Just look at their talk pages and you'll clearly see their unity in promoting Hinduism in Pakistan and Islam related articles, and Indianizing all such articles. They have literally occupied Pakistan related articles and won't let anybody other than members of their lobby make any major changes. If someone resists their propaganda agendas they persecute that user with full force and unity. Szhaider 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Several pages got protected due to the edits of this group (History of Pakistan and Pakistani nationalism to name 2). In retaliation, Siddiqui has been editing tendentiously, using inflammatory section titles and other acts of disruption across wikipedia articles, such as [36] & [37]. User User:HamzaOmar most definitely the same user as Siddiqui is helping him revert-warRumpelstiltskin223 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Szhaider and Siddiqui are absolutely right.Bakman and other Indian users play edit wars by editing in groups,therefor being careful not to break the 3RR.Nothing but a clear form of meatpuppetry.Bakaman and his fellow imperialists have made racist remarks towards Pakistani users as seen on the history of Pakistan talk page. If Bakaman and his fellow indian imperialists can't get have their own way around,they then go running to Indian administrators to assist them in their crusade against Pakistani wikipedians. Right now Bakaman and fellow imperialist user:deeptrivia plan on writing an article on "Pakistani textbooks"(to be specific textbooks used by a small group of religious fanatics in Pakistan) to stereotype us and brand us as extremists.This can be seen [here].They had done this before when they created an unsourced article on Christians in Pakistan which had been deleted yesterday upon my request. Unfortunately they clearly outnumber Pakistani wikipedians and are able to edit war in groups to keep all Pakistani items categorized as "Indian" despite my efforts to make it "SOuth Asian" to keep it neutral. I tried to revert the article on [Panani],but they keep changing it to "Indian" and keeping all refferences to Pakistan out including consistantly vandalizing the Pakistani tag I place on the talkpage. And due to the lack of diversity among administrators,they have a clear advantage over us. The alligations Bakaman states are false.Bakaman is racist towards Pakistanis(particularly Muslim). His fellow imperialists(and possibly him)are part of a racist site called [hindu unity].They make disruptive edits to Pakistani articles such as Pakistani nationalism by sticking their POV into them.They consistantly edit war on Pakistani history articles and try to keep out all refferences to Pakistan,again in large numbers to keep from violating the 3RR.And for your information,Pakhub is not Islamaist.This is another part of Bakaman's propaganda.Any attempts to revive Pakistani history is automatically claimed as "Islamist" by Bakaman and his fellow imperialists.Please read the articles on Pakhub to decide for yourself. They have also unleashed nationalistic bots and tagged Pakistani and Iranian related articles to Indian categories.Their consistant efforts to keep all consensus out(with the assistance of biased admnistrators) is a clear violation of wikipedia's neutral and no propaganda policies.Nadirali 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your paranoia amazes me... hope you understand accusing admins is not the best way to present your case here. They were made admins precisely becasue they HAVE made productive contributions to the project unlike you who seems to be interested in removing project tags from talk pages. As for Panini call him a Pakistani before any non-Indian historian and see how they'll laugh at you. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This after Siddiqui spammed talk pages [38][39][40][41], [42][43][44] [45]proving Bakaman's point totally. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting Pakistani editors to protect the Pakistan related pages being filled with Indian propaganda. I am also urging my friends to join wikipedia and contribute to Pakistan related pages. The Indians have been team-tagging and reverting any changes to Pakistan related articles. The new Pakistani contributors will soon be able to give balanced view of Pakistan-India disputes. Indian have the right to give thier side of opinion so Pakistanis also have the same right. The Indians have filled Pakistani articles with Indias propaganda. Any change to reflect Pakistan view point is reverted and the Indian contributors team tag to defeat smaller number of Pakistani contributors. Hopefully this will change as I have been trying hard to convince many Pakistanis to join wikipedia and contributue to the articles that interests them.

Siddiqui 07:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle ground. You by your own admitance are guilty of meatuppetry. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, where you can put down any information, and because you have a few admins on your side, nobody can question your actions. The Pak tag belongs anywhere, where there are Pakistani ancestors involved. The fact is, Panini had nothing to do with modern Indians. If it hadnt been for some users here, the article would still have a ROI flag. (check history). So maybe you guys should pull yourselves together and stop defending biased information, backed up my some Indian written sources. If you dont want to call people of Pakistan, Pakistanis, what else do you want to call them? Indians. I see...makes no sense, but since you have admins on your side, who are we to question? Unre4L 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s I provided 5 .edu sources of Ancient Pakistan being a valid term. Even then you question this. This obviously shows you have no regard for correct information being put on Wikipedia, but only information where you can cram the word "India" in as many places as you can. Unre4L 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the fact tha google uses Ancient India 880 times to one compared to the fictitious "ancient Pakistan" seems to be lost on you, as well as nadirali's hallucinations of me being female, when I am obviously male. You're right WP isnt a blog where one can discuss fairy-tales like the "ancient history of Pakistan".Bakaman 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First I thought Google was the only argument you could come up with. Now I know it. Ok...let me make it very simple. Why do you think we are arguing about this? Because people are misinformed, and since they are misinformed, they use it more often. If Ancient Pakistan came up with as many Google results, then this argument wouldnt be taking place, now would it? And your Google argument is not going to cancel out any official educational sources. Unre4L 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually here is one for you.
Islam gives 94 million google results.
Hinduism gives 8.7 million results.
Wait a minute. That must mean...
Unre4L 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god. christian gives 318 million, muslim gets 58 million. Official educational sources? Pul-leez. I have 800 "official educational sources" to each geocities site and university of oregon blog you have.While were at it, do look at misinformed.Bakaman 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Might have something to do with, Christian being a name, and the search for Christian and Christianity is integrated. But you failed to see my point. Google cannot be used to prove anything. I provided .edu sources for Ancient Pakistan being valid, unless you can provide .edu sources quoting Ancient Pakistan is Not valid, till then, please dont mention google again. Unre4LITY 13:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Of interest to this discussion would be the edits[46] at Partition of India by a "group" (for reasons unknown) where a third individual "AMbroodEY" has surfaced on third consecutive day, after "Rumpelstiltskin223" (on 4 Jan) and "Dangerous-Boy" (on 5 Jan), continuing the edit war, reverting exactly the same cit. (i.e. Time Magazine!) and adding completely irrelevant and extremely POV links, while disregarding mediation attempts[47]. --IsleScape^Talk 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal! Partition of India has been in my watchlist for over two years. I didnt revert your stuff, i was building upon D-Boy's version. Whats more dont game ANI, this is not the forum really to discuss this... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. Look at your reverts plus challenge [48] to my edits. Three people (all appearing above) reverting the same reference in three days is no conincidence, but perfect example of tag-team if not meatpuppetry.--IsleScape^Talk 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Its called reverting vandalism.Bakaman 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the fourth editor[49]--IsleScape^Talk 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no a troll thinks there is a cabal.Bakaman 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction, four trolls in three days!--IsleScape^Talk 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the page much before three days ago, and added quite a bit in the way of references. Calling me a troll lol. Looks like noone but banned users, "restrorers of Pakistan's ancient heritage" and their SIMI friends agree with that.Bakaman 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did so many articles all of the sudden get protected by the same admin?--D-Boy 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mhm Islescape, POV links. Do tell us about unicorns and East Dakota while you're at it. Zora is no mediator, she's the one calling for the article to become "Pakistani POV" and whining about "Indian Imperialist bots" and "Hindutva kooks".Bakaman 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of Admins I have to put up with, who are on a clear mission to ruin just about everything I post.
User:DaGizza This is what he posted at first (about my PakHub article):
"Has 36 Google hits! AFD or Prod it and it will be deleted very soon. Might even get away if you put a speedy notice"
"Regarding Pakhub, I don't understand your "evil glee" comment, but I can assure you if you place a speedy tag, someone will delete it without hesitation. And thanks for your christmas greeting. I wish you likewise and a happy new year."
"As you see, I've deleted it. If they complain, I may revive and send it to AfD. Then everyone (not just Indians) will vote speedy delete and they'll realise that it doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Have a good day."

Even his buddy admitted this (Dboy) "why do i sense an small little evil glee from your words?"
And just to inform everyone. He deleted my article without telling me a word. The article was deleted twice, and I still had no idea who deleted it and why it was being deleted.

Unre4LITY 19:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JzG's personal attack

Revision as of 15:54, January 4, 2007 (edit) JzG (Talk | contribs) (→Deep breaths :) - Um, right.) ← Older edit Revision as of 19:20, January 4, 2007 (edit) (undo) JzG (Talk | contribs) (→Deep breaths :) - update) Newer edit → Line 26: Line 26:

--> Also, you are not hated; everyone is welcome on Wikipedia, and so long as you go about it civilly, we can have these users answer for their actions. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)  :--> Also, you are not hated; everyone is welcome on Wikipedia, and so long as you go about it civilly, we can have these users answer for their actions. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- * Your hysterical outpourings on WP:PAIN are likely to achieve very little other than to ensure that you are dismissed as a crank. Would you like to go back and try again, citing diffs and without the capitalisation? Guy (Help!) 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) + * I removed your reports from WP:PAIN since there is no evidence of attacks provided. In future please bear in mind that we need, at the very least, information as to where the supposed attacks occurred. I did spend some time looking into it but the only aggression I could find was from you. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs).

...Are you asking a question, or what? --Masamage 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Yrgh believes that JzG's comments above are a personal attack and he wants to rant about it! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah. The top of this page says "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" for a reason. Apparently you know about WP:PAIN to report personal attacks, you can take this there but if all he did was call you a crank, I seriously doubt any uninvolved admins will care enough to block him or whatever. --W.marsh 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this user has made a habit out of accusing... everyone... of personally attacking him (and in a rather disruptive way at that) after he was confronted by multiple editors about a series of dubious edits. He has previously been mentioned on AN/I here. —bbatsell ¿? 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And why wasn't anything done about it then? D: And at what point is the community's patience exhausted with Mr. Yrgh?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also wonderful.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just marvelling at that myself. --Masamage 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef per that latest ... marvel. Can't say I've ever seen anything quite like that. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, 100% speedy endorse blocking this worthless twat. I wasted Actual Time checking out his baseless report. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Calm down. Of course, I support blocking this user, but it is a personal attack to call someone a "worthless twat". There's no need to start calling people names, even though they are incredibly frustrating. Yuser31415 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've already posted to Guy's user talk page. It seems out of character and I hope that was a typo for twit. Durova^Charge 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • But in reality, it's not out of character at all. [50][51][52][53][54][55] ATren 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yup. --Masamage 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell freezes over

I'd better put this under a new section. Based on Guy's post above and the subsequent diffs, which do check out, I've left him an imminent block warning for incivility. It's the dead of night in his part of the world right now and he hasn't edited since, so I'll wait for him to log on and respond, but basically what I've said is that I'll block him for uncivil statements he's already posted unless he strikes through certain comments or pledges to clean up his language. I've never blocked an admin before - much less one I respect as much as him - but it would be a double standard if I overlooked this evidence. I welcome the feedback of other users regarding this decision.[56] Durova^Charge 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll support that even, though I feel sheepish doing so. Guy seems like a very good editor, but I read the above evidence the same way you do, especially in light of this. Can't be allowed, even (especially?) from a respected admin. --Masamage 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't support such an action. While I am strongly opposed to editors (especially admins) making uncivil comments, I don't think that blocking is the right way to go about this; all it's going to do is create bad feelings. In this case, an apology from Guy would be suffice, provided he does not repeat his behavior. Yuser31415 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I interpreted Durova's actions as asking for apology and change in behavior first and foremost. The block would only be if he refuses, which would be kind of surprising. --Masamage 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly accept an apology. Durova^Charge 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to an admin blocking another admin. Always have been opposed to this, always will. It's just not ... done. Take it to RfC, even ArbCom, but don't directly block another fellow admin. Yuser31415 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see how a civility block would be anything other than punitive in Guy's case. Guy has had a sharp tongue as long as I've known him, and (1) he isn't particularly more likely to be uncivil in the next x hours than he is in the n hours after that, and (2) I seriously doubt that a block will cause him to change his manner of interaction. IMHO, if people are really concerned about his behavior, engaging on his talk page or an RFC would be the way to go. TheronJ 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can gather consensus at WP:CIV for the exception if you're uncivil and get away with it this policy doesn't apply anymore then I'll strikethrough my warning. The problem editors habitually claim that sysops are a clubby little bunch who violate policy with impunity. Well if none of us get blocked except by ArbCom, then to quote George Orwell All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. If I ever make the same mistake then by all means give me a block warning too, and an actual block if I don't back down. Durova^Charge 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are these editors? I've seen people complain that a few admins get away with too much, but I've never heard anyone but User:Cplot style conspiracy theorists claim admins as a whole are a priveleged elite. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot never made any such claims about administrators being a privileged elite. Cplot complained about federal propagandists on the wiki, many of whom are not admins (for example, MONGO thankfully). Why not try to provide a diff showing something Cplot did wrong. That would be an interesting exercise. --SeePlot 11:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, a WP:SOCK.--Isotope23 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins has no special authority or exemption. The blocking policy applies to them too. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Someone has a bit of a meltdown from dealing with crap, and you threaten to block him? Instead of saying "what's going on, can I help", you threaten him? Instead of providing a support system for the people who end up having to deal with the flood of bullshit that comes their way, we use ultimatums? Sounds great - when someone is buckling under the strain, let's kick them? Durova, I must say, I am deeply disappointed in you. I most certainly oppose your use of ultimatums and threats against one of our hardest-working admins. Guettarda 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem ... calm down, please. Yuser31415 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When I saw it in one post I presumed it was a typing error. After I saw it in six more over several different days and conversations I acted. An eighth example has surfaced since then. Durova^Charge 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's an insane thought process, and one that has caused major problems. "I'm dealing with trolls, so I'm above policies!" is the worst thing an admin can possibly say, short of maybe "**** off you ****ing ****er I'm ****ing blocking everyone because I ****ing feel like it". Nothing, at all, should cause you to be placed above policies. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Really. If "inability to deal with stress without calling people names and swearing at them" came up in an RFA, most of us would vote "oppose". And I don't think that of Guy; I think he's a lot saner than the wacko you're describing. --Masamage 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Not sure if I'm even allowed to post here but I found ANI to be a reasonable place so far. From the purely linguistic perspective - twit twat and twot are about the same in the context of heated discussion and certainly in common usage. But I learned English in Northumbria if you can call it English:) I do have to apologise for that in daily life quite often. Whether heated discussion or common usage are allowed from anyone on Wikipedia is still uncertain to me. I deal with it by trying to write really flat and boring in discussion. AlanBarnet 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Howay, man, it's nee big deal, like :o) Guy (Help!) 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with JzG's comments, but ... haven't we learned recently that blocks aren't a good way to deal with personal attacks made by established users? --Cyde Weys 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, we're you're in a little pickle here. We You get blasted for admin cabaling if we don't, and we get into that situation if we do. I'd also like to say that I am utterly confused as to why "twat" is offensive; that's a nickname my mom uses for my sister, and I don't see any offensiveness. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's anatomical slang. According to its article it can also be a form of twit, but I've never heard it used that way. --Masamage 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... okay, that was more than I really needed to know. Just keep in mind that he may very well be using my definition, not an obscene one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I expected you to just mouse over that link; it didn't occur to me until just now that you might just click the thing. That's really embarrassing and I'm sorry. --Masamage 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops, I didn't make it clear that I didn't actually click it. I actually caught it in the diff. But I still know what the word means. Don't be embarassd. Have a smiley face. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't include me, because I'm not an admin, meaning I'm somewhat insulated from whatever happens. Yay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda has it right. I realise that it is now all the rage for admins to be the manners police, but while we're going through this phase, it would be nice to remember that blocking people who are not a threat to the project hasn't always been something we expected admins to do, and especially to do casually. I really do appreciate the fact that we're a lot quicker to block trolls and lunatics these days, but we do have a whole dispute resolution process designed for facilitating community input on the behaviour of valued contributors. Jkelly 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more than that. Most of us don't spend much time dealing with troublesome editors. Dealing with them on the scale that Guy (and many others) do is very stressful. If someone has a few meltdowns over a couple months, then maybe it's a sign that we, as a community should be more supportive of them; seeing stuff like that the correct reaction is to say "what's wrong, how can we help" or maybe "take a break from that stuff and concentrate on what's fun". As long as our aim is to retain hardworking volunteers, the correct action is never to approach a good editor like a disruptive troll. If they are feeling the strain, all it does is say to them "your contribution isn't worth shit". It's most likely to exacerbate the problem. The last thing you want to do is come at someone with threats and ultimatums. It will almost certainly fail to produce the desired result. In addition, in general we cut trolls more slack than Durova cut Guy. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. The threats were totally out of line. Guettarda 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He violated WP:CIVIL, and if most of the words I've never heard are similar in definition to his word "twat" (assuming he meant them that way, of course) , he violated it pretty badly. Even then, if I told people to "fuck off", I would most certainly be told to stop in a heartbeat. While admins should not be approached like trolls, they should also not get preferential treatment over everyone else in that respect. And dealing with trolls does NOT justify swearing at people. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't. You violated AGF - maybe you should be blocked for that?? There are seven links provided above. The first one shows no incivility - he says to someone "you have the brass neck to come here making demands? The short answer is: go away". No one says we have to suffer fools. In the second case, there's nothing there that isn't calling a spade a spade. In the third he says "what the fuck"...oooh, my ears are burning, he used a swear word. Hmm - maybe I need to be threatened with a block for my "WFT" higher up the page. In the fourth case, he says to Fys "and I want you to fuck off". Fys has been behaving like an idiot ever since he played chicken with the arbcomm and got them to blink. He's saying "quit bugging me". Not incivil, and it's totally wrong to take it out of context. In the fifth case, again, he is using "fuck off", but seriously, calling that incivil is nothing but prudery about "the f-word". Did you miss the bit about Wikipedia not being censored for minors? And the sixth example isn't incivil, and it isn't aimed at anyone in particular so how can it be taken as anything serious? As for the word "twat" - that tempest in a teapot is nothing more than a collective failure to assume good faith. Maybe you should just block yourselves for violating AGF and be done with it. Guettarda 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... In case you didn't notice, I'm the first one who brought up that "twat" might mean something else. And you are not in any way explaining why what he did was civil, you're explaining why it was justified. Which is good, except that glosses over what I said, that incivility isn't justified, just by the fact that the point of the incivil comment is correct. You can say things which are right in an incivil way. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit summary of the first diff. Anchoress 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guys and gals, we are not policing words (Wikipedia is not censored) we are policing personal attacks having significant venom to hurt people. For the Fuck's sake it is absolutely fuckingly acceptable to use the bloody old-English word fuck to emphasize an idea or an emotion. On the other hand it is absolutely unacceptable for an admin to engineer a phrase that would unnecessary hurt people even if the phrase has no colorful words and even if it does not formally violate the principle to comment on contributions not the contributors. I would dare say that in the phrase "useless twat" I am much more concerned with the word useless than with the word twat. Most of the Guy's replies here are examples of using colorful words but not personal attacks. Some might be (although I guess calling a person who delibeartely choose to behave as troll useless should not hurt his emotions. I guess we are better off by examining the situation more careful with Guy present rather than issuing blocks. I trust Durova to discuss it with Guy and to make a right decision. Alex Bakharev 05:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are different from incivility. For instance, while dismissing all ideas someone comes up with saying "**** those ideas" is not a personal attack, it's certainly incivil. Similarly, I wouldn't quite say anything he did constitutes a personal attack, but it does constitute incivility. Enough to block? I don't know. But personal attacks should be cause for aggressive blocking, period. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's space between "friendly and polite" and block-worthy incivility. If we couldn't tell someone "leave me alone" (viz., "fuck off") without the thought police breathing down our necks, then I for one would be out of here long ago. Guettarda 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Leave me alone" is substantially different from "**** off". Just because Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean swearing at someone is less offensive. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't "substantially different". Guettarda 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV's "Serious examples" includes "Profanity directed at another contributor." --Masamage 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, which would be "fuck you", not "fuck off". Quit Wiki-Lawyering. This is nonsense. Guettarda 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me some folks need to get a fucking life. Wiki isn't a fucking haven for the fucking language Nazi's and this fucking inane proccupation with "so and so huwt my poow widdle feelings" just shows how utterly divorced from fucking reality Wiki is. Personally, I think Wiki could use a nice case of occassional whoop-ass rather than concern over whether a troll's feelings are hurt, and a nice case of reality when ideas are simply baltently fucking stupid. So, that being said, I suppose Durova will want to block me next for actually speaking my mind. Go for it, I really don't care. Wiki at its worst is simply a nattering bunch of officious, pietistic (Wiki as religion) people worried far less about the declining content of the encylopedia and worried far more about creating the equivalent of a Utopian dictatorship. Just remember, Utopia means "nowhere" and Wiki in many cases exists in a netherworld far removed from the real world. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the aggression, but I'm not wiki-lawyering. I was offering a piece of information to see whether it had any bearing on the discussion; I think your point about the meaning of "directed at" is a good one, so now I'm satisfied. Go back to insulting people who don't agree with you. --Masamage 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To whom are you responding? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda. --Masamage 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is the most useless policy on wikipedia. A little incivility doesnt hurt Wikipedia. Guy's comments were just an outburst of anger, and I've seen good users blocked for even less by the thought police. I myself deal with trolls on a daily basis. On my first month on wiki I was booked by the thought police four times in cases all brought by banned users (arbcom ruling "Hkelkar"). Admins that spend all day threatening wikipedians instead of trolls are usually hated by users that deal with trolls and shouldn't have the "holier than thou" attitude when looking at a situation.Bakaman 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

If admins are to have any authority in preventing the increasing coarseness of discourse here, we must begin with ourselves. However, as much as I respect Durova's opinion on nearly everything else, it's far too early to think about blocking. Some supportive conversation would be very nice, as would offering to shoulder some of Guy's burdens. I'd guess most admins become experts in recognizing and dealing with one or two particular trolls and/or disruptive editors (I have my share for sure). Eventually it wears you down, and I think Guy has taken on more than his share already, so maybe we should let Guy pass the baton on some of his least favorite. We should support him and lighten his load, as we should have done for MONGO months ago. Thatcher131 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree admins should not be blocked as they have been chosen by the community to be above Wikipedia's policies. This is the universal view. KazakhPol 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody likes a smartass. As a matter of interest, I started an admin misconduct RFC a while ago over violations of block policy that resulted in the admin voluntarily desysopping himself after a wave of negative responses to his behavior. I'm perfectly willing to take strong action at the appropriate time. This is not yet the time for strong action. Thatcher131 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the result of the long, drawn out, and heated (Template:Emot) debate is that we will wait to see how Guy reacts, and I am 99.999% sure he will make an apology. And then, let's just drop the whole matter, hmmm? (BTW, for the record, this is my 3000th edit.) Yuser31415 06:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. --Masamage 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, "Nobody likes a smartass." If I had a dollar for every time my dad said that to me... anyway, It's a pretty simple thing, really:

1. Does ZisGuy sometimes shoot his mouth off? Well, prety much yes.
2. Does ZisGuy also work his arse off? Definately yes.
3. Does #2 make #1 ok? Anyone wanting to come right out and say that the rules are different for admins/hard workers/FAC writers? No, I thought not.

I've not seen the bordeline tetchyness JZ has demonstrated amount to any serious problem. Yet. Durova's heavy-handedcomments had the correct idea but were woefully handled. Can we all get back to work now, and deal with this iff it turns into a problem?

brenneman 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it. The rules are different for established contributors, not because they have a license to offend, but because we expect them to revert to form and because we know they're worth investing effort in.

Congrats to Durova for being bold, and for coming here for a san-check before acting. And agree with most of the above, blocks should be preventative, not punative. JDZ made a mistake. I'm confident he'll realise that and lower the temperature in future. If not, then maybe he should hand back his bit. But a punative block is the wrong way to express an opinion. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I understand what you're saying, does that mean that we don't accept bad behavior from these contributors, just that we (perhaps) handle it differently? - brenneman 07:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well put. Where a user's only contributions are negative, a perma-block solves the problem and doesn't cost us anything. Where a user is mostly good with some bad, a perma-block solves the problem, at great cost. A temporary block applied to halt a rampage is a thing of beauty. But a punative block doesn't solve anything, and probably costs us dearly. In this case, I expect him to be sensible. If not, well, there are other options. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also one of the admins who puts myself on the front line in terms of dealing with difficult editors. I wouldn't retain much credibility in asking them to be civil if I were uncivil myself or if I countenanced obscene put-downs from another administrator. The strongest thing I have going for me when I handle a hard case isn't the sysop tools: it's integrity. The central question I asked myself is If I saw exactly these words from an editor of equal value to the project who wasn't a sysop, what would I do? It's a tough call - some of you may disagree with it - and I trust that when Guy logs on he will quickly demonstrate through his inherent good sense that most of our worries are needless. And I have to add that the accusation I've acted punitively is a bit of an AGF foul. I thought people knew me better than that. Durova^Charge 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am loving the argument that it's not really rude to tell someone to fuck off. I'll remember that next time someone gets on my nerves. And by the way, Guy is southern English, as I am, and we don't really use "twat" for "vulva" much. It would translate into American as a slightly milder "asshole", I suppose. It wouldn't be very offensive. It has more of a flavour of silliness.

Durova should though be supported here (although no surprises that there is practically a queue forming not to). It's not acceptable for admins to display behaviour that others would be blocked for. They're not above the law. And if you can't deal with twats without telling them to fuck off, maybe giving up dealing with twats would be the best approach. Grace Note 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are punative blocks a useful way to deal with past incivility by anyone, admin or otherwise? I suspect it's like rubbing a puppies nose in 'it', useful if you can do it at the time but harmful if you do it long after the event. The message we want to send is "what you did was not acceptable." A bonus block doesn't help get that message through, IMHO, it distracts. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolitely. Did anyone notice the earlier discussion here and the open case at WP:PAIN? How many times are we going to discuss these issues? Double Jeopardy anyone? If we do it again and again maybe we can make a case for an indefinate block! Sheesh, Guy is clearly feeling it - he was highly active over the holidays and needs some support. Should he swear? No. Will Blocking him after he has left when the diffs have already been raised discussed and dismissed help? Hell no. Does he need some more support from his colleagues? Hell Yes. --Spartaz 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it that the bit of bad faith mud slung at me about punitive blocking still sticks after I already disavowed it? In the unlikely event that Guy logs on and claims he's perfectly right about telling people to fuck off and intends to continue...well then wouldn't it fall within the bounds of reason to impose a block preventatively before he actually does so again? Durova^Charge 07:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what in my edit was slinging mud? Do you really think that we need to discuss this three times? Would it be fair for a start? There are plenty of dispute resolution options available if Guy doesn't heed the request to cool the language down. But a block hours after the event when he isn't even logged in? Will that really help? I doubt it and I don't think that it would calm the situation down. Quite the opposite - we would have carnage if we went down that route without trying our very best to discuss the situation. You know how it works - wheelwarring, RFCs, RFArs everywhere. *Shudder* Spartaz 07:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The diffs date as far back as December 1 and happened mostly within the last week or so. Most of them either use the word fuck or call some specific editor an idiot. If anyone other than an administrator had posted the statements it would be uncontroversial to characterize this as an escalating pattern of incivility. Normally in such cases I would block shortly after verifying the evidence. I have not done so in this instance, nor is it appropriate to introduce wheel warring to this very hypothetical discussion. Your participation in this thread and at my user page has demonstrated very persistent bad faith against me and mischaracterized my actions to the extent that yes I do think it amounts to mudslinging. WP:AGF does not mean that my motives and methods are bad until proven legitimate. I made a tough call tonight regarding a sysop I admire and like, couched it in the most respectful terms I could muster, and disclosed the situation here immediately. Durova^Charge 08:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted on your talk page as far as I can remember and its not on my watchlist. Since you are throwing TLAs at me can I ask you where you have AGF with me? Making unfounded allegations of persistant bad faith against you by an editor is far more of a personal attack than what you charactarise as my mudslinging. Please review your post and check you have the right editor. You are completely overeacting to a comment that I don't think is wholly out of line with a significant pov posted in this thread. Blocking anyone without discussing the problem with them is inappropriate in pretty much every circumstance. If you asked Guy to tone it down and he told you fuck off then fair enough but not this so far. I think you are taking this far too personally. Its allowed to disagree - there is no need to get all offended. --Spartaz 08:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I posted that shortly before I went to bed and must have been more tired than I realized by that point. Durova^Charge 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough! This is completely out of line. Not only do we have a huge section of people now trying to get even with Guy but he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself. Also, before all this biting at Guy began did you for one second consider the rampant bad faith of bringing this issue forward and the blatant disruption that this has caused by now? Those comments that Guy reacted to were completely out of line and he did the right thing. Showing up at WP:PAIN and launching a personal attack of the magnitude that this editor did should be more than enough reason for a good long block at least. End of story, nothing more to see here people. MartinDK 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My God... JzG remarked that someone may be "dismissed as a crank" and it spawned a giant thread started by a mildly offensive body part of a user that turned into a hunt through Guy's contributions for any other past transgressions. Amazing. Somebody has to deal with our twats. Wouldn't a message on JzG's talkpage to tone it down a little have sufficed? I find him quite reasonable. Grandmasterka 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I am appaled at the way things seem to be working here lately. As soon as a grup of disgruntled editors smell blood they hurl accusations and threats at an admin that works his fucking ass off around here. WP:JERRYSPRINGER MartinDK 07:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry everyone, I know that learning to deal with people you consider to be idiots is not optional but somewhere between the nth deletion of tenorically and fielding my fourth angry email from a spammer DEMANDING that he be allowed to continue adding links and articles about his company WHICH IS NOT SPAMMING AT ALL, I think I went over my personal threshold for the number of people-I-consider-to-be-idiots that I can handle simultaneously. My own fault for visiting the firehose of crap. Mind you, I'm not sure I can or should bowdlerise things - if someone does something as stupid as slapping a warning on an admin's talk page not do disrupt Wikipedia by disrupting their disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point to prove a point, I am almost certainly going to continue to say what I think. As anybody who knows me personally will readily tell you, that's my standard response to crass idiocy, even from my friends. Perhaps I should start ROT13ing things, like they do on Ye Shedde (uk.rec.sheds). I'm not going to address the diffs posted above, because I suspect that anybody who cares is not going to accept my version anyway. What was it that Cryptic said? Deals badly with trolls. Plus ça change, I guess.

All of which brings me back to a comment I made some days ago: we need, I think, a place where we can get peer support without the intervention of people trying to escalate or resurrect thier own disputes. Barberio, for example, had absolutely no call to stick his oar in to the situation with SlamDiego, all that did was to make a tense situation worse and distract people away from helping with that problem (where I could have used a bit of help, and fortunately Hipocrite came along to provide it) and into yet more low-grade Wikidrama. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point about past disputes. What is the correct procedure for handling things when you see an admin (not you in this case) several times over a few months step over the line, generating complaints, but each time managing to avoid showing genuine contrition, but responding in an aggressive "move on" style that discourages people from actually starting proceedings ("oh, it's not worth the hassle"-sort of thing), leading to things going quiet again until the next time?

There will always be a tension between letting sleeping dogs lie (not bringing up past disputes) and wanting to express concerns about a long-term pattern of behaviour that shows no signs of changing. What do you think is the best thing to do in cases like this? Carcharoth 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose RFC would be the correct procedure. ANI threads such as this are far too easily abused by people with an axe to grind, who simply repeat earlier disputes with the person in question even if they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. >Radiant< 11:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and well said. I love these kind of summaries which use no citations as they are cristal clear. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reaction to SlamDiego, as I had an encounter with him in which I was sorely tempted to block him. I think it is ridiculous that all this fuss is being made about how you handled a troll combative and disruptive editor. -- Donald Albury 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, in fact, be perfectly happy to accept an apology for bad behaviour and a promise not to do it again. I have no vendetta against JzG, and he does do fine work, but he needs to know when to back off and go have a cup of tea. If you're worked up into a state where you're using foul language and ranting, you need to put down the keyboard. Unfortunately, comments to such were ignored, and my only recourse left was to file it on WP:PAIN and bring it to general attention.

I'm upset that he (And some others) seems to have decided I'm his enemy, I'm not. I was trying to get him to stop attacking people and escalating issues that could be resolved calmly. I'm sure he can so, and just needs to find that admin zen again.

I'm sure that it's all been impressed on JzG now, and if we can settle this with a simple agreement not to use foul language against editors, it's something we can all drop and walk away from. I mean JzG no harm, and don't want any putative actions taken on him, I just want us to be able to get on with editing the wiki in a calm civil way. --Barberio 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 nails it. This is MONGO all over again. The clear message is: take the crap, deal with the trolls and cranks, and if you ever, ever, speak out bluntly or profanely at the shit being shoveled, someone will scream "foul" and either block you or threaten to do so as a punitive measure - or in the case of MONGO, desysop you as a reward for having done so much, so long for Wikipedia that you are at the breaking point. Here's the bottom line: I call a troll a troll. I call a POV pusher a POV pusher. Accuracy is not incivility. Incredibly hard working admins who fight these idiots (Yes, I said idiots, I stand by that) who (the admins, not the idiots) occasionally slip under the strain should have a weighted response. If they have a ratio of 2,000 edits and actions which are civil and helpful to the encyclopedia, and 1 or 2 which are uncivil, to people who are of no or extremely little value to the encyclopedia, then reacting to that as though it were some kind of horror movie scene is Undue Weight. Hear me clearly: between the Giano situation, which is a case of one of the best writers here being driven to what appears to be a defensive running battle, by ADMINS no less - and the MONGO and now JzG situations, where admins have been driven to minor incivility by the sheer volume of crap they have to fight, and the response of a large portion of the community to respond with torches and stakes to the people who are driven to that point not the people who drove them there, I am beginning to doubt the basic common sense of some of the general Wikipedia population. What are you people thinking? Oh My God, someone said a BAD WORD to a vandal, troll, or POV pusher. Well, fuck, I guess we'll all have to go to Time Out and not get cookies. Apparently it is more important to Be Civil at all times than to work your ass off completely uncompensated and have the random moment where it gets to you. Focus, anyone? Perspective? I am not here to promote "Wiki-Love". I am not here to get my narrow, judgmental mind in a tizzy because someone used a Naughty Word. I am here to help with the enormous, challanging, exceptionally special group effort of creating the most amazing knowledge resouce since the Library of Alexandria. Ask yourself, Why the hell are you here? Perhaps you'd be happier on some online community preaching some kind of feel-good pretend pablum than here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's make it official and put this into policy. If there truly is an exemption for valued users, it should be documented on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policy pages. I'm being totally serious here - those policy pages are unambiguous in their condemnation of incivility, but the reality is: incivility is justified for certain editors, and that fact should be properly represented in policy. ATren 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? Then either you need to read again, or I was unclear. Punitive blocks for incivility are bullshit, and discussing matters with the editor is always preferred. Consistant crap will get one indef blocked, but occiasional crap does not. This is not a "special rule" this is applying the rules as they are currently written. What is so hard to understand about that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...and if that editor continues to act incivilly, then what? ATren 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then there's still no call for someone to loudly and repeatedly pointing out the incivility, and spend an order of magnitude more text on that than the size of the actual incivility itself. We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia. >Radiant< 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is my point exactly: this sentiment (that some users should not be blocked for incivility) should be expressed in policy. The current uncompromising text of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA does not allow for exceptions, but that doesn't reflect the reality - which is that a casual editor would be indef blocked for habitual incivility, whereas valued contributors are given a pass. Note: I am not arguing for or against the practice here, only that the practice is in conflict with the stated policy. If the consensus is that there are exceptions to these policies, then those exceptions should be documented somewhere. ATren 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I actually find very little reference to blocking on either page. NPA refers to blocking for legal/death threats, and "in extreme cases" it is "controversial" for users to be blocked for disruption. CIV lists a few suggestions to prevent incivility, several of which are widely impractical and several of which involve blocking (now reworded). I'm not sure where the idea comes from that incivility/personal attacks must in all or most cases be dealt with by blocking, because neither page says so. >Radiant< 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, it's covered by ignore all rules. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Anyway, it's covered by ignore all rules. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like your way of thinking because it seems to presume that Guy and MONGO are somehow incapable of self-restraint. Granted they do a lot of good work dealing with editors who frustrate and annoy and attack them. Why does this cause them to use pointlessly inflammatory language like "fuck off" and "useless twat"? If you've ever worked retail then you've stood at a similar "firehose of crap" and probably not told anyone to "fuck off" (which would get you fired). In my view any normal person is capable of this sort of self-restraint. And it would be nice to see everyone use it. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point here to all the people getting upset about "idiots" and "trolls". Why let "idiots" and "trolls" upset you so much? They are, as you say, idiots and trolls. Trolls will be pleased that you are getting upset, and idiots will, well, not really care or understand. Pity the idiots and trolls and dispassionately and calmly block them, rather than ranting and raving at them. POV pushers are another matter, and, in my opinion, a greater threat to Wikipedia, but they are being serious, so treat them seriously and civilly and defend balanced, well-written articles. Carcharoth 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruption is disruption and is just as detrimental to writing an encyclopedia as POV pushers are. Everyone should remain civil as much as possible but we are only human, and if someone is being trolled to death, Wikipedia then becomes just a battleground for them. I am not aware of all JzG has been dealing with, but no doubt, it is not very difficult to understand how disruptive editors can make almost anyone become a bit off center in their remarks. If one doesn't experience it firsthand, they don't really know how crappy this place can be, but the only way to defeat it without laying down the law and sometimes being rude, is to walk away...and that is what the trolls want. I don't condone incivility, but in examining it should be noted that, Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action. Now, again, what JzG needs is polite reminders to remain civil...and he also needs opur support if he is indeed dealing with a constant barrage of harassment...or even if he is simply dealing with a little harassment.--MONGO 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good in theory, difficult in practice. People screaming at you, taunting, mocking...the reason people do it is because it works. Guettarda 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say something here (speaking in general and not in direct response to this thread), I don't see what place swearing at someone has in a serious effort to write and maintain an encyclopedia. Swearing at someone (even someone whose sole purpose is to troll) just enflames the person and gives at least some onlookers the impression that that's an acceptable way to interact with people. It's unproductive all the way around. Blockable? No, but admins have all the tools they need to deal with disruptive editors, how is being aggressively hostile to a disruptive editor going to make them less disruptive? And in the meantime, borderline editors and newcomers will see that there's a place for hostile incivility here, which is a message I don't think we want to send. Rx StrangeLove 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I said it as a reviewer on PAIN, and I'll say it here: JzG's conduct was unacceptable for a sysop, and he needs to be reminded to maintain the decorum expected of the Wikipedia administration. If he cannot conduct himself appropriately, he is negatively affecting the environment here on Wikipedia, and should surrender his status. If he can, well then all's well that ends well. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'll say it plainly - people who are discussing blocking, or desysoping JzG for calling a disruptive and worthless contributor a twat are busybodies who should review Matthew 7:5. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about being part of the problem, you try being part of the solution? Incivility, especially towards those trying to resolve a situation, is divisive and unnecessary. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that was where we came in. Do you honestly think I react like that when not provoked? It takes a fair bit of effort to get me angry, but one or two individuals seem to have made it a project to see how rude and aggressive they can be before I bite back. As games go it's not a particularly constructive one. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Try to decrease the "temperature" of a situation - not increase it. Sysops should be examples of expected conduct on Wikipedia, and as such, breaches of policy by a sysop are more concerning than those of a normal editor. As such, I feel that you should be reminded to keep such decorum. Do I think you should be desysopped or blocked, or, oh I don't know, tarred and feathered? No. You made a mistake when provoked, all I'm asking is you learn from it :) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to respond to Chihuahua. If an editor, any editor, is taking shit from another, there are means to deal with it. There is always a cavalry. You don't have to feel you are fighting a lone battle against a "twat". Someone else can come along and knock some sense into them, or help you conclude that said "twat" and sense can never be on speaking terms. No one gets "driven" to it. You don't have to fight a crusade against people who don't get it. You have the machinery to deal with it.

And yes, sorry, if there are punitive blocks for ordinary users who feel put upon by admins and snap, there are punitive blocks for admins who feel put upon by ordinary users and snap. It's better to have the rule of law than the law of the jungle. It's better in my view not to block punitively unless it is a matter of giving someone a bit of thinking space to correct how they see things though. If Guy thinks that the pressure is so much that he needs to abuse other people, maybe a day off to think about it wouldn't hurt. Maybe Guy needs some time away from areas in which he feels pressured. A bit of low-grade typochasing might help him get back on an even keel (I almost wrote "evil kin", which is a worry). He doesn't need blocking to give himself a bit of chilling-out time though. He just needs to figure out that he's let things get on top of him a bit, which I think he's probably well aware of.

And I think Peter also has it right. It doesn't actually resolve the problem with "twats" if you yell at them to fuck off! A bit of fuckoffery could probably be more readily forgiven if it didn't seem to be the first line of defence against editors who upset you but yes, I think we do need stakes and torches for those who aren't willing to try other methods of managing conflicts than simply escalating them. Grace Note 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First there was "Pity the idiots and trolls", now there's the Spanish Inquisition with its stakes and torches. Bah. Like Guy, I have a very limited capacity for suffering fools, and like KC I believe in accuracy. A troll is a troll, an idiot is an idiot, a POV pusher is a POV pusher. Period. In fact this motley collection of trolls, idiots and POV pushers that so many are defending in the guise of "civility" are hurting Wikipedia's reputation. Several of my wife's friends have contacted me asking if there wasn't something that could be done about the banal and inane objections raised by the trolls, idiots and POV pushers, as reading their comments on the discussion pages has turned them against using Wikipedia as a reliable source. None of them, however, had any gripes about trolls, idiots and POV pushers being treated in an uncivil manner, in fact they noted that these clowns are tolerated far more than they should be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Atren

So, as I read this thread, it seems there is consensus that a certain amount of incivility is permitted as long as (a) you have a lot of edits to your credit and (b) you were provoked. Can we make it more clear in policy that incivility is permitted under these circumstances? Because the policy pages seem very clear that it is not permitted under any circumstances, and the reality seems to be not so clear cut. All I'm saying is when an editor visits WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and sees these idealistic, uncompromising statements about personal attacks and civility, they get the impression that these are inviolable rules that can never be broken, when it's clear that WP:IAR applies to civility. I think we should qualify those policies to soften the stance somewhat (especially WP:NPA which is especially uncompromising) to reflect the reality not promote the false ideal. ATren 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have told ATren in no uncertain terms that he was to stop needling JzG over this issue. As you may or may not know, ATren is in a protracted dispute with JzG over the article on Personal Rapid Transit, and is transparently using this time of high Wikistress for JzG to attempt to make his experience here worse. I told ATren in no uncertain terms to stop this reprehensible behavior twice -> [57], and [58]. As demonstrated directly above, he has decided to ignore my strongly worded advice. I suggest an adminstrator take appropriate corrective action to protect one of our most valuable editors and adminstrators in his time of need from ATren's desire to hurt people he has had disputes with. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to hurt anybody. I simply presented evidence on a user with which I have a contentious history. Durova clearly stated that she thought this was an isolated incident, and I replied that it was not, with diffs. Is that stalking?

And now I've made comments that the policy is at odds with consensus here. Policy is unswerving in condemning incivility, but consensus is obviously not so clear. It's clear that a certain amount of incivility is permitted for valuble contributors. So the policy is at odds with practice, and that should be resolved. That's it.

Frankly, I would find it quite ironic if I were blocked for simply reporting incivility here. I'm sure if I were involved in a conflict with another editor, JzG would not hesitate to chime in with his views. Why am I called a stalker for simply presenting evidence? I should point out that I'm not the first to question JzG's incivility, and in fact I didn't even start any of the recent threads. Why am I being singled out? ATren 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

May I address that? In general, the more positive an editor's contribution history is the less intervention is necessary to get them to self-correct. I don't construe that as a license to be rude. Durova^Charge 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd arbitrary section break

If your history consists mostly of vandalism or disruption, then calling someone a "twat" or telling them to "fuck off" should earn a well-deserved block. On the other hand, if you're a hard-working, productive contributor who makes the same comment in a moment of weakness when the Wikistress level hits DefCon 1, then a gentle word-to-the-wise should suffice. Actions should be viewed in context - why else are edit histories public? This is not a "double standard"; it's common sense. Policies actually reflect this - neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL specify a punishment (except for egregious cases), but leave that to the discretion of the community. By the same token, Durova is a valued, hard-working, and scrupulously fair editor who's trying to do what s/he thinks is right, by bringing the issue here; going after Durova is also uncalled for. Let's give Guy a chance to cool off; based on his history here, he's earned it, and will learn from this incident. Just my 2¢. MastCell 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Meh. I'm cool enough now, although I nearly went ballistic after reading Barbiero's sanctimonious bullshit about me having decided he's my enemy - I don't think I'm the one following someone around and stirring up trouble in his interactions with others. He's attacked Nick, Dmcdevit, me and now Radiant - if that carries on he's set to attack one admin too many, and we know where that will end up. I updated the disclaimer on my Talk page anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* I'm not attacking you, Nick, Dmcdevit or Radiant. I'm asking for some civil behaviour and responsibility, and I hope we can try to get along. I'm trying not to act in a hostile way to you, but making accusations of stalking and using phrases like "sanctimonious bull" make it hard to.

It should not be such a big thing for a well intentioned established editor to ask an admin to moderate their language, or check potentially controversial actions with others before proceeding. Constant review by others is the way the wiki works, this includes admin actions and behaviours. Frankly, I'm confused by some of the admin who are professing otherwise. --Barberio 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reads to me like JzG has decided to ignore you and you're desperate for acceptance. I reccomended you walk away before - I triple reccomend that now. Trust me, you are earning nothing but poop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I made a tough decision. Guy doesn't hold it against me[59] so I'll respond to the people who do. Quite a few of the negative comments appear to reflect unfamiliarity with my contributions. My respect for longstanding contributors is demonstrated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova and ArbCom has deferred its case to User:Durova/Mediation. Yet I ask the people who wax about Guy's value at this project to consider this[60] and this[61] and this[62] and this.[63] Guy hasn't threatened to leave the site but I'm beginning to worry about Ghirla whose contributions are about equally valuable but Ghirla's not a sysop and considerably less popular. Down in the trenches I'm also struggling to retain another good editor.[64][65] His frustration might not have reached the breaking point if other admins had responded to either of the two reports that got filed here about a very persistent vandal.[66][67]

I happen to believe in Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity and I walk the walk. Over at another arbitration case I apologized and struck through one very mild statement to a troublesome editor I had presented evidence against. [68] Look at how much goodwill that simple action purchased: the same editor is branching out from a single purpose account to become more of a productive Wikipedian and I've offered to give the Barnstar of Resilience when one of her pages gets onto Template:Did you know.[69] I get hounded too (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors) and some editors try to exploit my goodwill.[70][71] Yet I don't deliver a kick in the pants when I show someone the door. That kind of action validates the folks at Wikipedia Review. I shouldn't have to state this matter a third time, but my block warning to Guy was not punitive: it would have prevented him from dropping more f-bombs in the unlikely event he thought that was a-okay. I handled the situation exactly the same way I would have handled habitual profanity from an unsysopped editor of equal merit. Maybe that was wrong, but so many of the criticisms have misrepresented the basic facts of my actions that I find it hard to weigh the resulting analysis. I hope the administrators who want to ease the burden on folks like Guy and MONGO (and me!) will help out with more tough cases and investigations - not just pile onto stuff that's already high profile but look around the way I do for messes where no other mop is anywhere in sight. Durova^Charge 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Durova was right to speak up about incivility here. All the people 'jumping to the defense of JzG' have it exactly backwards... Durova was the one helping JzG. The stuff about, 'we do not block for occasional incivility', is half right... we generally don't block admins and other 'high profile' users for such. Regular users, on the other hand, sometimes get blocked for saying a single word out of line. The philosophy that 'we look at the whole picture' inherently means that longstanding and/or popular users are held to lower standards of behaviour... which we have seen become a self-defeating trap over and over and over again. That 'occaisional incivility' adds up, and when people see users being incivil and getting away with it they respond in kind. If they then are then blocked/strongly warned for it while the other person isn't they get pissed off at the imbalance and the spiral of deterioration continues. It is obviously bad for Wikipedia and if it isn't stopped sooner or later it always catches up to people. There was a time when Karmafist was well loved and his 'occaisional incivility' let pass... until it got to be too much. There was a time when Kelly Martin was well loved and her 'occaisional incivility' not a big deal... until it alienated too many people. You want to 'protect' good users? Stop them from being uncivil, don't violate policies yourself and attack those who are pointing out problems, and do what you can to take on some of their burdens... kinda like Durova was doing. --CBD 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at this and tell me then who was out of line! Not only had this editor posted this "crank" on WP:PAIN, he had posted the exact same paragraph on WP:RFC/USER twice and been reverted. He knew he was out of line and Guy was being overly nice by not beating him with the blockhammer. MartinDK 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... Yrgh got upset about TAnthony calling him an idiot, he acted out, he got blocked and insulted again by JzG. Who was "out of line"? All of the above. Obviously. It's not an 'either / or' equation. Incivility breeds more incivility breeds more incivility. Everyone who contributes to the problem is part of the problem. --CBD 12:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, CBD. I'll be clear here. Guy was out-of-line; and I don't think he'd do it again. He is one of the most hard-working administrators on Wikipedia and exercises good judgment most of the times. But do you realise there are users who assume bad faith with everyone and are regularly uncivil and disruptive themselves; Guy was provoked here, and he did not react nicely. Do you realise the user who posted the civility warning on JzG's talk was being uncivil and disruptive himself? Strings and threads of warnings on his talk page. The same user posts a {{npa}} template on Guy's talk; and when Guy reverts him he takes it to WP:PAIN, citing the words "fuck off" again and again and again, despite being uncivil, assuming bad faith – disregarding comments with regard to policies and guidelines with an holier than thou approach. That is "sanctimonious bullshit". I know where you are coming from, and you have the best intentions for Guy and Wikipedia as a whole, however a block warning by another administrator is frankly, out-of-line in itself. Would it help the situation get better? Definitely not. So, instead of giving more leverage to the arguments of such ... uh... over-assertive users, and rapping the knuckles of established administrators, we can all get back to editing articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The way to 'avoid giving more leverage' is to not violate the behaviour standards in the first place and not 'turn a blind eye' when it happens. If 'knuckles get rapped' in a fair and consistent manner they have nothing to complain about. If people are attacked for daring to suggest that the civility policies apply to everyone... THAT 'gives them leverage'. --CBD 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the approach covered by "I happen to believe in Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity and I walk the walk." tempered by an eye for context. I wish the first question that went through an administrator's mind before intervention would be: what effect does this infraction have on the encyclopedia? The next questions could be: is there a hurry? and: will this cause a debate-fest, with the inevitable escalation that produces? And I'd like to suggest some slack be cut for administrators letting their guard down in non-article space like this page. The atmosphere gets a bit newsgroupy, so I'm saddened to see what is said offhandedly by good, hard-working users being policed just because they happen to say it in a room full of police, or to see one user's opportunistic stirrring being given the time of day: let complaints go through procedure, giving everyone time to think.

Despite dissimilarities with the Giano situation, I do notice one similarity. In both cases, a relatively harmless discussion on this page got out of control when diffs were suddenly bandied about and chased up. It seems to me that nothing administrators say here should lead to disciplinary procedures in the absence of a formal complaint (say to diff conjurors something like: "if you are bothered, make a formal complaint with a new heading, preferably after giving it a day or two's thought"). From what I can see, this started with one chap saying something a bit sharp, followed by someone telling him to tone it down: that should have been the end of it. In my opinion, another user pulled the triangle trap which I've seen on Supernanny, and I wish one of our best and most diligent administrators hadn't walked into it in all good faith. I'd also like to see administrators asking themselves whether speed is required for any particular block: in this case the various diffs, which were not fresh, could have been mulled over for a day or two (during which it would have been found that a certain word was relatively innocuous), because the only urgent reason to block someone, in my opinion, is to stop them damaging Wikipedia: in this case, that didn't apply.qp10qp 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what CBD is saying here. My philosophy is summed up at User:Carcharoth/Philosophy. This can be a hard thing to stick to, but no-one said this was going to be easy. In the long-term, breeding incivility is a very bad thing. I see too much of people seeing themselves as aggressive defenders of the project, and being attackers of trolls, and being firemen (and women) dealing with huge amounts of crap. I don't dispute that there are huge amounts of crap being added, but bringing yourself down to that level doesn't actually help. Constantly try to rise above it. Help others involved in this. If they are getting dragged down to the breaking point, point this out to them. Be a role model for others. Carcharoth 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tarinth

Tarinth (talk · contribs)'s contributions are almost totally !votes on AfDs. And the !votes I have read (about ten in the past ten minutes) are practically nothing but bizarre. Before I start throwing templates or criticisms at him/her, am I totally off base here? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a polite note that one's AFD contributions are likely to be taken more seriously if it's not one's only contributions to the project? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. The quality of the argument is the main thing, not the quality or quantity of the 'voters'.

At a quick glance, some of the comments are a bit harsh, but the few I looked at were superficially resonable. Any particular contribution(s) that worry you? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This one caused me to sit up and take notice. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems to have been an exception, an attempt to express a close call decision humorously. This more recent Afd Tarinth participated in reasonably constructively: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iowa_Electronic_Markets, and this one quite constructively, actually improving the article under consideration: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argument_from_beauty. Tarinth isn't quite up on our fine points (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Cater) but seems to be making a good faith effort. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, this feedback is why I brought this here. I appreciate the input. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to find this here, as I was searching on my own name in response to another issue on the noticeboard. If you have feedback regarding my contributions Zoe, I'd suggest approaching me directly with your feedback. While I've made a lot of contributions regardng AfD's, I've also contributed significant content for articles like MMORPG and have provided valuable additions to things like Evolution. While I'd prefer not to receive templates on my talk page, I'd request that if you think that some of my comments have been "bizarre" that you could approach me about such comments directly. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Cater, my comment there is more of a typo that argues more for not contributing when tired moreso than for my misunderstanding of Wikipedia (yes, I'm well-aware that we're not a dictionary.) Tarinth 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to approach you until I had made up my mind how I wanted to address it. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page is hacked

Telletubbies. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it is really nasty.HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? Diff links please? --Cyde Weys 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:POTD image/2007-01-05 was briefly vandalized. FOUR main page templates were left unprotected for 45 minutes. Congratulations to the sysop who caused this mess. --- RockMFR 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The sysop didnt protect it so the vandal could put the pictures. duh 121.6.103.249 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... please stop. People make mistakes; we don't need the sardonic remarks. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and blocked. This was the edit: [72]. He later changed the image: [73]. Go !vote for ProtectionBot. Also, if you're a Commons admin, go delete this (WARNING, GRAPHIC). I'll open a CU request asking for the entire ISP to be blocked. --Slowking Man 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am prepared right now to start running ProtectionBot as soon as it is flagged. Several of the Bots Approval Group wanted to see the code, so that is where we are right now. Also, they generally seem to feel it should have its own RFA before being given sysop rights. Dragons flight 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The RFA doesn't appear to be necessary. Just ask for a bureaucrat to flag it on WP:AN. Or run it on your admin account for now and run it through RFA if you must. But this is critical enough that we don't need to wait for all of this unnecessary bureaucratic process. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even if a 'crat won't flag it without an RfA, just run it as a "script" on your account - no-one's going to complain (or, they won't if they've got any understanding of the distruptioon which goes on). Martinp23 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Dragons flight. If you're certain that the script is performing as intended, just run it on your account for the time being. Addressing this issue is far more important than dotting every "i" and crossing every "t." This is a textbook application of WP:IAR. —David Levy 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When calling for Commons attention, please post to the Commons AN (more likely for a commons sysop to be able to do something about it then.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The POTD templates for tomorrow will probably be forgotten again as there doesn't seem to be anyone monitoring them. --- RockMFR 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that bot should run. Can't those POTD images be protected in advance? It's not as if non-admins need to edit them anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I went through the list of unprotected template sent to me by shadowbot2. I did not list Template:POTD image/2007-01-05, but listed Template:POTD protected/2007-01-05, which I checked to be sure it was protected. What happened? Why was one shown on the bot list, and another used? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the template got changed after Shadowbot2 did it stuff. The full story seems to be here: Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#New_system. Carcharoth 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed indef block of User:Nkras

Nkras was indef blocked by Zscout370, and several editors are requesting a review of the block. The relevant talk pages are User talk:Nkras, User talk:Coredesat, and User talk:Zscout370. — coelacan talk — 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To simplify, Nkras was asked not to repost content from an article called Traditional marriage, which was deleted via an AFD. While the deletions of the reposted content were by Coredesat, I was the one who did the block. I chose an indefinite block because of one of the summaries Nkras used to recreate the content. The summary, as repasted at User_talk:Zscout370#Nkras.27_block, felt like taunting and refuse to listen to consensus. He was blocked before, though it was retracted some time later by that same admin. I feel that it was his intent to disrupt Wikipedia by reposting the content, and with his recreation statement, I felt that he would have caused more harm than good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

i've taken it to ArbCom. Zscout370 made very clear he wasn't changing his mind and i, for one, don't want to waste my breath with him. we don't need to kneel down and beg admins to just act like decent people. we don't need to beg them at all. they need to take their role as servants of the project more seriously than that. i dunno how long Zscout has been an admin, but i'll bet he likes power and tossing it around. r b-j 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the requests for arbitration page. The Arbitration Committee will not consider this matter until earlier stages in dispute resolution are exhausted. This discussion is the appropriate place at which a consensus on this block should be reached. I will add that while the block appears harsh, personal attacks on the blocking administrator do not advance the discussion. Newyorkbrad 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite a jump there, going from a block that you disagree with to complete assumption of bad faith and personal attacks. POV forks are bad. Immediately recreating them after they are rightfully deleted (AfD here) is bad and reeks of intentional disruption and violation of consensus. If the user has no history of this, then okay, shortening the block might be acceptable; however, my understanding is that is not the case here and in fact the user had been blocked for POV pushing before. Where is the evidence that they are here to build an encyclopedia consistent with our goals? I don't see it. —bbatsell ¿? 05:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My (now deleted) summary of the matter is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nkras&oldid=98587038#Overreaction.3F — coelacan talk — 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That + the responses from the blocked party pretty much sums up and ends the matter in my book. Unless there's something big I've missed in reviewing this, I firmly endorse the block. —bbatsell ¿? 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that the indefinate block is an excessive time period. User:Nkras has a strong opinion on the subject of marriage and what is the definition of marriage. I came to article when a WP:RFPP was placed granting full protection and later removed that same protection after discussions on the article talk page had taken place. During those discussions Nkras was an active participant but he was also able to agree to a IMHO reasonible compromise see this discussion. Whist a block for his actions were necessary IHMO is that a short term block to enable him to consider his actions would have been sufficient. Additionally Arbcom set a precedent of restricted editing to other editors who have strong opinions than Nkras which should also be considered like at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy with User:Raphael1. Gnangarra 07:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am Strongly Oppose this indefinite block. I was one of the users who was both affected by (and highly irritated by) his contentious edits. However, the fact remains that he was the principal author of the compromise reached about the opening section of the Marriage article. He drafted the text that now stands, with input of several other editors. It is a classic example of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yes, he has made several mistakes in his time at Wikipedia, but he has learned from them, and I have seen him grow. As to his recreation of the traditional marriage article, as has already been pointed out, it was substantially different from the article that was deleted. While the admins who acted against the recreation may not have known this, it goes a long way towards clarifying his intentions, and his frustration at seeing it deleted once again. I would like to add that this entire situation has been highly stressful for many editors here. One user has already left the project due to the block of Nkras, and I am considering leaving myself. I urge you to rescind this block, which is causing more damage than it was supposed to prevent. Jeffpw 10:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• While I fully endorse this block, its duration seems to me too harsh. Nkras has only one previous block, and it was lifted only one hour later. He's not a persistent troblemaker, and block no longer than a week is appropriate in this case, IMO. MaxSem 11:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Per Maxsem. While I fully endorse this block, an indef is a bit much. Give him a week off and make it absolutely clear to this fellow that "Consensus" is absolutely vital and that we must stick by it. What is more, also make it clear to him that DRV exists for a reason. Though an indef is a bit much, this editor's conduct sticks badly in the craw. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The block was totally appropriate, especially given the edit summary for the recreation and the statement "I will not agree to any "consensus"". I fully endorse the block. Zscout should not be in any way sanctioned for what i deem to be a perfectly appropriate block of a user who specifically stated they will ignore concensus achieved and judged upon by a neutral administrator at AfD, and go and recreate an article after specifically being told not to (but rather to go to DRV) three times! However, I would agree to an unblock in a week's time or so, on the provision that if he recreates the content, or acts disruptively in any form related to Zscout, Cored. or any other editor involved, he is blocked indef. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you on two points: no sanctions against Zscout370 (it was one, isolated overreaction in good faith) should be taken, and that when an if Nkras will be unblocked, his next action against consensus should result in indef or something close to that. But even such incivil and stupid comment as the one you've quoted shouldn't result in indef with no serious violations in background. MaxSem 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think this could be put down to a series of unfortunate events. I don't think Zscout's reaction could be accurately described as an "overreaction"; it was more the fact that he might have seen a bunch of edits that screamed "indef" at him, and missed all the good stuff. It's why we have WP:AGF, and I think Zscout is entitled to a lot of it, and Nkras a little bit as well :) Also, see Mangojuice's comment below - he sums up the distinction between "indefinite" and "infinte" quite nicely; this misunderstanding is probably cause for most angst. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Zscout acted correctly on the information available, whats happening here is an act of good faith from those that have interated with Nkras knowing that once the initial heat is removed from the action he's capable of reaching a consensus. With this knowledge the community wants to extend to Nkras the opportunity to again participate as such I think an appropriate warning to Nkras that further such actions wont be tolerated and that the indefinated block will be reimpossed if he repeats such actions. Gnangarra 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I fully endorse Zscout's decision to indefinitely block. The user in question has disrupted Wikipedia and has made statements that he will continue to do so. Remember that an "indefinite" block is not an "infinite" one -- if Nkras changes his attitude the situation could change. But until then, I see no reason to allow him to return to editing after time off -- time seems unlikely to settle his behavior. Mangojuice^talk 12:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly summed up - this distinction (indefinite != infinte) is probably the cause of all the angst in this dispute. Another perfect example, from 5mins ago, is here. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How does Nkras demonstarte a change in attitude without being able to edit? Gnangarra 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Emails and talk page discussions (assuming his talk isn't protected) saying that he will not be disruptive would show a good faith attempt at a change in attitude. Oh and agree with Mangojuice and Daniel Bryant (and assumedly Zscout) that indef != ban. Its amazingly simple to shorten a block if assurances to stop disruptive actions are forthcoming. Syrthiss 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed Nkras, and urged him to email Zscout to discuss this block and how to have it removed. And to paraphrase what was stated above, if we as a community are to assume good faith on the part of administrators, I would hope that admins can extend the same courtesy to new users who are still learning how the Wiki process works. Jeffpw 13:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While I fully respect the decision to block any user with repeated disruptive edits on "hot" topics that claim to "ignore consensus". However, I cannot help but feel that a few things were a little off with the way it happened. First, ZScout said at the RfA discussion that the user's eit summaries were "taunting the admins". I've got the feeling that Nkras's edits were not the main reason why ZScout blocked him, but more because he refused to respect the admin's "authority". Then, the "consensus" citation is off context, as Nkras was making a very good point, per WP:IAR. Furthermore, while I like the technicity and poetry of the infinite/indefinite disambiguation, it not fair to the blocked user (nor is it textually correct: "Infinite block" wouldn't apply to its duration, but to all its aspects, so it couldn't apply here): There is a reason why we have 24h, 1weekand 2 weeksblocks. Else we could just indefblock everyone and be done with it. An indefblock makes a user feel at the mercy of the first admin. That's good sometimes: some people need to understand that there is a regulation mechanism here; but right now it's a tad too much.

Now, I'd like everyone to understand me real good: I don't like that guy, and if after his 1 week block and some good explanations about why there are talk pages he went back to disruptive edits, commentsand summaries, and then was bloocked indefinitely, I'd be more than happy. But after a short block to let him browse the policies and guidelines, and make his own mind as to wether he wants to be a part of this or not. Not before. Thanks for reading.--SidiLemine 14:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

<< I've got the feeling that Nkras's edits were not the main reason why ZScout blocked him, but more because he refused to respect the admin's "authority". >>

That's assumption of bad faith without a shred of evidence. In fact, he wasn't going against the authority of administrators, he was going against the authority of the community. WP:IAR does not apply to violating consensus (<< I will not agree to any "consensus" >>), it applies to skipping unnecessary and inapplicable process. —bbatsell ¿? 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the indef block of Nkras. He is not a bumbling newbie. He appears to be an upholder of 'absolute truth', which explains his refusal to accept consensus. As such, he is unlikely to accomodate himself to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, where, after all, verifiability comes before 'truth'. -- Donald Albury 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Donald. Nkras has been here for exactly 2 months, and of his 289 edits, only 76 are to articles themselves. The vast majority are on various talk pages, which doesn't really give one experience in consensus building or constructive editing. In my eyes, he is relatively new, and deserves a chance to learn from his mistakes. Jeffpw 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Being unlikely to accomodate" doesn't mean he won't. Unblocking the guy after a week, and watching him closely won't cost much. If he really is the absolute truth upholder you say he is, it won't take two hours after that to ban him once and for good. Oh, and verifiability is not consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! (talk • contribs) SidiLemine (UTC)
      • I think part of the issue here is that some of you don't have the perspective admins have. I have had the experience in the past of giving a user the benefit of the doubt and trying to monitor their behavior. Several times, in fact. I've learned to be conservative because, let's face it, the upside to any one editor being honestly involved in the project is usually small, but there's a very big downside to disruptive ones. A couple examples that spring to mind are User:Hurricane Devon and User:Aquafish, that I was personally involved in. The truth is, one admin watching closely means that they have to divert a good portion of their attention, and be on-wiki 24/7, and spend a lot of time analyzing borderline behavior, agonizing aboud whether to reblock, possibly discussing with other admins, whereas that time could be spent much more productively if the user was simply blocked. Mangojuice^talk 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse this block. [74] shows complete contempt for Wiki ways in the face of some very patient explanations of how to go about this the right way. No angry mastodons, thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am the first to admit he was at times obstructive and contentiopus in his edits on the MArriage article, the diff above gives a distorted picture of events there. This diff and this one and last one here clearly show he was working quite collegially with other editors after tempers had died down. Please try to show a complete picture of his editing on Wikipedia, and not only negative examples. Jeffpw 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on process. One of things that bothered me about this dispute and the reason for my limited involvement, was that User:Nkras was given no explanation by the blocking admin of the unblock procedure. I would hope that the subject of such sanction would always have it explained to them at the time how they can have the decision reviewed. I wonder if there are any thoughts on this point? As to the block itself- yes, an indef block does seem rather long. But given that Nkras has not in his later posts to his talk page expressed regret for his disruption or an undertaking not to disrupt in the same manner again, I recognise that he gives little reason to trust him. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Didn't he change his ways even before being blocked? Anyway, I think I can say that we have reached a consensus that while a block is in order, an indefblock is too much. Now we probably should decide upon the reasonable length the block should have. I personally think one week is enough. --SidiLemine 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for SidiLemine's compromise block, with the proviso that Nkras is put on some sort of monitoring/mentoring restriction. Jeffpw 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Theresa Knott has asked for Nkras to clarify his future behavior, let's start there. Mangojuice^talk 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, we all know this is not a vote. This is a discussion of whether this indefinite block was appropriate or not, and an attempt to reach consensus about what should be done. As such, my support of SidiLemine's attempt at a solution was appropriate. Please don't be pedantic. Jeffpw 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Peace. Mangojuice does make a totally valid point. Until Nkras has clarified how he intends to conduct himself in future there really is no way of determining how long a block is appopriate. If he says, "I will do everything in my power to undermine this scocially left institution," he prob shouldn't be unblocked. If he says, "I am very sorry and promise to always work towards concensus constructively in future," a shorter block might be appropriate. Without his response the discussion is slightly hypothetical. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Blocks are preventive, a credible commitment to no further disruption would likely be persuasive in an unblock request. That said, the block is warranted due to the statements made. So. See what happens, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Herein lies the problem with editors, editing articles they have strong personal feelings about... I agree with what Mangjuice said above. Based on Nkras's statments in some of the diffs provided above he appears ready to embark on some tenditious editing in regards to this topic. I'd like to see him submit a request for block review or comment on his userpage committing to working on a consensus instead of editing in a way that could be seen as disruptive or WP:POINT-making. the ArbCom is premature. I don't see any evidence RfM or RfC was ever pursued here. We have those for a reason.--Isotope23 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Is he aware that he should state that helearned, and won't do it again? And slightly off-topic, isn't therea risk in these kind of situations that the guy just understands he got banned, and doesn't even come back to check his talk page? Just asking. We also have block warning templates for a reason. --SidiLemine 17:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • He has edited numerous times since the block; in my opinion, the tone of those edits is not at all an improvement and more clearly delineates his role as a POV warrior. Check his contribs. Plus, he was blocked for POV pushing once before; that's about as big a block warning template as you can get. He apparently expressed enough regret to get CanadianCaesar to unblock him before the block was to expire, but he went right back to it only a few days later. —bbatsell ¿? 17:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Plus, there are pointers to this discussion and the WP:RFAR on his talk page. Just because he's blocked doesn't mean he can't read those discussions. Mangojuice^talk 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Nkras posted on his talk page, stating that during a block of two weeks, he will study up on policy. I am pretty much fine with that because it shows that Nkras has made error and is making some effort to fix it. I am not sure what policies that Nkras should read other than WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, since those are the two core issues. What do yall think? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • • Discussion of the unblock by Nkras himself: User_talk:Nkras#Proposal_to_unblock_User:nkras. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(losing indent) I am not happy with the last sentence. I will not agree to his terms so to speak. However I do think he should be unblocked. I propose this - we unblock for a different time period - say a week (or even straight away if you like) . We advise him to read up on the relavent policies. He can choose not if he likes, I don't care. When he comes back if he engages in further disruptive edits we block him indefinately - end of discussion. That way we don't have to negiotiate with a problematic editor or have to concede to him some power to be the arbiter of truth, and still give him a chance to learn to edit in cooperation with others. What do people think? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I will probably let this ferment for a day or two, since you, myself and another person told him about the last sentence. While it is good he is addressing the block, I just do not see anything that convinces me yet of if the block should be shortened, let alone lifted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed at Nkras' reaction. The last sentence he wrote in his "unblock proposal", User:nkras reserves the right to edit and discuss articles based upon objective truth and fact without retaliation by Admins or Editors. suggests that he will continue the same practices that led to the current situation we find ourselves in. Though I have been one of the most vocal proponents of having his block rescinded, I don't feel it is up to Nkras to dictate the terms of his reentry to the community. Nkras has been given a very thorough hearing, and I am now satisfied with whatever decision the administrators wish to return. <sigh> Jeffpw 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am uninvolved, but after reading his skewed proposal, I will have to say I will vehemently reject it. His last sentence is an equivalent to upending not only his entire proposed "compromise," but also core Wikipedia policies with it with his "I'm-right-and-you-better-get-the-hell-out-of-my-face" attitude. Sorry, we're not here to mollycoddle one single editor that the community barely trusts anymore. We're not here to be forced onto a negotiating table with an editor who has blatantly and steadfastly refused to accept consensus as a benchmark for inclusion in Wikipedia, detailed ad nauseum in various pages spanning Wikipedia and beyond. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"...and beyond"? — coelacan talk — 06:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC. Oh yes, I forgot that that place is admin/editor cabal only. Never mind. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the block itself, I have no comment; I'm just trying to clarify things. He considers "kosher" important as an example of language usage. To understand the point he's trying to make with the example currently on his talk page, one may need the context of the preceding discussion. It's referenced in several places at Talk:Marriage/Archive3, but gets detailed in the section preceding this diff with an addendum here. — coelacan talk — 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to try unblocking him. I feel generally that indefinate blocks are for hopeless cases and I don't (yet) feel he is one. Although my discussion with him hasn't been 100% what I asked for, it has gone well enough. He is not IMO the sort of nut that needs to be permenantly banned. What he does now will prove me right or wrong. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NLP update - Some COI issues and reluctance of some editors to get along (and some positive points)

Hi all. Recent notifications concerning the NLP article have covered promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information [75]) and users of a known COI editing the article To be found under "Comaze" [76] Under "NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views" [77]. An admin has already civilly explained the situation to those above editors [78][79]. Also Cleanup taskforce has asked for a serious cleanup of the article - including reducing redundancy and making the debate more concise and contained [80]. Efforts to balance views emphasizing the concept [81] seem to be getting ignored -

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview."

Some editors have been persistently trying to suppress core information from the opening and these tend to be the ones reluctant to get along with those of a different view [82] [83],[84] [85] [86] [87], [88] [89]

[90],[91],[92]

There is still a misuse of argumentative words to avoid. There is no need at all for the argumentative or debate word "however" in the line yet they insist. [93] [94]. Their behaviour seems to me to be highly unconstructive considering the assessment of the CleanupTaskforce.

Editors have been ignoring efforts to make the article more concise (without obscuring views), by physically distancing the discussion on the article [95]- and by removing it completely from discussion [96].

There is some evidence of editors with known COI making odd edits on other articles [97].

On the positive side - there are fewer edits per day (usually less than 40). A lot of the problem was caused by the plus 50 eds per day which has led to an oversized article. The CleanupTaskforce has given helpful instructions to make the article more concise and to clarify what NLP is about. I don't see any particular problem long term and I'm fairly sure editors will come round to the idea that editors of different views are supposed to try to get along. Once they properly discuss the suppression of information policy I'm sure a win-win can be achieved. Trolling - sockuppetry - and meatpuppetry don't seem to me to be an issue. I believe the main point is to encourage editors of various views to work together collaboratively and civilly in the long term. AlanBarnet 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All other editors on the NLP page are in agreement [98] [99] [100] [101] that AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is either a sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown or he is equally bad. At least two more independent users on his talk page have identified him as a sockpuppet also. However, even in his own right, this new user has exhausted all patience with his disinformation, distortion, and lies (much of which continues above). This is his third WP:AN/I notice about content disagreement. A block has been requested before. 58.178.142.37 07:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello user 58.178.142.37. The editors you mention all seem to be keen on obscuring key views or at the very least they are all reluctant to make clear concise statements of each view. I've provided edits and discussion recently [102] and on multiple prior occasions and encouraged discussion concerning getting along and making sure that each view is concisely summarized to the best of each view. Rather than discussing or adjusting my edits - others have tried to either marginalize the discussion or in your case - delete my edits altogether without discussion on a regular basis - call me a troll with venom - and restore argumentative debate into the article. I believe that most would see your actions as unreasonable. I havn't tried to cut away - reduce- or obscure any of the sourced NLP views. You and others seem to have obscured the views of science either by removing them from the lead - reduce them so they become obscure - add undue argument - or cover them with nonrelevant information. All the article needs is to present the subject of NLP with each view summarized so that it becomes clear to the reader. This can all be done without excess size and it can be done civilly. This is not a content disagreement. Its about COI - obscuring key views - getting along- and a simple enough NPOV solution. AlanBarnet 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your diffs above clearly show several other editors consistently reverting you. Can't you see that only incriminates yourself as the editor that pushed an edit-war? 58.179.166.57 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article. Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again. My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett. I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though. There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your view that editors are partly motivated out of their POV is unfounded and must necessarily be based on not having read the NLP talk page. Both User:Doc_pato and User:Fainites have been very extremely verbal in promoting the mainstream scientific view and nonetheless they both want AlanBarnet blocked [103] [104]. And quite frankly Guy, you are in personal conflict posting here as an admin; having previously labelled NLP pejoratively as a cultic [105] [106], and with AlanBarnet saying he communicates with you privately [107] [108]. There is no consistent evidence that there is either a pro-NLP or anti-NLP camp. In fact, the NLP talk page clearly shows there is much healthy debate, except on one issue where all agree: User:AlanBarnet is an abusive sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. Users have had two months to determine this. AlanBarnet is just as antagonistic and disruptive as HeadleyDown [109] [110] [111] [112] and more and he has maliciously posted a users' personal information several times [113] [114] [115]. Woohookitty? Voice-of-all? Can we please have an admin that is qualified to recognise this sockpuppet? 58.179.166.57 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am convinced that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown not because of the views he/she pushes), but from his/her well-documented pattern of behaviour (btw, personally I would tend to be more on the anti-NLP side). Jbhood 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi user 58.179.166.57. I am cooperatively posting notices on ANI to solve a problem. I never said I communicated with Guy privately - only that I am keen on cooperating with admin. There have been over 80 edits on the NLP article per day at times and with no sufficient discussion. There are editors on the article who seem to have a COI and you seem to be encouraging them to edit. I've reiterated admin suggestions and assessments and you call it harassment. You seem to be dismissing key NPOV points about keeping the article summarized and you've been regularly marginalizing key science views as can be seen in the links above. When I make reasonable suggestions towards making sure all relevant views are presented as best as the proponent of each view can - you delete the suggestion. When helpful editors restore the suggestion you delete again [116]. You and others seem to be refusing to balance views and refusing to make succinct concise statements about each view. I am talking about getting along. If you would like to start civilly discussing the Suppression of Information policy on the NLP talkpage I'm sure admin would be happy that editors of different views are trying to get along. AlanBarnet 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Utter baloney! AlanBarnet, if you are so wonderful how do you explain six separate editors [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] thinking you are a manipulative sockpuppet and wanting you blocked? Coincidence? All editors are reverting you blindly now, quite obviously sick of your falsified article citations and talk page sugercoated baloney. Your own talk page confirms what I am saying. Clearly you should be blocked. 58.179.166.57 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi 58.179.166.57. Editors who have not shown a reluctance to presenting all views clearly seem to be reverting you [123] (Editor MER-C at least). And rather than blind reversion - it seems to be a reversion based upon the need for collaborative and civil discussion. AlanBarnet 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again; Just to help get the ball rolling towards collaborative editing and discussion - I'd like to present this [124] for discussion on the NLP talkpage. Rather than just delete such a large piece of unsourced argumentative commentary - it seems more constructive to see if there is anything of any value in it by discussing with other editors. Thanks AlanBarnet 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy. You are being naive. Just because AlanBarnet says he's presenting mainstream scientific views and preventing them being obscured by others doesn't make it true. AlanBarnet has done virtually none of the work in sourcing, verifying and citing the mainstream scientific views which now have a full clear section. I know because I did alot of it myself in collaboration with other editors, including Comaze, but almost never AlanBarnet. He has no real interest in ascertaining genuine views from genuine sources, whether they're pro or anti NLP. Neither is he remotely interested in helping shorten, improve or clarify anything else. Mostly what AlanBarnet does is revert to older inaccurate versions without bothering to clear up the mess created with references, citations etc, put inaccurate or highly selective quotes in the introduction (over and over again), put in grossly POV statements, unverified and unsourced and refuse to provide verified sources on request, and then clutter up the talk page insultingly accusing everybody else of doing these things. If you believe any of that nonsense about wanting to collaborate or work constructively with others then you are the only one who does. Those of us who have had the pleasure of trying to work with him (and I tried very hard) know this protestation for what it is worth. Less than zilch. I also asked you some time ago that if you had any decent sources to back up your claim that it is a 'fact' NLP is a cult, to let us have them, because nearly all of the ones from the HeadleyDown/AlanBarnet camp, when somebody troubles to actually read the blasted things, don't support this. The only sources left are Protopriest Novopashin and you. In the circumstances I would support the request for somebody else from admin. Fainites 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JzG/Guy. There is no pro-NLP camp. Firstly Fainites and 58.* tend to be on the side of skepticsm and scientific rigor. As far as I know they have no prior knowledge or personal experience in studying NLP. They are basing their edits on what is in the reputable / verifiable literature. It is a complex topic because there are so many different views with no black and white mainstream view. --Comaze 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Visionary Brazilian kid

13-year-old user Will-Martins was blocked indef for creating a pool of vanity articles which included Willian Neiva (documenting his movie stardom up to 2008), and his movies Thiago and the Cousins, Jake is going to field and The Life Zac :the Series. Despite the warnings, he persistently kept creating and recreating these vanity articles and moving his user pages to the main space. More importantly, he edited valid articles such as List of Disney Channel Original Movies and Disney Channel to include his fabrications [125] [126][127][128], sometimes almost imperceptibly amid other valid entries [129](try to locate Willian Gustavo Neiva in this diff). After being blocked, he now returned under a new account Raven gnm and created Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field which was speedy deleted by Voice of All. He's also continuing to add his phony movies to List of Disney Channel Original Movies [130][131] with his IP 201.78.63.184. Since he doesn't seem to be willing to put an end to this trend, I recommend his IP to be blocked indef and account creation prevented.--Húsönd 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problemos. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure about indef for an IP, let's see if a week is enough that he gets the message. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I had never recommended an IP to be blocked indef before but the circumstances here might make that the only solution, or at least an account creation block as the IP alone would be easy to monitor. Otherwise I believe that he'll be creating more accounts and damage valid articles with his sneaky vanity inclusions.--Húsönd 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support indef block after a one week block, if it fails, as long as unblock instructions are left on the talk page, in case another user gets the IP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:Rani-maris was blocked by Lucky6.9 back in December as a sock puppet. We need to get Lucky6.9 into this discussion since he seems to think this User is a sock puppet of some previous editor. Rani-maris (talk · contribs) is the original creator of the Willian Gustavo Neiva article. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Lucky is on a wiki-break, I have emailed him. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rani-maris does seem to be a sockpuppet of User:HD324. Edit pattern definitely corresponds to the same person (Willian Gustavo Neiva).--Húsönd 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh gosh, did I blow it with the wrong info. I told Zoe that I thought that the name corresponded to a Wiki brah sockpuppet, but after looking at the deleted titles, I'm certain that I blocked this account as a suspected sock of an anon vandal who was posting bogus Disney articles both here and at the Disney wiki. Back to my vacation; please e-mail me if you need anything else. - Lucky 6.9 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tourettes Guy

I'm posting this here instead of WP:RFP because it affects many articles. I noticed a pickup in vandalism to TS, and found *www.tourettesguy.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7* (de-linked due to address now on blocklist) Not only is Tourette syndrome being hit more frequently now, but also the several articles about the fictitious "Tourettes guy" that have been AfD'd (and DRV'd). I reluctantly concur that Tourette syndrome may need semi-protection for a while, and a closer eye may need to be kept on the TS daughter articles, and the various Tourettes Guy articles.

• Danny (Tourettes Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tourette's Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TourettesGuy.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tourettes Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turrets guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes Guy
• and there's a deletion review somewhere, but I can't find it.

And, we also have sockpuppetry involved: Sportsguru9999 (talk · contribs)

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

November's deletion review in case it's informative. There may be others. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

July's and December's. —Cryptic 18:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something really wrong with our DRV process if that many DRVs about TS can happen without me becoming aware of any of them - why is there no notification process on the article talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was sooooo tempted to use that f word again... yes, it's me, the real Tourette's Guy :o) Sandy, these DRVs had nothing to do with Tourette's, last time I checked it out there was pretty broad agreement that "Danny" doesn't even have Tourette's. I'm looking into whether we should be asking for spam blacklisting to help with the links. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• oh, I don't think he has TS - he's just a drunken slob - but they've been adding their links to the TS article for a long time, and I'm sorta/kinda the only TS editor on Wiki, so you'd think I'd know what they're up to :-) We do need some help - I've seen their activity elsewhere. Worried about WP:BEANS, though. (And hold the coprojokes - you can't afford any right now - someone might take 'em the wrong way :o) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum: Centrx removed the WP:SALT from at least one incarnation, which had already been deleted six times, so I have made them all protected redirects to Tourette's Guy - if anyone deletes the protected-deleted there please let me know and I'll restore it. If we've learned one thing about these people it's that they are persistent. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also [132], [133] and [134] - Talk:Porcupine#A_porcupine.27s_testicles will give you a fair idea of the kind of nonsense we get from this source. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ilena revisited

Ilena (talk · contribs) (WQA Dec 14, AN Dec 26, WPQ Jan 3) appears to be slipping back into her previous behavior after a week of marked improvement since the previous AN, thanks in no small part to the help of some very patient editors. With over 400 edits since early December, she still doesn't appear to understand WP:V and WP:NPOV, resulting in her edit-warring and other disruptive behavior which she supports with personal attacks against those who hold viewpoints other than her own. She recently indicated she would be contributing to Wikipedial much less over the next week, which I think is the ideal time to discuss the situation again, as opposed to timing of the previous AN, where she attacked everyone who even hinted at having a viewpoint she didn't like. Ronz 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you provide some diffs with evidence of this behavior...--Isotope23 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] (chosen from her last 50 edits) --Ronz 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another take on cause & effect with Ronz' machine gun policy cites, below.--I'clast 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The problem has been three-fold:

1. She does not realize that Wikipedia doesn't deal in truth - we deal in verifiable facts. And when I point this out to her, she provides links that are not reliable sources.
2. The opposing editors in the dispute have been doing the same thing, which seems to be ending up in a tit-for-tat dispute where both sides are just going to come out of the matter looking very, very bad, and possibly blocked.
3. Ilena is very used to being on the defensive, after harassment by some of these editors in real life and on usenet. People have brought baggage onto Wikipedia, and this has fed her defensiveness. This leads to the unfortunate side effect where she gets in this mindset where if someone is not for her, they are against her.

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter deserves the Order of Lenin for the hard work he's put in mentoring Ilena. That said, harassment is a two-way street, and Ilena's not exactly an innocent victim here. I think there's really one issue: Ilena is here on Wikipedia to argue her case in a real-life feud with Stephen Barrett. It's a conflict of interest and also very disruptive to import a real-life feud into Wikipedia (which, after all, is ostensibly not a battleground). It could work out OK if she is able to understand and apply Wikipedia's core principles. Peter is an optimist, and I am a pessimist, as to the likelihood of this happening - credit to Peter. The question is, why do we cut someone with Ilena's contribution history so much more slack than we give a hard-working, productive admin)? But Isotope23 is right - please provide diffs to support the claim that she's backsliding. MastCell 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with MastCell. WP:AGF but it appears there are several parties involved in this dispute who are bringing their usenet baggage here. That said, I don't really see what Ronz is referring to. There were a couple of edits on the 3rd to the Barrett v. Rosenthal article where a description was changed back and forth. Without diffs it is hard to say if this is the problem User:Ronz is concerned about, but I will say that neither description is in any way sourced. The edit war shouldn't have been engaged it, but that text should be sitting there uncited if it is disputed. That said, User:Ilena seems to have a penchant for using article talk pages to air her grievances against other editors as well as continually claim bad faith on their part. As Peter has alluded to above, there may be good reason she has these opinions based on her experiences elsewhere, but someone probably needs to remind her of WP:AGF and that she needs to treat Wiki as separate from her ongoing issues with people outside of the 'Pedia as well as a reminder of Verifiability not truth.--Isotope23 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think censure of Ilena will be constructive, as it's just going to mean that a biased article is going to stay biased. For the most part she has been "playing nicer" by staying to the talk page, minus an incident of baiting.

I would like to propose a community remedy, but I'm unsure if it's something the community can do. Specifically, I would like to propose that Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Jance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Curtis Bledsoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as parties to this content dispute, are banned from editing these articles for a term agreed upon here, and must discuss changes they wish to make on the talk page. I, myself, voluntarily recuse myself from editing under this term due to my association as a mentor of Ilena. Thoughts? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How am I party to this content dispute? If I am, then so is Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and anyone who ever edits these sites. I have no baggage wtih usenet, and I have no interest in POV in these articles. Excuse me, but I really do not see this. I welcome input as to where I have been biased or engaged in any dispute here, except to discuss what the the court ruling was (and was not).Jance 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any Usenet baggage either. I have always deliberately steered clear of her. Keep in mind that it was her making the first attacks (myriad) that started her problems, both on Usenet, in the courts, and here. That doesn't justify harsh replies, but "who started it" is an important factor here. Before she came here, the editing was getting along just fine. The Barrett v. Rosenthal article wasn't even started by any Barrett friends as far as I know, and that's how she found it. It had been started apparently by some lawyer types (or others interested in California law cases) who were interested in the case. She immediately started violating multiple rules here, and when anyone advised her, she replied with attacks and claims of POV reverts against her as a person, when it was only trying to get her to follow policy. Let's not start attacking the victims of her attacks.

Her very first entry on the talk page was a personal attack on me.[155] My first article edits were not objectionable in any way, yet she attacked me and apparently assumed that the articles condition at that time was controlled by Barrett supporters, when they had actually not been involved at all. I had just discovered the article by chance. I think a block of the named editors (the victims of her attacks) who be a gross injustice to editors who had been working just fine before she started attacking all of us and violating multiple rules here, while editing in a severe COI situation, which means it is her who should be blocked from editing the article, and be limited to civil discourse on the talk page.

I take my hat off to Peter for his attempts to mentor her. I only fear his lack of understanding of Ilena's past history and consistently aggressive Usenet behavior (which she has brought here) has caused him to be too optimistic, but his attempts deserve our respect. Good for him! -- Fyslee 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I love the show Arthur, I had to edit your username templates above...--Isotope23 20:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's still not right. It was probably me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha... I didn't know which "Arthur" this referred to, I just added "user5" so we were not seeing the template for the PBS kids show. I would hope he and Buster Baxter are not involved in this dispute.--Isotope23 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing censure here, at least not at this time. Without diffs it is really hard to say exactly what prompted this complaint in the first place, but from looking through Ilena's history I don't see anything current that would warrent a block or ban at this point, particularly given her claim that she is going to be off Wiki for a while. Blocks and bans are meant to prevent problems, not be punative. That said though, I'm inclined to agree with you Peter that if this silliness is continued, everyone involved in edit-warring here, particularly those who are actually connected to this outside 'Pedia should be slapped with a topic ban on anything related to Barrett v. Rosenthal for several months. They are wasting other editors' time, yours included, with this nonsense.--Isotope23 20:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Or maybe mediation. It worked for NLP for a while, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, I don't see any evidence of an RfM or an RfC here so tossing around community bans is a bit premature. Let WP:DR work its magic first.--Isotope23 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy; maybe mediation is an appropriate next step. Many of the content disputes are actually relatively minor (6 reversions on whether to call a publicist a "publicist" or not, without any actual sourcing?!?) They don't exactly require ArbCom's attention - all that's needed is potentially some third-party input to smooth things over. I think Ilena considers me one of Barrett's minions, so I don't think I fit the bill. The problem with blocking all involved parties from editing is that the article will likely just sit there - the only people who really edit it at this point are the ones Peter has suggested blocking. Although, if the goal is to cool things off, perhaps it would work? MastCell 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Full on topic bans all around is the nuclear option; I don't think we are there yet. Better to start with an RfC and move on to RfM if that doesn't help. I've had my own experience being referred to as a shill of sorts on another unrelated topic and I'd say, yes that probably much excludes you as being an acceptable 3rd party. I'd be willing to have a look and make a few suggestions as a completely uninvolved party (I'd never heard of the case or any of the personalities involved here until it started showing up on WP:AN/I. I'm probably as neutral as it is possible to be on this topic.--Isotope23 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my proposal. Allow me to clarify. Article bans are a preventative measure, not enforced by blocks unless the editors break them. The idea is to give a "cooling off period" to diffuse a dispute, and I think such a period would be helpful. Thoughts? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think an RfC to bring fresh outside perspective, and a RfM if that doesn't work would be good first steps. I don't think this has boiled over to the point where an enforced cooling off is needed yet.--Isotope23 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I object to Wizadry's proposal that I have a 'side' or am involved in any dispute re this entire issue. A review of my edits would verify that I am not. I have also never participated in any of the external debates or usenet groups. I am tired of being dragged into this. Jance 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isotope23. An RfC may well be a constructive tool (NOT a forum to attack Ilena) to air the case and allow Ilena to learn more about wikipedia ettiquette, as well as the principle of truth vs verfiability. I think a soft ban of users from the Barrett related pages would be premature. Especially for editors such as jance who do not appear to have any direct connections to the topic outside wikipedia or have not shown any bad faith editing. David D. (Talk) 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Ronz has heckled Ilena with excessive (imho) & tortuous policy reading usages since she showed up that can be very anatagonistic, having had milder heckling issues with Ronz' policy broadsides myself that I considered to be with little merit if not provocative. My take is that sometimes "pro-Barrett" editors are playing with fire on WP:BLP issues with respect to Ilena w/o any recognition. I strain to identify, understand and address some underlying issues although I think that I am fairly aware of many relevant factors. I am hopeful that the "baggage problem" of several can be analyzed, mediated and defused to the general betterment of WP and editors. IHMO, this "revisit" is divisive, premature and unnecessary.--I'clast 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's been trying to help Ilena, I take great offense at these personal attacks against me. Now's the time to revisit, when it's obvious there are still serious problems, when she's tried to give herself some time to cool off (which I think is admirable), and when the editors that have been helping her feel there's little more they can do without further help or other intervention. --Ronz 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we see diffs for Ronz's provocations? Or diffs of the WP:BLP concerns re Ilena? There's a simple way to solve the "baggage problem": apply the conflict of interest guideline. It exists specifically to address such situations, and to prevent the importation of outside interests/feuds to Wikipedia. Ilena's had umpteen chances, and we're still hearing the "Ronz/Fyslee made her do it" argument. At some point, that dog won't hunt anymore and Ilena needs to edit responsibly or face a community sanction. I think we're at that point. MastCell 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with MastCell, except that Ilena is not the only party to this, and we shouldn't treat her as such. Such is why I put forth my proposal earlier, as I felt it was a light-handed approach to the situation while sending a clear message. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, this makes no sense. If there are two or more have a conflict, then consider them. However, your arbitary selection of editors does not. Why do you suggest that I, for example, and not MastCell or Ronz, be blocked? I have no more conflict than MastCell or Ronz, even Arthur. So you need to articulate your reasons for your 'selection', and you have not. I am getting real sick of your dragging me into this. Jance 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

MastCell: Here is Ronz earlier deletion (rv) of the (I think) latest WP:BLP related item (for both SBarrett & Ilena R) in contention. This is a critical point for both parties, with SB's constant assertion of defamation, with his admission of "approximately 40" lawsuits in several years(!), it is *the* undeniable counterpoint on Dr Barrett's decades of such assertions & legal demands/threats, all relatively unchallenged in the press. Here are two of Ronz'[156], [157]' "TLA" policy dumps", add a few more, multiply it a couple dozen times when they are not compelling or appropriately used, in the middle of tense edits & negotiations, and then flat denial after quoting the policies verbatim, e.g. WP:NOT, WP:OR; Ronz' immovable replies: WP:NOT, WP:OR. Ditto NPOV and others.[158]

Here is Ronz over-reacting, "being over offended" and starting to "build a file" where my choice is ignore it or likely endure an escalation of noise if I call him on it.[159] Look at the edit links carefully to see if you think that is the basis of a warning. A similar, more focused exchange with another editor, see difs [160] thru [161].

"Ilena's had umpteen chances"? I'll agree on a persona that took lots of work, in some senses, never a first chance, [162] where "pro-Barrett editors" policy interpretations were somewhat different than the verbatim policies and Ilena didn't know the rules well enough to back her intuition, lots of frustration. That kind of early clash seems part of the "bipolar" scenery here, I am just bewildered by such hypersensitivity in such a "rugby club". I accept a certain amount of polarzation given the editors' situations. I had hoped to address bilaterally (Thanks). Lately we seemed close to edit stability, at which time Ilena would proabably lose interest (she isn't going anywhere w/o support). Peter is suggesting COI article bans (just BvR? or the QW/ SB / NCAHF series articles too?) perhaps very late in the article's process. I felt like we were close to necessarily coming to closure on the BvR, SB, NCAF articles, when Ilena was already leaving the field, and that someone filing this premature AN/I has unnecessarily turned it into a free-for-all (as above), jeopardizing a quality closure on the articles, & tearing up a lot of hard earned collaboration from over the holidays.--I'clast 13:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with Ilena's relapse in behavior, nor relates to it. I've listed 20 of Ilena's last 50 edits (covering only 3 days) as problematic. Perhaps you should take your personal gripe with me, which you show goes back a month and spans over 1,000 of my edits, to an appropriate venue. --Ronz 16:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the best solution for now is to drop this entirely, and see what happens. I do agree wtih MastCell that the Barrett article(s) are near stability. I don't like the idea of talking about one editor when she is not here, and not causing disruption. Further, in NCAHF , both "pro" and "anti" Barrett editors agreed that one editor was a problem- the article was unlocked, and if that editor causes disruption again, presumably he will be dealt with by admins. I suggest we adopt that plan for this situation, as well.Jance 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fine idea. If there's further trouble at the articles, I'd suggest a formal request for mediation, since the content disputes tend to be fairly minor. I do want to emphasize that we need to stop making excuses for Ilena. This is not about Fyslee, or Ronz, or other editors - whose behavior has at times been provocative. Right now, Ilena has had umpteen warnings, in plain English, and has been cut a massive amount of slack. It's fair, at this point, to ask her to take responsibility for her own edits and actions, stop blaming others, and follow Wikipedia policy. If she feels she's being harassed, or that Ronz/Fyslee are misbehaving, then bring the matter here, or get an advocate (eg Peter Dodge) or an outside admin to help. That's how things work, and she's been on Wikipedia long enough now to understand that and start playing by the rules. MastCell 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Block for review - Cool maestro

I have indefinitely blocked User:Cool maestro, who has uploaded scads of obviously copyrighted images tagged with {{gfdl-self}}. He specifically claims to own the copyrights. I hadn't communicated with the user prior to blocking, but others (such as User:BigDT) had, and I noticed Cool maestro had blanked those messages off his talk page without responding and was continuing to upload more material. I invite review from the community on this; I've been deleting his image uploads that are clearly copyrighted (and ones that aren't, such as Image:Cool indian.jpg and Image:China dude.jpg) are probably copyrighted but not obviously so. It's my position that if I hadn't blocked him right away, he would continue to upload images he almost certainly doesn't own and create a huge mess that would need cleaning up. Whereas, if he somehow actually owns copyrights to all those movie posters, and yet uploads images with names like "Cool indian", it can be worked out through email, and permissions@wikimedia would need to get confirmation anyway. Mangojuice^talk 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. Sounds like a good move to me, given the amount of work the user would create if left unchecked. -- Merope 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this was a very appropriate block. User:Cool maestro needs to understand and acknowledge the copyright issues here before continuing to edit.--Isotope23 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Take a look at the upload log for this user. Numerous copyright violations invalidly tagged with "GFDL self" descriptions. *sigh* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just blocked Alks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for precisely the same behaviour with precisely the same images. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing for bot approval

I am somewhat saddened to bring this report to the AN/I noticeboard, as this is an established editor whom I respect greatly as a contributor and developer, but in light of their actions, I feel I have no choice but to report it here.

First of all, let me establish the context for this report. In the spam guidelines, there is a section on canvassing. Asking for opinion and consensus is a natural part of the Wikipedia consensus building process, however, when canvassing occurs it dilutes a true consensus and turns the process into a simple majority. It also poisons the well - editors who would normally vote oppose may not vote because of a strong block of support votes, or vice versa. Now, to explain the specifics, Dragons flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently proposed a bot to perform protections on certain articles. In the process of proposing it, he canvassed quite heavily for it (in my opinion). Diffs include:

• [163]
• [164]
• [165]
• [166]
• [167]

There's more, but those are what were readily available. To me, advertising on another BRFA is just blatant spam. Opinions? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly endorse this instance of spamming, and you'd have to dig deep to find anyone more anti-spammer than me. This particular bot approval is needed urgently and vitally. It's been discussed extensively here and there is strong consensus that this needs done, like yesterday. Leave him be. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (double edit conflict)Well, it's not really spam when it's only on the most relevant pages. If he'd left the message to all the creators of feautred pictures, I think I'd care a lot more, but this is very focoused notification, informing of the proposal. Anyway, as you noted on the BRFA page, Peter, BRFA isn't a vote - only discussion, so these comments shouldn't matter. I think I went to the page based on the post on AN, and made a suggestion on the page - not a vote, a suggestion. I belive that this was probably Dragon Flight's aim when leaving the messages - to get ideas, which he has got in abundance there (and one can get ideas from oppose votes, to satisfy their reasons for opposition). Martinp23 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't really consider this canvassing, and secondly, when we say canvassing, aren't we mainly talking about spamming messages? We have here five independently-tailored messages in five separate situations where he's encouraging people to support a bot. I think it's within his rights, as the bot's creator, to offer arguments as to why it is a good idea. It doesn't really make sense to say he's not allowed to talk about it at all, or that he must give the appearance of being neutral over whether his bot is approved or not. The one qualm I have is where he says to go !vote in support and provides a link, but that is a very minor quibble at best. --Cyde Weys 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the WP:SPAM section on canvassing and I must say I see no great issue here. One distiction made was the level of disruption made by the crossposting. This doesn't seem to like an "aggressive propaganda campaign" to me (unless you can provide more spamdiffs to support the claim), but rather "reasonable amount of communication about issues". Deliberate and single-purpose spamming is bad, while mentioning a discussion on related occasions is no worse than advertising a WikiProject in a signature. Миша13 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to leave a notice on the admin noticeboard, since admins have had to manually protect all these pages. The Bureaucrats' board because, after all, bot RFAs are a bit exceptional, and Bureaucrats close RfAs. The only edit slightly hard to justify (IMHO) was to Shadowbot's page, but it is a related bot... Note that one of those is not Dragons flight. Prodego ^talk 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia:Canvassing: "Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group to further one's side of a debate." He did not systematically go out and ask for people to support the bot, nor did he only contact people who he knew would support the bot. He posted about it publicly on AN and other places (since only a limited few follow the bot requests page) and in doing so asked for input from the people the bot would most help — administrators — since only administrators can take care of Main Page issues. Move along folks, nothing to see here. —bbatsell ¿? 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think WP:IAR applies here... nothing he's doing is hurting the project and in fact as Guy said this is a very urgent need.--Isotope23 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw the various editors here to the existence of the aforementioned bots RfA. The page was created 3 days before conditional approval was granted. It seems, I'm not the only editor aware of it's existence, with 3 !votes (as of 21:30 on 5th Jan) already having been placed before the RfA is listed on the main WP:RFA page along with the rest of the RfA nominations. The only page linking to the RfA at present being User:ProtectionBot - So, my main question, what's happening with the RfA ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not been listed yet, so the RfA hasn't officially started, so those !votes are early. I think the RfA will only be going ahead when full approval from BRFA is granted (correct me if I'm wrong) Martinp23 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be sensible to list the RfA now and once the result of the RfA is known, then the BRfA process can continue, it seems the BAG is getting ahead of process here and the talk of WP:IAR combined with an RfA that hasn't yet been listed leaves me a little uncertain as to whether the BAG was going to be permitted to give the bot sysop permissions in this case. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I prepared the RFA for when/if it became appropriate. It was not posted in part because I wanted to be sure what the functionality of the bot would be, and this has been subject to revisions due to discussions at BRFA. As it had not been posted, I have removed all early posting of votes to it, as I regard that as inappropriate. Personally, I feel adminbots ought to be handled entirely through BRFA (with wide community notice; not spam) rather than having two largely overlapping discussions, but many people seem to disagree with that, so I am prepared to do an RFA if that is what is to be required. Dragons flight 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the first vote. I just figured it couldn't hurt to support early. (It so happens that I also think that a RfA isn't even necessary, but if it goes live I'll support it.) Melchoir 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think an RFA is necessary when the bot owner is already an admin. Bot owners are already responsible for everything their bots do. Giving a bot a sysop flag when the owner is already a sysop is a simple matter of deciding if the bot is a good idea — and since we all agree that this one is — it should be granted. WP:RFA is for granting sysop access to humans, and if you look at all of the normal questions and procedure that go on in RFA, you'll see that they're totally unnecessary and irrelevant when dealing with a person who is already a sysop and just needs a second flagged account for bot usage. --Cyde Weys 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde. I had assumed, per the precedent set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA any bot with sysop functions would need to be approved through the normal RfA channel, since Tawker was already an admin at that point and he had to go through an RfA process. I realise there is a vast difference in what TawkerbotTorA and ProtectionBot do, but shouldn't the bot still have to go through an RfA process ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Per my own previous comments on Jmaxbot, I concur with Cyde. Raul654 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The user conduct described does not constitute canvassing or spamming within the meaning of any relevant policy, nor does it give rise to any of the concerns that those policies are meant to address. Moreover, any reasonable steps calculated to help solve the problem of inappropriate images on the mainpage and in our daily featured content are of surpassing and immediate importance to the reputation of the project. Letting administrators and bureaucrats know of a potential bot that could contribute to addressing this issue is not only acceptable, but highly commendable. I frankly don't understand the reasons for making this report and am saddened by the existence of a dispute between two of our best Dragons. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I'm by no means a bot expert, but I also agree with Cyde that a full-dress RfA should not be necessary for a situation like this. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Dragons flight did nothing wrong and that an RfA should not be necessary. —Mets501 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• As a tangential thought in response to the An RfA should always be necessary when seeking sysop status for an account - it is how the community decides if it is needed, and whom it is trusted with. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is obviously needed because the bot cannot function without it. And we already decided we trust this individual, unless that's changed since his RfA. What's left to talk about? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: for the record, the BAG recomended a RFA to get community for the concept... since admin-bots have been so... hmmm... feared. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be vanity to quote myself, however, taken from my wikiphilosophy:

“ Sysop status, or other special rights such as CheckUser, Oversight, or membership in a WikiProject, does not confer immunity to policy. Many users that get these special rights seem to get an ego complex and think that their contributions are somehow more valuable than others, or that their opinions should be weighted more heavily. This could not be further from the spirit of Wikipedia. Every good faith contributor is a valuable and respected part of the community, considered equally with any other good faith contributor. ”

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, but what is the relevance of that statement to this issue? Newyorkbrad 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator I'm telling you you're all totally wrong and you're just supposed to do what I say otherwise I block you, whenever I feel like it. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The strong push to bypass the RFA process seems to be nothing more than a block of sysops who think their opinion is what matters and do not feel they need the approval of the community as a whole to ratify their proposal. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of the five people who just here have supported not bothering with an RfA, three are sysops and two are not. I think you may be imagining things here -- the community has had ample chance to discuss this issue and virtually nobody, administrator or not, has opposed creating this sysop bot. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually, Peter, the text of their comments were quite clear; I'm not sure why you're assuming an enormous amount of bad faith here, but it's troubling. The coder and overseer of the bot is an administrator; thusly, he has gained the trust of the community through his own RfA. The BRFA process is designed to determine whether there is a need for the bot, whether technical issues are present with it, and whether the mechanisms are in place to prevent errors should they arise (as they nearly inevitably do in man-made code). The user in charge of the bot has been granted trust, and the consensus on the BRFA is quite clearly in favor of the bot itself. That is why the editors above who support bypassing the RfA hold that position, and they made themselves abundantly clear. For the record, I think we should go through an RfA to remove even a smidge of doubt, and I'm slightly (but not significantly) unhappy with the precedent, but I refuse to assume the bad faith you assume above. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• There was no assumption of bad faith, and I got five edit conflicts trying to reword my statement - but anyways. My main concern is that there seems to be no basis to circumvent the RfA, and yet they want to. Now some would say this is uncontested, which is a little annoying, since it makes me wonder what I'm doing, if not contesting it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

• • I'd like to offer an alternative interpretation, Peter. I think the push to skip the RfA process is because the user in question is already a Sysop. Dragons Flight already passed an RfA, so unless he has become less trustworthy since then, an RfA seems redundant and the need for it has not been established. As long as the sysop-bit element of the bot is clearly defined during the bot request phase (which it was), then the community has more than enough opportunity to comment, and they did. In addition to these practical considerations, I'd like to offer one final realistic one. There are folks employing criteria in RfA that would, by definition, make it absolutely impossible for a bot to pass. Not because the bot isn't the Right Thing for the project, but because the bot has not written a featured article, has not accumulated X-thousand edits, and so on. There are both practical and realistic limitations to using the RfA that has nothing to do with a "block of sysops" working in concert to somehow thwart the rest of the project, and I feel such a suggestion doesn't do the hard working folks on the project justice. If you feel there is any such cadre working against the interests of Wikipedia, then that should be resolved separately and not involve the protection-bot effort that Dragons Flight is undergoing at the moment. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• My complains are not with the bot - I feel it is a neccesary tool in combating the problems we have had. My problem is how people are going about implementing it, since it seems to be circumventing policy. IAR is not a free pass to do as you would. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can clarify something here that might reduce the controversy. Precisely what "sysop" functions will this bot be performing? No one wants a bot given the ability to inadvertently block users, delete articles, etc. and if someone were to propose giving a bot the ability to do these things I can see the argument for requiring a broad consensus evinced by something like RfA or an equivalent. But do I understand correctly that the only "admin only" function this bot will perform will be to protect templates? That seems to be a fairly low-risk situation and might not implicate some of the broader concerns. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples you provided seem relevant locations for such a notice. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can see how some people would like to see this get 'fast tracked', but really is there a need to bypass WP:RFA? The bot looks to me to be an interesting idea, but... the community's say is important. I mean if the bot is good, and you anticipate no objections, an RFA can't hurt. In my opinion, no user account should get the sysop flag without going through an WP:RFA. I mean really, if there are few objections to the bot, and the community is guaranteed to support the idea, then we might as well put it through an WP:RFA, 5 days is nothing. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the RFA would serve more then just getting approval for the sysop bit… the user already has approval for that. What the RFA would establish is community approval of the concept of a Sysop bot for this specific role…. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, Dragons flight has gone through an RfA already. Why should he be forced to do it again? Second, so many people are irrationally afraid of adminbots that maybe a bit of IAR (and process circumvention) would help to demontrate it in action and show that it's not a big deal at all? Миша13 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we used to have an autoblocking bot for vandals? Guy (Help!) 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A thinking point to consider. When we perform a Request for Adminiship, is the RfA for the account, or for the person behind the account? If the answer is the former, then an RfA makes sense. But if we're determining whether or not the person is suitable for adminship, then a separate RfA becomes redundant. I think precedent suggests that Wikipedia considers the person to be the more important elemtn of the equation. Dragons Flight the person has already passed the RfA, and by necessity, the robot he creates is his responsibility. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand Dragons flight is not going through the RFA, the idea of the bot is. Any user account wanting the sysop flag has to go through it. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 may be worth reviewing here. NoSeptember 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my question a few posts above, which may have been lost in the multiply threaded discussion. For editors, "the sysop bit" is an indivisible whole: one is either an administrator with all the buttons going with the job, or isn't. Is that true for bots? As I understand it (please confirm), this bot would only be tasks with protecting templates, couldn't it be constructed in a way that would not require access to the full "sysop bit" including the powers to block, delete, etc. that raise greater concerns? Newyorkbrad 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also please see this. It is from WP:SOCK, which is another term for alternate account. I guess in short, I am trying to say that I think the RFA is for the account, not the person. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is true for any account. You either have all sysop rights, or none. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Robert has done absolutely nothing wrong. The community has been clamoring for such a bot, and he's stepped forward to deliver it.
I also strongly believe that an RfA is both unnecessary and downright absurd. Robert already is a sysop, so the bot account won't enable him to do anything that he isn't already capable of doing (and trusted by the community to do). The bot itself has overwhelming approval, so there's nothing left to discuss (aside from technical specifics). Furthermore, "RfA" stands for "requests for adminship." A bot can't be an administrator, so the idea of requesting adminship for one is ludicrous. —David Levy 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, he was given the sysop bit with the understanding that he would be doing the edits. This is not a manual assist bot, but one that runs independently of human intervention. It matters little who wrote it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

But the community has already expressed its overwhelming approval of Robert's plan to operate the bot! What's left to discuss? —David Levy 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

With such overwhelming approval, an RFA should be no big deal! No need to bypass our sock policy for this bot. I think our policy in WP:SOCK is quite clear on alternate accounts for admins. Personally I think it needs to go through an RFA. If there is such overwhelming support, it should be an easy RFA. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. As I said, I believe that conducting a request for adminship for a computer script is nonsensical. Computer scripts can't be administrators. I swear to God, if people start opposing this RfA because the bot hasn't participated in deletion debates or written featured articles, I'll personally remove such comments and issue warnings against committing further acts of disruption.

2. How many mutilated penises do you feel comfortable displaying on the main page while this farcical "RfA" occurs?

3. I think that this policy is quite clear. —David Levy 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note, that there is a second bot User:Shadowbot2, that is capable of doing the same task, albeit without the admin buttons. Therefore, there is no rush to bypass existing standards for this bot, as we are well covered. No matter ,if and when the community gives this bot the admin bit, we already have a functional bot. Again I believe the only second admin account held by the same person is that of User:Danny, (second account User:Dannyisme), which Danny uses for Foundation work. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know if you missed this or not, but I would also like to note, that there is a second bot User:Shadowbot2, that is capable of doing the same task, albeit without the admin buttons, as stated above. As much as we want everything automatic, this is not an urgent bot. Also I think our sock policy over-rides IAR. Agian, this bot is not that urgent. We have viable alternatives. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't "miss" that comment. You inserted it above my reply after I posted it. I've moved it to the correct location and replied. —David Levy 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I ran into a few edit conflicts at that time, and I probably did not do my copy pasting right, so sorry about that. :S Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I tried to re-order this in the right order, according to the time stamps. I see where where I blundered, and it is quite clear from my re-ordering. Again I am sorry about that. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 09:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to note that the Main Page was vandalized again yesterday even though Shadowbot2 was running. Dragons flight 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

All that means is that not enough admins have opted in. Nonetheless the problem should be on the decline. Agian, this is not that urgent, we will live 5 more days, so hurry up and slap the bot on RFA. I am sure that people won't treat it like a normal human, but will look over the merits of the proposal. I don't think we have to worry about checking the account's wikipedia space edits or anything. I don't know if this bot really has the majority you say it has, and we won't know until it ends up on RFA now will we? I really do want to thank all involved for all the work (programming I know what this is like, debating ect.) Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was only because Shadowbot2 does not check the protection status of images in the scanned templates. Shadow1 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a template that was vandalized: Template:POTD_image/2007-01-05. Dragons flight 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I received a false report that 18 templates were unprotected. The one vandalized (Template:POTD image/2007-01-05) was not included in the list. I'm unsure of the chronology (and I think that the e-mail might have been sent after that template was removed from the main page), but I definitely wasn't notified of the problem. —David Levy 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, User:ProtectionBot would not have prevented that POTD snafu. Note the following on ProtectionBot's page: "Note that if any admin changes the protection before the ProtectionBot expects it to be concluded, then ProtectionBot will assume the admin knows best and not try to make any further changes to that image/template during the course of that appearance on the main page/featured article." - from what I can make out, in the latest incident, an admin came along and changed the template system being used for POTD (actually quite a good change), but forgot to protect the new templates. I suspect that the clause above in ProtectionBot's description means that vandalism will still occur when a well-meaning admin makes a change without realising the full consequences of the change being made. Human nature. Carcharoth 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, ProtectionBot would have covered this (assumming it was seen between when it was added and when it was vandalized). The clause you refer to covers recent changes in protection level by other admins. If a template appeared on the Main Page and has never been protected, ProtectionBot assummes it ought to have been. Dragons flight 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. So ProtectionBot would have prevented that, which is good, though all this does depend on how closely vandals are watching the main page. I still think vandals will adapt to sneak into the small window of opportunity that is there for image vandalism, despite the semi-random feature. Getting back to how ProtectionBot won't overide a change made by another admin - ie. you programmed it not to wheel-war! :-) - can you think of situations where a well-meaning admin unfamiliar with the main page might unprotect a template or image while it is on the main page, and then forget to reprotect? If I am understanding the 'no wheel-warring' thing correctly, ProtectionBot won't prevent this kind of thing (cos it's not designed to stop humans being silly). I still think that ultimately the developers will need to come up with a system where this is all hardwired into the MediWiki system. Carcharoth 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not "well covered." Shadowbot2 merely e-mails certain administrators to inform them that a problem exists. It does not repair the problems. Additionally, it doesn't seem to be functioning properly. Yesterday, it falsely reported that almost every template on the main page was unprotected. It failed, however, to detect that four main page templates actually were unprotected. As a result, penis vandalism occurred yet again. —David Levy 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

David Levy, surely the community as a whole has a right to decide on whether or not it's comfortable in giving bots sysop access, be it through a standard RfA or proposing a new policy on sysop bots. If were going to IAR on this one, it sets a potentially dangerous and certainly unfair precedent where it can be done again to give any developer with admin access permission to create and run sysop bots with no input from the community beyond that which happens at BRFA. In fact, it seems IAR could also extend to giving any user sysop status if a few people decide it's necessary. There's Shadowbot2 which offers an e-mail report to admins when it finds an unprotected page. Sign up for the mailing list on that whilst this is going through the RfA process. Threatening out of process warnings (which could end up leading onto blocks, I assume ?) isn't on either and I would appreciate if you would strike that comment. RfA is supposed to be an open process, one where any editor can make any comment (within reason) on the whether or not it is appropriate to give the user (through just one account) sysop access. It's totally inappropriate to mention warning a user for commenting in a certain way on any RfA. As I've said, there are further options available to admins to let them know whether or not all the templates transcluded onto the main page are protected. This bot isn't the only option and it's not as clear cut or urgent as your making out. I really have no time for any admin who threatens to censor any RfA. Blackmail was too strong a word, but there's certainly an air of intimidation for anyone daring to Oppose. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk - Contribs 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, the community has a right to decide. It already has. Conducting a fictitious "RfA" while the main page remains at risk will accomplish nothing of benefit to Wikipedia.

2. Your slippery slope argument is silly. This is a very special case, and the community clearly recognizes that fact.

3. I'm on the bloody Shadowbot2 e-mail list. It failed yesterday.

4. I'm not "threatening out of process warnings." I explicitly referenced hypothetical RfA comments made in bad faith, and I stand by my promise to counter any such deliberate disruption. If someone opposes the RfA for an applicable reason (something that actually pertains to the bot), that's an entirely different matter. —David Levy 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest closing this section as there is no canvassing. Dragons flight should run an RfA for the bot, as not everyone might have noticed the bot discussion. --Ligulem 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

It's clear that this could be quite a sticky situation and something does need to be done to sort out the danger of vandalism appearing on the main page. I would suggest, in the interim however, that User:ProtectionBot is give a temporary sysop flag whilst it's decided what to do next, be it an RfA or propose a new policy on granting bots sysop functionality. I don't see a great number of concerns over the bot malfunctioning and destroying Wikipedia, rather, it seems to be concern at what passing RfA means and it's effect on policy, i.e does it say

1. The user has been trusted sufficently by the community to be granted sysop status and consiquently any and all additional accounts that sysop may wish to operate (provided they are solely for the use of the sysop) can be conferred with sysop status too

or

1. The user has been trusted sufficently by the community to be granted sysop status for the one and only account presented at the RfA, and that any and all additional accounts for which the sysop requests sysop functionality need to go through the RfA process.

Until some sort of consensus is decided on what exactly passing an RfA means, then there's little point in discussing policy on bots with sysop functionality, however it's a debate that probably needs to happen sooner than later, and if the former statement is the consensus of the community, some sort of policy will likely need to be drafted on if and when it is appropriate to grant bots sysop functionality and of course, whether or not the RfA process can be ignored for all developers needing sysop access in order to design bots and other applications. Quoting IAR is fine to start with but after a while, there starts becoming a need to create a rule to be followed, not ignored, which provides the same basic freedom but with the necessary limitations to protect the community. If we, as a community decide we want bots with sysop functionality, we will need to look at the testing arrangements for sysop bots, who ultimately makes the change on the account permissions and the various safety measures in place to ensue the bot doesn't, once operating with sysop functionality, start to be given additional functions by it's developer(s) or if malfunctioning, doesn't do damage that cannot easily and quickly be stopped and reverted. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

1. This bot be provisionally approved and flagged to run under the aegis of Dragons flight's sysop flag for 30 days (no RfA), and reevaluated at the end of that time.
2. Several sysops with bot experience be designated to monitor the bot's performance, to make sure that it is not doing anything untoward and also that no templates needing protection are being missed.
3. This being an urgent situation, this instance not to be regarded as a precedent for future bots with sysop rights, and discussion to continue on the broader policy questions presented.
4. A Bugzilla request be submitted to the developers (if not already done) that would allow a bot to be able to access a sysop's protection function, but not other sysop functions such as blocking or deletion.

Comments? Newyorkbrad 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• 100% support from me. —David Levy 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'd just like to have the proviso that should it be possible for the devs to split admin functions, it can only be used by bots and not by human editors, and only after some sort of policy is agreed upon. If split admin functions can be carried out, I don't see as great a need for putting bots through the RfA process as they are absolutely limited by the functionality granted to them and developer(s) expanding any bots functionality is less of a concern. Apart from that rather lengthy add-on, I'm happy to support either my own proposal, Brad's, or any combination of the two. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Why do I think of Kelly Martin when someone says something like this? No one remembers that? We don't need a redux of that. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This may not be not feasible. In recent testing I have seen dropped Mediawiki session cookies, which I suspect are caused by trying to use my account for normal editting while a bot run is in progress. If this interpretation is correct (and I'm not entirely sure, I'm still investigating it), then it would make it impossible for this bot to run concurrently with my normal editting behavior. Dragons flight 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, have ProtectionBot temporarily assigned a sysop flag, on the understanding that it will be withdrawn after the testing period, and a full RfA run to gain approval and permanent admin status. ie. support Brad's proposal, with the change I suggest. Carcharoth 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of Carcharoth's proposal as a "friendly amendment," but if the 30-day trial is successful, I don't think an RfA should be necessary. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept a temporary sysop flag for it subject to community review, but if it is working at the end of 30 days and there are no complaints, I don't see much sense in stopping it, hauling it through RFA, and then restarting it again. If we are going to go this way, I would ask that whatever review is demanded occur before the end of the trial period. Dragons flight 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• The possibility of 4 exists in the code, if I recall correctly (I was not an editor then, this is from combing archives), when phase3 when operational some editors were excited that now users would be able to request only certain admin rights. Obviously this never materialized, and there is no interface to do it. But it could be done. Whether it will be is another story, I don't think it is really a priority, since there are only likely to be a few admin bots. Prodego ^talk 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is possible if your browser and bot use the same cookie file. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok as a member of WP:BAG there are a few things that need to be cleared up. This bot is not yet approved, it is still in the trial phase. I gave Dragons Flight limited approval for testing of the bot on his account. Before approving this bot fully I see several issues that need to be handled. There has been no suggestion from the BAG to bypass RfA, In fact I support a RfA, I agree IAR cannot be applied here as giving a bot sysop privileges (via IAR) can open a can of worms that we don't want opened. As for the issue of wiki-spamming this was just spreading the word as WP:BRFA is NOT a very high traffic page, all Dragons Flight was doing was letting people know that such a bot was in the process of being created. Regarding the use of shadowbot there are a lot of holes in that method of protecting the main page. But that is the best that could be done with a non admin bot. there are many images and templates that are used daily and rotate this is a lot of work for all admins involved as any active admins know we take a lot of work and one less major pain, and is a lot less stress for us and for Wikipedia. I Propose a RfA but before this bot can be posted there it will need unanimous BAG approval. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. We know that some technical concerns remain to be addressed. Much of the above discussion is based on the assumption that the bot will receive approval from the BAG (though I don't see how you can justify the need for "unanimous" support from a body with no official authority).

2. The application of WP:IAR would mean setting aside some technicalities, not bypassing consensus. No one is proposing that the will of the community be ignored. We're saying that the community already has spoken (and the bot should used as soon as possible).

3 If it's determined that further discussion is required, so be it. But to refer to said discussion as an "RfA" would be ridiculous. Again, computer scripts can't be administrators. Robert seeks a sysop bit for his bot, not "adminship." RfA is not an appropriate forum. If we must, let's take this to the village pump or even RfC. But let's do it now. There's no valid reason why the technical approval must come first. —David Levy 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think opening an RfC or Village Pump thread now would affect the RfA (which has been written but not yet posted)? Annoyingly, it looks like there needs to be a preliminary discussion about whether long-term approval (after the 30-day trial) should be granted through RfA or a Village Pump discussion or an RfC. Incidentially David, I don't think the spread-out discussions and the small discussion at the Bot Approval Group, show community consensus. They show consensus by part of the community, but RfA regulars may feel that they were bypassed unless they are notified in some way. Notes can be dropped off at all venues, and at {{cent}}, but I agree that discussion should take place in one location, and that RfA might not be the best place (though the existence of the discussion should be advertised there). Can we get this wrapped up in 30 days (well, less than that now)? When does the trial end? Carcharoth 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting an alternative to the "RfA," not a supplement. As I said, I don't oppose the solicitation of additional feedback (provided that it's done immediately). I feel, however, that RfA regulars have no special standing in this instance, given the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with a request for adminship. Of course, all Wikipedians are entitled to comment, and the matter can be advertised in every major forum of even peripheral relevance (including RfA). I merely object to the idea of conducting the actual discussion as an RfA, as that would be entirely nonsensical. (We would basically be pretending that the bot is a person.) We can create a dedicated project page and list it in all of the aforementioned locations (thereby negating the issue of which is the correct one). —David Levy 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentially, the right question to ask of the community is probably, "should the BAG be granted the power to give bots a sysop flag, or should there be additional community oversight of the process?" Carcharoth 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's one question to ask, but the pressing issue is that surrounding this particular bot. There really aren't very many valid applications for a sysop bot, so this won't be a routine matter. —David Levy 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Art Dominique sockpuppet army

The banned user Art Dominique (talk · contribs) is a long-standing vandal with a huge number of socks, most of them currently blocked. A series of them were blocked, based on a checkuser report (see most recently archived case from 3 January, 2007) [168]. A newer checkuser was filed for another bunch of socks of this user (4 January 2007), but that checkuser was declined as "impossibility to check". The declining checkuser didn't want to explain why it was impossible. I'm not really contesting that decision, but I still think someone should look at these socks and block them if they think there's a good reason. The connection to Art Dominique is here [169]. As you can see, one of Art Dominique's socks was determined to be a subaccount of Love is all we need (talk · contribs).

• Love is all we need (talk · contribs)
• Eat your carrots (talk · contribs)
• Christmas almost here (talk · contribs)
• Eat apple a day (talk · contribs)
• The rolling rocks (talk · contribs)
• Good Afrodisiac (talk · contribs)
• Sticking to truth (talk · contribs)
• Recorded history (talk · contribs)
• Riksföreståndare (talk · contribs)
• Erroll Van Dyke (talk · contribs)
• Friendly request (talk · contribs)
• Let me add then (talk · contribs)
• Old lock smith (talk · contribs)

Hope someone will review these. TheQuandry 22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks highly likely, blocking (even though most are inactive) for safety. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser declined per a technical reason, which for WP:BEANS sake, will not be explained further. Checkusers are under no obligation to explain why they delined - most declines aren't even given an explination at all, but rather "{{declined}}. ~~~~". Take it to SSP if you have to, in the future. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be shy about posting new suspects to the checkuser page, either. Just because these were declined doesn't mean future checks <insert> against new socks </insert> will be. There is a rather trivial technical reason why these were declined that has nothing to do with the merits of the request. Thatcher131 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just don't post the exact same content again as a copy-paste; ie. the equivalent of a {{db-repost}} :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born in 1999

Category:Wikipedians born in 1999 is currently populated by one user. Would it be appropriate to depopulate this? (for obvious reasons) --- RockMFR 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we depop deleted cats... so I don't see why not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the other deleted categoriues are re-filling, BTW. I'm more than a little concerned that we have Wikipedians who) basically announce on their user page things like (this is an actual example) "I'm a 10 year-old girl, these are my interests, and this is the part of Canada I live in". Grutness...wha? 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd.

User:Geo.plrd recently tried to create a new Esperanza, called Phoenix, discussed above, that was speedily deleted. Geo.plrd was warned at least three times to abide by the community consensus by administrators, but went to DRV anyway and demanded it be undeleted. He withdraw after he got six Keep Deleted votes. Because I voted on both of these and have been blunt with him as to why, Geo.plrd has responded by tagging every non-FA article I have written for speedy deletion. This is blatant stalking and I would appreciate it if someone would block, because this is going too far. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And I don;'t what what he meant by this, but he just recreated the aforementioned User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix with "Boo". Seems like he's taunting us all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginning to think they're violating WP:Point here... SirFozzie 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He's absolutely violating WP:POINT, but I gave him a single warning. I also deleted the Phoenix page and protected it against re-creation. Unfortunately, he appears to be on a self-immolation strategy; I hope he changes his mind. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I also weighed in. I am of the opinion that another such disruption should result in a short block. -- Merope 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New user 69.177.205.162 deleting dated prod and other templates

New user 69.177.205.162 rapidly is deleting dated prod and other templates. See [170] -- Jreferee 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to check: is the proper response to the deletion of prod templates from articles by anonymous users to replace them, or list the articles for AfD? Thanks, WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, deletion of the prod template means that it's contested so it would go to AFD. The exception is clear cases of vandalism (page blanking, replace article text with "graffiti", etc) in which case it can be reverted. -- JLaTondre 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

However, this was a Prod2. I've reinstated the Prod2, (it's a single season in review for a High School football team) SirFozzie 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the article I had in mind. In this instance an anon went through a number of articles and removed prod template but did not vandalise those articles in any other way. I've nominate 2 for AfD in response, other editors have restored the prod templates. In retrospect the latter solution seems better given the pattern of behaviour which doesn't suggest real reasons for deleting the template, so maybe we can presume vandalism (though WP:AGF is at the back of my mind). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking generically. I didn't go through the anon's edits as by the time I looked, they appeared to all be handled. However, I just looked at the one you mentioned (2006 Terrier Football). Restoring the prod2 template on that article doesn't mean much as there was never a prod template to start. It had an incomplete afd nomination instead. I deleted it as {{db-group}}. -- JLaTondre 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of bots to replace editor's judgement

I recently had a run-in with something called the User:AntiVandalBot. The particular issue was fixed and the bot's creator was very considerate. I have no complaint about the bot's creator. However, I'm not sure a bot is the best approach to reverting vandalism. It has too much opportunity for making a mistake, which is tantamount to accusing an innocent editor of vandalism. Just the accusation alone can hurt an editor's reputation (even though in my case I choose to edit using an IP instead of a user account.) Also, it takes the "editor" out of editing. Wikipedia is supposed to be self-correcting because editors are reviewing edits. Even though it takes more time, the Wikipedia way is for other editors to review edits. I'm also concerned that this puts the burden of proof on the wrong person. The bot doesn't ask before reverting edits. It takes a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. Even though an editor can "appeal" a revert by using the bot's talk page, editors shouldn't have to defend their good faith edits in such a manner. It should be up to the editor making the revert to do so only when edits are clearly vandalism. Perhaps a method of automatically flagging pages for review by other editors would be a kinder, gentler approach instead of automatic reverts. A review by a real editor prior to making a revert would improve accuracy and fairness. Bot's are good for making tedious changes in mass, but using bots to replace an editor's judgement is a different matter. In the long run, accuracy and fairness are more important than the time saved by using a bot. 24.214.57.91 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous nonsense. Many established editors have been mistakenly reverted before. A bot is the most efficient way we can track all vandalism, otherwsie we might have it languising in a minor article for weeks or months. – Chacor 01:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot rarely makes mistakes in my experience of recent changes patrol. An "accusation" from a bot counts for nothing. Any accusation of vandalism will be followed up by a real life human who will easily see if the bot was wrong. I think the bot does far more good than harm. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That lovely and gorgeous bot has well over 100,000 edits, reverting nonsense, vandalism, crud, and a torrent of obscenities and filth all of which would have to have wasted the time of a human being, had it never been created. It's one of the best things to appear on Wikipedia in 2006. If it makes a mistake, report it so the bot can be improved. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On balance, this bot does an excellent job of dealing with vandalism issues and reverts far more bad than good edits. The amount of time human editors would need to revert all the bad edits is very high, and before they got to them, a lot of vandalism, sometimes pretty gross vandalism, would remain on pages for a long time.

I don't think the user's comments should be characterized as "ridiculous nonsense", however. The user has legitimate points as to some negative aspects of this bot. It's just that they are, in the judgment of most of us, outweighed by the positive aspects. I also urge the user to post about any specific mistakes made by the bot at User talk:AntiVandalBot, as that allows the people who maintain the bot to know what types of false positives are occurring and consider adjusting the coding to reduce any errors going forward. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• User:AntiVandalBot/FAQ was designed to allay most of the concerns you have raised here. When I posed those questions, I tried to do it from the perspective of a new user quite unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. If you have suggestions on how to improve the FAQ or the other interactions with the bot from the warning recipient's perspective, please make them :). NoSeptember 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In a lot of time on RCP I have seen AVBot revert huge numbers of page blankings and replacements of text with garbage. I have also seen it revert one legitimate edit, where an author had removed a Prod and also significantly edited the article, removing about half the content. I restored the edit and left the editor a note with an explanation (also warning him that the article would likely go to AFD, where it is now). In my opinion, the very rare mistake is easily tolerable based on the huge amount of vandalism reverts that get handled by this very valuable tool. Fan-1967 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While I've had run-ins with this bot, I don't think it's done more harm then good. 68.39.174.238 04:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that this bot does a lot of good. Unfortunately, when you're on the receiving end of a mistake, it doesn't look that way. I was trying to politely suggest a possible improvement for Wikipedia. Sorry this was perceived as "ridiculous nonsense". 24.214.57.91 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel bitten; I trust that was not Chacor's intention. I appreciate your comments, but I also feel that the templates left by AntiVandalBot are worded carefully enough to make it clear that it could be a mistake, and if so, here's how to fix it. Do you have any further suggestions about how to make this any clearer in the talkspace messages (or perhaps edit summaries)? —bbatsell ¿? 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

adolescence article vandalism/trolling

I have been dealing with the article on adolesescence, namely the part on adolescent sexuality and neogitiating the removal of data of HIGHLY dubious viability and which is obviously opinionated (Lot's of the data is from a single book by leonard sax which is not easily accessible by the average person) And i have placed in more accurate and backed up Center for disease control data on adolescent rates of std transmission/pregnancy rates which have been CONSISTENTLY deleted along with the references DESPITE my asking for proof of sax's 'studies' and 'facts' to be given in an internet reference and for possible other sources on this controversial subject to be used that aren't obviously against it.

What concerns me the most is that it is FILLED with data from just ONE book by a supposed guru on adolescence who claims to have all the facts on teen sexuality and it's dangers and how while my attempts to make the article more nuetral and at least input data from both sides of the debate are overwritten...

There's the fact that some teen or parent might go to the article on adolesence and after reading a few paragraphs on the topic of teen sexuality (Which despite my best efforts is somehow constantly returned back to it's highly biased and non nuetral state by trolls) would declare it horribly dangerous and thus likely cause A LOT of worries, suppression, etc. etc. and EVEN MORE fear about the horrors of teen sex, WITHOUT even allowing for opinions to prove that STD transmission rates and pregnancies have gone down among teens in the last few years without being waaaayyy at the bottom behind the MASSES of Leonard Sax and exclusively right wing opninions, I'm requesting that the topic is locked until a consensus can be reached and if no proof of the dubious (at best) claims about teenage emotional shallowness can be brough out that someone helps me to stop this constant trolling....

The anti vandalism bot reverted my correction where i moved up the CDC data to the top and added teen sexuality based on country to the almost original super biased state...

help in resolving this matter is desperately needed....

Nateland 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User continues to remove my nomination for deletion

a non admin user continues to remove my nomination for speedy deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation

68.161.73.206 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh. As I explained to you four times, speedy deletion tags can be removed by anyone who did not write the article. I did not, so I can remove it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not a speedy candidate - and I am an admin. Satisfied? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amarkov has offered to nominate the page for AfD for you. Will that not do? Also the tag was previously removed by Naconkantari who is an admin, and suggested AfD. This page clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it now as well, and I'm also an admin. Please read about the criteria for speedy deletion. You may nominate it at AFD if you like. Antandrus (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:72.178.235.28

User is removing official warning templates, block notices, and denied unblock notices. User is replacing denied unblock requests with new unblock requests. Pretty clear case for extending the block and locking the userpage. Vandalism-only account, according to the contribution history.--Rosicrucian 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR with myself?

Can you have a 3RR revert war with yourself? I've recently decided to edit a page.[171] I couldn't decide on certain format. I would reformat every so often correcting typos and wikilinks. (You don't have to answer this if the answer NO.) obviously it would be rediculus to have an edit war with yourself... unless you have some split personality. Or what if an administrator thinks you edit something, back in the year 2004, then you revert it in 2005, and then you put it back in 2006? Is there a time lapse between 3RR? --CyclePat 03:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re your first question: no; re your last: 24 hours. See WP:3RR. However, you might want to make more use of the "show preview" button. Chick Bowen 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango CyclePat. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR. - Merzbow 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a case where you might get blocked for this. Say you edit under your registered name then also as an unregistered IP. If you then violated 3RR under your registered name (against your unregistered one) it would appear to Admins as if you were edit warring and you could indeed be blocked (IMO). THe moral of this story is: Dont argue with yourself. Or at least, if you do, do it under the same name! 8-)--Light current 22:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Threat made at EVP

[172] User:Tom Butler has made a very bizarre threat at Talk: Electronic voice phenomenon regarding Wikipedia in general. I don't know if it rises to the level of a legal threat, but he was very clear that it was a threat. Can an administrator look at this? --ScienceApologist 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd from the last paragraph seems to be saying "Don't annoy me or I'll tell all my friends this site sux!". Don't think that's a legal threat, but it's definately lame and disruptive. 68.39.174.238 04:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For context: It was in response to a perceived COI blocking threat from SA. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Tom's "telling all his friends" - http://etheric-studies.aaevp.com/articles/articles_wikipedia.htm --- LuckyLouie

Dealing with Cplot edits

I happened to see one of Cplot's more recent edits before it was reverted. In it, the Cplot sock says that even though these edits are all being reverted, they are still worth making because they live on forever in the page histories and curious users look to see what has been reverted. I don't know whether that is right or not but I wonder if admins should begin the practice of deleting rather than merely reverting these edits. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to delete the entire WP:ANI and restore it all each time minus one edit each time he does it, be my guest. So, basically, it's impractical. Oversight would be an option though, however, I don't know if those with oversight permissions would consider this a proper use of their abilities. That'd be up to them to decide I'd imagine. Metros232 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The way the user interface is set up, edits to pages with huge histories like this are much easier to oversight than to delete. On less traveled pages, deletion might be an option. Thatcher131 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, until the better revision deletion system for admins is created (rather than the hack we're doing now), it's nearly impossible to delete a ceratin revision from a page with many edits. Martinp23 14:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of responding new edits where it's the top one in the history, not of going back through all the old ones. I thought deletion was easier under that circumstance, but please disregard this if I'm wrong. Newyorkbrad 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could the restore deleted edits page have a button that checks all the boxes? That way you'd only have to unclick the all the ones you want deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles with large edit histories brings the servers to their knees. Remember what happened when AfD got deleted? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress at Wii Play

There are multiple IP addresses vandalizing Wii Play from the 71.83.53.XXX range and the 71.83.60.XXX range. Could someone please semi the article? I'd request it at the proper page, but its in progress right now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks to Naconkantari for semi-protecting it. Cheers! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Several hundred links to the Christian Encyclopedia added

It looks like User:JASpencer has gone through and added several hundred links to the equivalent pages in the Christian Encyclopedia History (about 1 every minute all day). That doesn't seem right to me. The Wikipedia doesn't include a link to the corresponding page in Britannica either. Can someone automatically revert them all? It would be annoying to go through and have to do it by hand. I'm not sure where to "report" this, so I'm doing it here. Jeff Carr 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for what it's worth, I ran across it on the Jean-François Champollion page. You can see it creates a template at the bottom. Should I just remove the template for now until this is resolved? Jeff Carr 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of rolling back all the links as the template is supposed to be placed on the talk pages, not the article. Naconkantari 03:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The template in question has been nominated for deletion at this TfD. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow -- you guys are really on the ball. Thanks, a fellow volunteer, Jeff Carr 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Numerous articles blanked, or large portion of article content removed

Editor CyberAnth recently went through a wide variety of articles, primarily sex related articles removing content. Also many articles were nominated for deletion. User has expressed a desire to eliminate many articles not deemed desirable by claiming that the articles did not have valid references, or that references did not meet appropriate standards. These actions are disruptive, and I believe an intentional attempt to disrupt editing and improving of these articles. Perhaps actions were veiled type of censorship, perhaps not. Please see Special:Contributions/CyberAnth for details.

Naturally, the editor claimes that a given article should be deleted, or removes any content perceived as unsavory, and not cited. Needless to say if every article on wikipedia that did not have citations for each and every statement in it were deleted, it would create utter chaos. Atom 04:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that the editor is engaged in heavy wiki-lawyering to target a selected set of articles. How to address it is a good question. Fan-1967 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see disruption of Wikipedia to make a point here, in some sort of veiled attempt to wipe Wikipedia clean of questionable content. I would recommend a temp block to facilitate clean-up of all of the bad faith AFDs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend experience? It seems pretty reasonable to have a discussion about deleting this "article", which is basically an unsourced dictdef. Jkelly 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't usually be deleted just because they're uncited. If they're reasonably accurate, they should be cited where possible, and unverifiable information removed. Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Most readers would have no idea if Girlfriend experience is "reasonably accurate". Most will have never heard of the term! Shall we take the editor-author's word for it, or require notability and verifiability be established? If I had removed the long-in-place un-sourced material in that page, the only thing left would have been the slang term's entry in the The Double-Tongued Word Wrester Dictionary.[173]. Thus, since only a slang dicdef from a dubious source was in the article, and for the reasons I cited on its AfD page, particularly WP:WINAD, I brought it to AfD. CyberAnth 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If a reasonable person's never even heard of the term, citation is not the issue. The topic is probably either non-notable or a hoax. Both of these are grounds for deletion, and only citation can prove them invalid. However, clearly real (and probably notable) topics like Martin Perreault should not be deleted solely because they are uncited. Superm401 - Talk 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, quite a few of his AfDs have succeeded so far, so I'm not sure a block is appropriate. I don't agree with the mass AfD noms, and the reason behind the noms could be a religious thing, but if they correctly apply policy and the articles should be deleted, I don't really know what we can or should do. For the record, I chimed in on a few of them, with different votes. The one I voted keep got deleted (which appeared to me to be against consensus), but such is life. —bbatsell ¿? 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There must be precedent for something like this. Blanking tons of articles to prove a point, whether or not the information is cited, is incredibly disruptive to the project. --- RockMFR 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I blanked no article. I removed content from some that was unsourced and probably OR per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, all after either the information had been in the article for a long period, tags were placed, or the concern was raised on the talk pages. If you dislike this, please consider the following from WP:V: Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." CyberAnth 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote above is not from WP:V it is from WP:BLP and expressly deals with controversial material about living persons. It does not apply to CyberAnth's conduct in this matter. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to have a look again at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. It is right there. Moreover, a clear and plain reading indicates the policy "is true of all information", as well as and particularly BOLPs. If you dislike that I removed info from a page you were interested in, if that is the case, I suggest that all the information is there in its history and can be restored without worry once it is referenced to reliable sources. CyberAnth 06:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. It is there just not as clearly. I apologise. I would note from the link to the original comment though that the statement is made in the context of a discussion about biographical information and concludes with, "This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration"[174]. I still think you are taking the comment well beyond its originial context and purpose. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. However, I do not think you are at all reading [175] accurately. Let's look at the comment:

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)

Clearly, Jimbo is qualifying only his third paragraph, "I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers," as "a statement of attitude and frustration". Otherwise, he would have not used "this" but "the above" or "this all", and not broken paragraphs. The second paragraph is not modified as "a statement of attitude and frustration". Of course, that is why the second paragraph has become part of policy but the third has not.

CyberAnth 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comment does parse the truth. WJBscribe raises a valid concern, albeit with flawed evidence. CyberAnth's quote refers to the case of information about living people." These noms do not relate to biographies of living persons. Therefore, the text cited is inapplicable, but is being presented as though it were.--Ssbohio 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You might too want to have a look again at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. It states, "Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." It is very clearly dealing with non-BOLP articles under a standard of "too long", and BOLP under a standard of immediately remove it on site as soon as it is added in every instance. CyberAnth 07:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And likewise, you may want to consider deletion policy as it relates to articles insufficiently verifiable. For the problem of article lacks source citations, the policy calls for you to look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article, ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates, and, if those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. That's good advice in that it promotes improving articles rather than simply deleting them. What's more it's an official policy on the English Wikipedia. --Ssbohio 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is to say I did not try to find sources? And most I nominated had been already been tagged at some point. Also, we have two competing policies here, the one you posted and the one I did at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. Feel free to give weight to the one you deem most important, as will I. If had gone through the category for bands, internet sites, or companies and started a string of AfDs on them, would you still be objecting?CyberAnth 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not stating that you didn't try to find sources, I didn't see where you had found sources, or where you had asked other editors. Please let me know what examples of source-finding that I missed. As far as the competing policies, please understand that the policy I am citing is the deletion policy, and would, per force, rule in questions of deletion. --Ssbohio 07:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no bad faith nominations here nor any Abuse of the deletion process. If you find User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability of claims which I wrote for an AfD for Wanker to be a mere whine, I am sorry but I consider it part of a good faith effort to cleanup Wikipedia of material that violates policies. Each and every nomination I have made has been based solidly in Wikipedia policies as best as I understand them, not some "preference". And yes, I am going to continue to busy myself to make Wikipedia better by helping to enforce adherence to its policies. I suggest if you dislike my AfD nominations, please see Help! my article got nominated for deletion: How to save the article. I would be happy to withdraw nominations if concerns that brought the AfD are remedied. Cheers! CyberAnth 06:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, CyberAnth's choice of targets raises concern that the nominations are an effort to remove objectionable subject matter from the project. Further, the nominations made in the AfDs for bean queen and rice queen consist only of lists of policies without specification as to how they are violated. In my analysis, each of the policyvios claimed either doesn't have a discernible rational basis or the policy itself doesn't call for deletion. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, and I'm convinced that improving the content will be more beneficial than removing content based on qualitative or moral objections. --Ssbohio 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the policies I listed and determine it yourself. Most AfDs only list policies. If you have a question, ask on the AfD page. I always explain in more detail if asked. Also, go through the list for Category:Sexual_slang and have a look at all of the ones I did not touch because they met WP policies. If I had just a vendetta against sex, which I do not (believe me, I enjoy sex a whole lot), then I would have listed all of them or done so indiscriminately. BTW, if had gone through the category for bands, internet sites, or companies and started a string of AfDs on them, would you still be objecting? Probably not! But don't worry. They are next. CyberAnth 07:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good advice. Luckily, I already did that. That's how I reached the conclusion about the noms that I mentioned above. Regardless, it still takes more than a list of policy links to state a rationale for deletion. Stating in what way policy is violated is part of laying out a rationale to delete. As to your next point, whenever the focus of a concerted effort toward deletion is a controversial subject area prone to being censored, it raises the question of motivation. If you were doing the same to articles on bands, it wouldn't raise the same issues because there aren't many attempts to censor writing about bands. Perhaps it's best handled directly: why do you tend to choose articles related to human sexuality for your content deletions and AfDs? --Ssbohio 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has taken sourcing to an unfortunate extreme. We should not be proposing for deletion all articles that do not have sources. That would eliminate most stubs completely.

Another example of an sexually-related article targeted in this manner today was Mile High club. This is a short, reasonably well-written article which contains 5 distinct in-line sources. Very few short articles have this many in-line sources.

We should not be removing from articles every unsourced statement. That would wipe out much valuable content.

For instance - Ahmose I - today's Featured Article contains several sentences with no source:

"There was no distinct break in the line of the royal family between the 17th and 18th dynasties."

"The Thera eruption in the Aegean has been implicated by some scholars as the source of this damage, but similar claims are common in the propaganda of other pharaohs, to show them overcoming the powers of darkness. Due to the lack of evidence, no definitive conclusion can be reached."

"Although the pyramid interior has not been explored since 1902, work in 2006 uncovered portions of a massive mudbrick construction ramp built against its face."

etc.

CyberAnth needs to be warned against this kind of behavior and the policy statement should be immediately clarified to remove any implication that all unsourced sentences are to be removed on sight. That is surely not our intent. Johntex\^talk 07:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Mile High club. I left it alone (for AfD) because, as you said, it is "a short, reasonably well-written article which contains 5 distinct in-line sources" but lots was uncited for a LONG PERIOD. I will revisit it later, however.

If any "clarification" is offered, clarify them in the policies where I can read them along with everyone else. That is where clarifications are proposed and consensus reached over them. CyberAnth 07:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover:

1. "There was no distinct break in the line of the royal family between the 17th and 18th dynasties" is sourced. Look again.

2. The portion beginning "The Thera eruption in the Aegean has been implicated by some scholars..." is indeed unreferenced. It also contains Weasel Words. Are you arguing that sloppiness should be allowed in even featured articles? Has it ever concerned you that most high school teachers and college instructors (I am one of the latter), and even many elementary schools by policy (!) do not allow WP to be cited?

3. "Although the pyramid interior has not been explored since 1902..." - it is sourced. Look again.

CyberAnth 08:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm... this qualifies as "[leaving] it alone"? —bbatsell ¿? 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above comment by CyberAnth was edited after my comment. —bbatsell ¿? 08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, one of the things to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Policy is not meant to address every possible permutation of user behavior. The focus here is a consensus-based effort to build an encyclopedia. Policy will never be all-inclusive. That's why we have fora like this so we can iron out issues not fully addressed by policy. --Ssbohio 08:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your second number there: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Tertiary sources should never be allowed to be cited in an academic environment. They can be used as background, and they can be used to locate qualified primary and secondary sources, but they should never be cited. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is quite a surprising (and somewhat disturbing) read. Despite the long touted value of Being bold, it seems that when an editor actually takes that directive they are quickly jumped on and their good faith questioned. I have been watching and conversing with CyberAnth on Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles and while I don't agree with the level of zeal that he has for academic standards, I nonetheless understand and appreciate his respect for Wikipedia's policies. The only motivation I see in his contribution is an ardent desire to see the project flourish and improve by paying more attention to such fundamental policies as WP:V and WP:NOR. While his methods maybe zealous they are not overly disuptive to the extent of WP:POINT. I think this thread highlights a drastic need for the community to seriously evaluate its commitment to WP:V and what kind of credibility or reputation this project desires to acheive. Agne 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the concern expressed here is borne out of history being the supreme arbiter. In massive nominations within a narrow subset of articles such as this in the past, it has, at certain times, been an instance of POV warring rather than good-faith nominations with the project's interests at heart. Note that I am not saying that is the case here, I am simply presenting to you that that is a possible cause for increased attention and discussion. Neither caution nor discussion should ever be considered "bad things", and if they ever are, then we've lost our way. Caution is not the antithesis of being bold. I have commented above that since some to most of the articles inevitably do not meet our policies or guidelines, I personally don't see any of this as being actionable, nor should it be. —bbatsell ¿? 08:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood and I will note that there is stark contrast in the sentiment that you have expressed here and the sentiment that a few other editors have espoused in questioning CA's good faith. The fact that this matter was taking to AN/I is troublesome. It is quite apparent in looking at CA's contribution that he is an established editor with a history of constructive contribution to the project. It would have been more prudent for this issue to be approached on his talk page (as a few editors did) rather then bringing it immediately here for admin intervention. Agne 08:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify my comments and position: I have been talking specifically about the AfD nominations. Edits such as this one do concern me; that edit made the article completely unintelligible. If there really is a large issue with sourcing, then stub it and work to expand it (and ask others to help you if you can). I contend that in articles other than biographies of living persons, lack of sourcing is not so urgent that it requires wholesale deletions without attempts to improve the text. The gist of what I'm saying is this: if something is unsourced, {{sofixit}}. If you don't have the time to fix it, hold of on gutting the article until you have the time to fix it. If edits such as the one above have happened multiple times in this case then it might need to be addressed. —bbatsell ¿? 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• CyberAnth - you are wrong about those sentences from the Featured Article. Not a single one of those sentences has a footnote immediately at the end of the sentence.

My point is that even our Featured Articles are not perfect, and that you would cause more harm than good to go through any article, whether it be a stub or a featured article, with the intent to remove every single sentence that does not have an in-line reference.

I am not saying that you are acting in bad faith, I am only saying that you are acting wrongly, and dangerously so.

Furthermore, you have not explained how this edit you made can be reconcilled with your claim that you looked at Mile High Club and left it alone. You seem to be making these changes so fast and furious that you don't even remember your own edits.

You need to slow down, take a deep breath, and stop trying to remove everything that doesn't fit your definiton of perfection. Johntex\^talk 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

minor quibble A well reference and well cited article does not need to have a footnote at the end of every sentence. It doesn't take much editorial skill to string together verifiable information for an entire paragraph and need only a single footnote at the end of that paragraph.Agne 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • They are cited at the end of the paragraph in which they appear and an evaluation of the source indicates the citation is for the entire paragraph. I learned in College Writing 101 that this is the normative style for citations. You only change cites when the source changes. Or are you proposing that each sentence in Wikipedia have a repeating same-source citation? CyberAnth 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, I am saying that even featured articles are not perfect. And you still are ignoring my question about why you claimed to have not editted Mile High Club, when you most certainly did so. Johntex\^talk 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Look at my comment above again. I was still editing it. Sorry for the confusion of hitting save and not preview. CyberAnth 08:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, thank you for the explanation - but even removal of the content was too drastic. You should have simply flagged the article with one of the many templates we have for that purpose, such as {{tl:unsourced}} and {{tl:fact}}. Johntex\^talk 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Here is another Featured Article chosen at random: Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. I count nine whole paragrphs with no footnotes. Beyond those 9, there are additional paragraphs where the final sentence is not footnoted. Again, I have no question your motives are noble, but your actions are extreme and you need to stop. Johntex\^talk 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Your point about FAs is a straw man. None of my AfDs were over lack of "perfection" or lack of FA-quality, were they? CyberAnth 08:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • That WP would allow a featured article with {{citation needed}} is utterly pathetic. Again, has it never concerned you greatly that most high school teachers and nearly all college instructors and--mygod--many elementary schools (!) by written policy do not allow their students to use WP as a source? If not that, and if I may put it so bluntly, then what the fuck kind of game are we playing here? CyberAnth 08:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • We're writing an encyclopedia. I have commented on that straw man argument here. —bbatsell ¿? 09:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I will thank you to take a deep breath and watch your tone. There is no need for profanity here. There is no need for condescending remarks such as "...has it never concerned you..." We are all working to improve the encyclopedia. You need to avoid mistakening differences of opinions with differences of goals. Johntex\^talk 09:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I do not mean to offend with profanity or tone, only to make my point strongly. Let me put it another way: if we have all been trying to write an encyclopedia that has gained a reputation such that most high school teachers and nearly all college instructors and--mygod--many elementary schools (!) by written policy do not allow their students to use as a source, then what kind of product is it that we have actually been producing? CyberAnth 09:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as found by the journal Nature and by other third parties, we are approximately as accurate as the E.B. As Bbatsell pointed out already, we are a tertiary source and as a rule, teriary sources are really not the best sources to cite. Instead, one should use the tertiary source to get an overview and then use it to locate the better sources to cite.

I share your interest in improving the referencing of our articles, I assure you. I've probably added 50 or more sources to Wikipedia today. Some of the articles I'm working on, such as 2006 Texas Longhorn football team, have over 100 in-line references. In fact, I belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check which has the goal of multiple in-line sources for each factual statement in Wikipedia. We'll get there someday. You might consider joining.

Until we get there though, removing every unsourced statement is not the way to go. As I have demonstrated, even our featured articles would fall apart if held to that test. For you to apply such a standard to a set of articles is simply wrong.

It's not all your fault. The policy is badly worded. I haven't checked the history to see who or when, but someone took Jimbo's mailing-list comment far too seriously. We should nto be making policy based upon something Jimbo once said on the mailing list. People who are inclined to dwell on every word Jimbo has ever spoken would do well to remember another Jimbo quote:

...as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think."[176]

Johntex\^talk 09:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have now proposed new wording to make clear that adding sources and working towards a high standdard are important, but that wholesale deletion of content is not the answer. Please reveiw and comment. Johntex\^talk 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in a large-scale dispute, but I spend a lot of time on AFD, and the number of these pre-formed nominations caught my eye. A few links later, I found myself here. I can only conclude that there were good intentions behind this. I know that I'm frustrated with the limited citations some articles possess as well. But I have to agree with some of the commenters above me: This is not the way to do it.

I know linking to specific diffs is the norm here, but the general degredation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic spanking from discussion to accusations and arguments should be read in full. "If you have the book, place the page numbers and reference them to specific portions of the text. That way I can (and will) verify (or falsify) it." I don't know, maybe I'm wrong ... but I know that I would never try to work out differences on sourcing or establish consensus this way.

But, speaking of diffs, the gutting of articles is extreme, including even removal of disambiguation headers (presumably because they didn't have an inline citation?). See [177], [178], [179], and particularly [180] which gutted an article so severely as to remove any context whatsoever. Had the result been posted as a new article, I would probably have tagged it as suitable for speedy deletion.

I'm also somewhat disturbed by this exchange (and part of the one above it). Between that and these comments, I suspect this is a case of an editor attempting to enforce his vision of what Wikipedia "should be" (but isn't!) to satisfy some third-party concerns. Serpent's Choice 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see below for continuation of this general topic. Johntex\^talk 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet attempting to disrupt AfD

See contribs here [181]. No idea who any possible master is, but its rare that a new user would jump right into project maintenance and focus solely on AfD (yes I've read AGF, but that doesn't mean you have to be blind). Here he tries to list a vote count [182] and I point out that Afd is a discussion not a vote and that listing vote counts is not appropriate. In response he does it again [183]. Would appreciate some outside eyes.--Crossmr 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment pretty much says it all [184].--Crossmr 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "vote summaries" he's created and asked him to stop doing that. Other than that, I don't see anything much wrong here. Its possible for new accounts to dive right into AfDs. he may be a long time IP contributor who has just signed up for an account (this happens quite frequently). Unless there is more evidence of sockpuppetry I'd let this drop. Thanks, Gwernol 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate the input.--Crossmr 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a bunch more active in that AfD that are suspicious. I've noticed Brendan Alcorn (talk · contribs) and Alan Shatte (talk · contribs) look like long-lost twins. Paul D. Meehan (talk · contribs) is another possibility, although he !voted delete in that one. I see a heavy influx of Wikicode-savvy editors who only contribute to AfDs/DRVs. ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Wikicode-savvy editor who only really contributes to AfDs/DRVs. >.<

Anyway, while that is true, I'm not sure why it's a problem. Sockpuppetry isn't against the rules unless you're using it to make false illusions of support or the like. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what might be happening here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering their only contributions seem to be to a certain few AfDs, and all contributing to the same ones, I think that is an issue here. A quick look shows them all contributing to these AfDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildCafe (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PGNx Media (3rd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xbox_Handheld (3 of the 4)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Fight (3 of the 4)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chronicles of Spellborn (3 of the 4, for each of the last 3 brendan was the one who didn't contribute)

Also a couple of them happened to contribute to DRV on PGN on their first day here as well. thats a lot of coincidences--Crossmr 06:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 30, I think I have a candidate for puppetmaster. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail. I just made that same conclusion.--Crossmr 06:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. ~ trialsanderrors 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the more experienced one here. Should we bother with a RFCU or is this an "obvious" one?--Crossmr 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your feeling on this involved user Thinkjose (talk · contribs) seems our suspected master picked up where this person left off with matching edit dates in october.--Crossmr 06:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So what it appears we have here is:

1. Paul D. Meehan (talk · contribs)
2. Alan Shatte (talk · contribs)
3. Brendan Alcorn (talk · contribs)
4. Joel_Jimenez (talk · contribs)
5. Jessica_Anne_Stevens (talk · contribs)
6. Gisele_Hsieh (talk · contribs)
7. Brad Guzman (talk · contribs)
8. Thinkjose (talk · contribs)
9. Infomanager (talk · contribs) master. Not first, but most edits.

1-7 should be obvious. I'm establishing 8 based on the contrib history compared to infomanager's and the fact that its a single purpose account for the article that seems to be the focus of all this.--Crossmr 07:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to make the following notes: given the similarities in contribution, 1-7 seem like reasonable assumptions. However, I ask that my IP is checked so that I can be cleared of this. Second, only two of them contributed to the deletion review. The strength of the argument came from others. They also contributed to the other deletion reviews for Dec 30 to Jan 1. Third, yes they all contributed to my article's AfD but they all also contributed to every other gaming AfD. It would make the most sense to simply strike their votes and not point fingers. Infomanager 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

a check user isn't a get out of jail free card. It just means there is no conclusive proof its coming from the same computer. The instructions for beating it are right here on wikipedia. They all contributed to a variety of other AfDs, but all exhibited the same behaviour which you yourself have done, namely bluelinking your userpage immediately on account creation, and not all of them have participated in all the same AfDs, except for the pgnx one. They've all participated in that. As well thinkjose's contribution history seems to fit rather nicely around your own, he stops editing, you start, then you both happen to edit again in october, then nothing again until this whole deal with PGN flares up again, and he also commented on the drv, which makes 3.--Crossmr 07:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? All six of them may not share one AfD besides PGNx Media, but this is coincidence given that a number of them seem to have gone to everyone videogames AfD and voted, before moving on to the next one on the list! This looks really bad, I admit, but it isn't without explanation.

I would not have sacrificied what I have worked on for months-- especially when the results would be identical otherwise! Infomanager 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite serious. It wouldn't be the first time wikipedia has dealt with complex sock puppets or sock puppets used to try and influence an AfD or two. It also wouldn't be the first time someone tried to use their edit history to try and introduce doubt into it either. Name a strategy to cover it up and I'm sure you could find a hundred people here who've seen it. One thing with sockpuppets is there is always a master, and when it comes to AfDs, the master always has something to gain. Usually in removing or keeping a specific article. They've all focused on one article and given varying opinions on other articles, and there are two users who seem to be rather tied into that one article and who's edit histories seem to go rather nicely together. Where I come from thats far too coincidental.--Crossmr 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat 8: 5 contributed, all delete Black: 5 contributed, all delete Spellborn: 6 contributed, 5 delete, 1 keep Masamune: 3 contributed, all "keep or merge" xbox handheld: 5 contributed: 3 delete,2 keep anime fight: 4 contributed, 4 delete jumpstart: 4 contributed, all keep There is an obvious pattern here. But they contributed to ALL recent videogame deletions. Because two happened to also contribute to the deletion review is a mere coincidence. Infomanager 08:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The side articles are mostly immaterial here. Account creation time, general editing habits, and account creation habits (which mimic your own and thinkjose) combined with their one common attention show the true purpose of them. Most sock puppets who are made have some sort of weak attempt at masking their purpose by editing a few other articles, but become rather easy to spot when you find the motivation.--Crossmr 08:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not agree that they are immaterial. You have not accounted for the fact that some accounts were created before the deletion review ended and did not participate. You are not accounting for the fact that the sockpuppets voted one after the other in multiple AfDs. By saying, "I have motivation, now let me find the evidence" (you claim this when you say it is easy to spot once you have the motivation") you fall victim to Experimenter's bias. Infomanager 08:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to account for that. As I've stated before, its common for someone using sockpuppets to try and introduce inconsistencies in their edit history to throw people off. The point of using them is often to try and get away with it. And if someone were responsible for creating them they'd know exactly the points to try and raise to try and throw the heat off themselves. Step 1 - use a proxy server, then insist on an IP check the moment its questioned. Step 2 - introduce inconsistencies in the edit history then question them. We'll see what step 3 and 4 are. The problem is, regardless of the little inconsistencies in the side articles they participated in, they all have a common interest, and that draws the picture for us.--Crossmr 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You are suffering from Experimenter's bias. If an administrator can assume good faith, you can too. Please move on. Infomanager 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not. Nor have you said anything that would explain it otherwise. You claimed there was an explanation for it all yet I haven't seen it. Instead you gave a few of the comments they made on some side articles, but didn't explain why the PGNx article is the only article they all commented on, not the DRV, but the AfD. We already know that sockpuppet use has a purpose. Disruption of some process, whether its disruption through vandalism or attempts to coerce consensus to your "side" there is always a purpose. Since we know then that the sock puppets must have a purpose, what is the one purpose all the puppets were used for? You yourself admitted that 1-7 were quite obvious, so then what is the explanation? If its not to try and get the PGNx article kept, what is it? We know that vandalism obviously wasn't the purpose here. None of the puppets did that.--Crossmr 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I truly wish I knew the answers to your questions. This is my last comment to you. You are a persistent fellow. Good luck with getting the Guildcafe article deleted. Infomanager 09:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the discussions with {{AfdAnons}} for now. I'll see what else needs to be done tomorrow. I can think of a couple other potential beneficiaries, but the circumstantial evidence looks strong enough to bring this up here without straying outside WP:AGF. ~ trialsanderrors 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JumpStart (4 keep), Mortal Kombat: 8 and Second Objectives for Black (5 delete). These three however (as well as my PGNx article) were already all keeps or all deletes. Guildcafe article has significant back and forth not found in others. But again, because of the narrowness of their activity, I can't be sure which article(s) were the ones being targeted. Infomanager 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User adding original research

Can an admin please look into the conduct of 01001 (talk • contribs)? He has been edit-warring to introduce unsourced original research to the human height article (sample). A number of editors have attempted to explain to him why his edits to this and other articles are problematic, and he has been directed to the relevant policies on numerous occasions:

• User talk:01001
• Talk:Hair#It is pretty obvious that people have lost their hair because of clothes.
• Talk:Baldness#This article is full of crap
• Talk:Human height#Health & Height
• Talk:Human height#Physics section added

He has indicated that he has read the relevant policies (e.g., [185], [186]); however, the problem edits persist and he appears either unable to understand or unwilling to abide by WP:V and WP:RS. --Muchness 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If he continues, he should be blocked until he gets it. Chick Bowen 05:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people and on my talk page User talk:Wiki Raja

• I took this to User talk:Wiki Raja/ARYAN818, and there it stays. This is not the forum for lengthy discourse whihc belongs in dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we allowing a User with an unacceptable User name to edit? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Aryan is a common name meaning "noble". Just because a bunch of nutjobs hijacked the use of the word, doesnt make it "unacceptable". Unacceptable would be like "aryan nation" or "white power" or "black panther".Bakaman 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"818" is Nazi-speak for "Heil Adolf Hitler" (HAH). The combination of the two is not coincidental. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ThomasK and User:84.114.131.26

I know I committed a lot of vandalism. I apologize to all affected. I´m now redemped and going to fight vandalism. Please unblock the IP and the account. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.98.78.106 (talk)

There is a DO NOT UNBLOCK message associated with that IP. Viridae^Talk 09:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes because i did a lot of vandalism. I´m now on the opposite site. Please unblock.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.98.78.106 (talk)

The IP you're posting from now has been blocked twice in the last few weeks as well (including once on Tuesday). As such, consider this request denied. In any event, the unblock of an IP address involved in such extensive vandalism should, if anything, be taken to ArbCom via e-mailing the arbitration list. Ral315 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The WHOIS stating that the IP is in Germany but with contributions in English and to a random Missouri High School suggests an Open Proxy, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The complete whois does not list this IP as an open proxy. However, its from Germany, so you never know. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the message from Alkivar makes it pretty clear this is moot. Just as a FYI, the same message is being spammed around at other process pages, eg. WP:RFPP. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, you don't look like you have reformed much. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

user:CyberAnth at AfD

Probably nothing, but it's worth keeping an eye on... user:CyberAnth has, over the last day or so, been afdingg quite a large number of articles on sexual terminology, irrespective of whether they have sizable, well-written articles. In each case, the argument is WP:WINAD, which would bee all very well if his targets were more general or if the articles in question were all simply dictdefs - but neither is true. Quite a few of the votes have basically snowballed to keep, simply because the articles are clearly not what is being claimed. As I said, it's probably nothing, but - as I said in one of my afd comments - after the first dozen or so it becomes increasinggly difficult to assume good faith. Grutness...wha? 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Despite the use of apparently legitimate Wikipedia policies as reasons for deletion, information removal, etc the user clearly has an agenda related to deleting or sanitising Wikipedia articles related to sexual innuendo or terminology as can be seen here. This user's choice of going against the grain of opinion can probably be most clearly seen on the deletion nomination page for Wanker at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (2nd nomination) Jooler 11:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think it is serious - please see one section below. Johntex\^talk 11:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hm. I've also noticed a section three or four further up... Grutness...wha? 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• User:CyberAnth has been addressing these "well-written" articles on verifiability grounds, and as such xe has a point. However well written content is, if it is not verifiable it must go. It's a shame that so many other contributors have not made any effort to rebut the verifiability concerns with good sources, but have instead decided to turn the AFD discussions into discussions of the nominator, or have simply cut and pasted rationales with no attempt to address the article and the sources at hand whatsoever. That does not help AFD in the slightest (and I predict, given how often this pattern has occurred in the past, that those editors' failure to address verifiability concerns will result in the articles coming back to AFD again, weeks or months from now). If an editor raises a concern that an article, or even a succession of articles, is unverifiable from reliable sources, and goes to the effort of addressing each of the cited sources explaining individually why they are unreliable (as User:CyberAnth has done at length in several of the AFD discussions — example, example) it is those other editors making subsequent "speedy keep" cries whose behaviour should be censured.

  I also note that there are a lot of editors on this noticeboard that are not following our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive. That one editor has nominated a set of articles, all with related topics, for deletion with a single rationale, is hardly unusual at AFD. This regularly happens when an editor discovers an article that xe thinks should be deleted and proceeds to discover other related articles. None of the editors complaining about User:CyberAnth's nomination of several related articles have assumed similar bad faith on the part of the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Star Near Misses, for example, even though that is, similarly, a nomination with a single rationale of a group of articles from a single category. And this bad faith is being assumed on their part. Nowhere in this set of AFD discussions has User:CyberAnth given an actual bad faith rationale, such as a tit-for-tat rationale. Whether right or wrong, the rationales given are evidently good faith ones, attempting to hold Wikipedia to our policies.

  I am the only editor to have added any citations at all to Fingering (sexual act). I find it most disappointing that other editors address verifiability and source reliability concerns not by citing and evaluating sources but with edits such as this, this, and this. Praise where praise is due: There have been some editors, such as Fram (talk · contribs) who have attempted to address the actual issues of verifiability and reliability. But their positive and useful contributions to AFD have been almost drowned out by those whose quite useless contributions have been not to actually discuss the article or the sources at all. Uncle G 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've observed this as well. In the past he has attempted to remove article such as Wanker and Vanilla sex, and yesterday he created AfD's for a large number of additional items. While I think he did identify a couple of cases of poorly written, truly neologistic articles, he tends to cut-and-paste the same nomination statement across a large number of different AfDs. The user has already been told that WP is not censored, and has now been warned regarding WP:POINT. In the majority of cases, they are well-written and sourced articles for subjects that have almost obvious notability. This user should be counseled to invest more research in his nominations, and perhaps "practice" with the AfD's that are strongest before mass-nominating many items irregardless of their articles' current quality. Tarinth 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like good advice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Your comment is a prime example of the assumption of bad faith that I just pointed out. You state "The user has already been told that WP is not censored.". But nowhere in any of these discussions has User:CyberAnth actually said that it should be censored. Xyr nominations have been based upon verifiability from reliable sources, elimination of original research, the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the avoidance of neologisms. The assumption that this is an attempt to censor Wikipedia is an assumption of bad faith on your part. Please stop it. Uncle G 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not assuming bad faith, but the fact that he has focused on articles that fit into only one category is patent; considering that all of them are sexual slang, a concerted effort to remove them meets the dictionary definition of censorship. He has also blanked large sections of certain articles without prior discussion. There's no evidence to suggest that he's interested in improving WP in general. I am willing to agree that the user is in fact acting in good faith, and that their intent is to improve WP: but that nevertheless does not contradict that their actions have the effect of being censorial and potentially disruptive. Tarinth 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Tarinth, it is good editing to remove material from Wikipedia that cannot be supported by reliable sources (and some random webpage that mentions a slang term does not constitute a reliable source for an encyclopedia article). I suggest you focus your complaints on specific individual edits and discuss each one on its own merits. --JWSchmidt 16:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Many if not most Wikipedia articles lack references other than Wikilinked terms. Do people look at random articles? I just looked at 10 random articles and found the following with no references: La gazzetta, Baltimore County Executive, Otilio Ulate Blanco, AGM-28 Hound Dog. Should I follow CyberAnth's lead, that others have endorsed, and blank the content, or just AfD them and 500,000 similarly unreferenced articles? Editors should not be allowed to selectively apply a policy of Afd or blanking unreferenced content of articles whose subject matter they find distasteful. That would be like a traffic cop selectively giving speeding tickets to only those cars displaying bumper stickers they disagree with and letting the others pass. Selective enforcement of Wikipedia policy to only articles in one category is disruptive and harms the project. Edison 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Once again, editors are assuming that CyberAnth is finding this material distasteful and that is why he is nominating them for deletion--when he has stated nothing to that effect and instead have given solid policy reasons for his actions. Instead of countering his nominations and his application of those policies, we are seeing a continued strawman fallacy being proprogated and blatant assumption of bad faith. This is incredible. Agne 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • No assumptions made, no bad faith. He's stated it explicitly himself. — coelacan talk — 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • We are not required to check our brains and power of observation at the door. When a clear pattern is obvious, we are not compelled to ignore it. Edison 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • No, obvious is when a user states that they find such material distasteful or think that Wikipedia should be censor or something to that effect--nothing of which CyberAnth has proclaimed. OR synthesis, conjuncture, speculation and assumption is when you assume that motivation in the absence of the obvious. That is complete opposite of both the spirit and the letter of WP:AGF. The only "obvious" is CyberAnth's hardline stance on WP:V and citing sources. I respect Johntex's approach engage CyberAnth on those grounds and the differing views of those policies. I am appalled when bad faith assumptions are putting words and motivations into an editor's mouth. Agne 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Some editors get very agitated while trying to defend short Wikipedia articles about non-notable topics.....articles for which editors struggle to find verifiable and reliable sources. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. Either improve these short articles, merge what little useful content there is into meaningful larger articles, or expect that there will be honest attempts to delete them.--JWSchmidt 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                • One point to mention is that it seems there's a mass, indiscriminate nomination of articles, almost as if just hoping that some will stick. The nominations are word-for-word the same, regardless of whether they're appropriate to the specific article. An extreme example is the citation of WP:NEO in the AFD nomination for quim. The article specifically cites The Canterbury Tales. Would a thoughtful, discriminate nomination label a 14th-century term as a neologism? Fan-1967 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Please cite source to support the idea that it is a 14th-century term. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block requested

CyberAnth (talk · contribs) seems to be on a crusade to eliminate every-single uncited sentence from Wikipedia, along with every singe article (apparently including stubs and disambigution pages). I have no doubt that this began as a well-meaning effort. Who among us would not like to see Wikipeida improved through better sourcing?

However, we have to be reasonable. All stubs are not sourced. Even featured articles contain unsourced statements.

Rrequests for CyberAnth to slow down a bit have been made in the above thread heare at WP:ANI and on the user's talk page have yeilded no result. The user is continuing to propose articles for deletion that have little hope of succeeding. This is just clogging up AfD and wasting the time of good editors, CyberAnth included.

Furthermore, CyberAnth is becoming increasingly belligerent and is making wild accusations. As someone who has been involved in the debte, I am posting here with a request that an uninvolved admin issue a short block to encourage this user to slow down. CyberAnth needs to change this pattern of behavior rather than steaming ahead on a well-meaning yet ultimately harmful mission. Johntex\^talk 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but he's posting the AfDs in alphabetical order. He's clearly using a list on WIkipedia of some kind. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• With some reluctance, because I'm always reticent to support this sort of thing when I think the editor may be well-intentioned but misguided, I'm going to have to second this request. In the time since the efforts at communication listed above by Johntex occured, CyberAnth's contribution history is filled with things like this. This helps no one. Shortly before this block request hit AN/I, I'd posted my own summary of his other recent efforts above. Had I done so moments later, it would have been here instead. Serpent's Choice 11:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The user appears to have stopped. Given this, any block would be punitive, not preventative, and this is not "allowed" per WP:BLOCK. On a side-note, and this is pure speculation, I presume this is a little WP:POINT-driven (although I'm sure CyberAnth was trying to improve the encyclopaedia by nominating them, however misguided or otherwise the nominations prove to be per the concensus), and I suspect further that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (2nd nomination), User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability of claims, and the failure thereof, may have something to do with this little period of AfD-nominating. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(lowered the indent jump a bit to make responding more legible) Based on the edit summary for this edit, it seems likely the editor called it a night. I suppose we'll learn tomorrow if the trend continues. Serpent's Choice 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I note that since this was posted, the editor has put forward Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juicy girl, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rice queen, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bean_queen. Clearly the behavior has not stopped. Atom 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I support a continual effort at adding refences and sources to articles, I find this effort to be disruptive, rather than collaborative or consensus driven. See related (lengthy) discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_articles_blanked.2C_or_large_portion_of_article_content_removed. I think the editor, previously a fine contributor to Wikipedia, has gone overboard on a crusade to remove a set of terms that s/he finds unsavory or objectionable, largely sexuality related articles. If an effort, on an article by article basis had been made on many to gain consensus with the editors focusing on those articles to improve their quality, add better references and gain gain consensus with article contributors that would have been better. A wholesale listing of 40 or 50 articles for deletion, or removal of large chunks of an article without prior discussion, all within a few hours period is intended as an attack to make a point. There is a lengthy discussion by this editor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erotic_spanking (see referencing padding) that suggests one of the editors motivations. The editor is self-described as "a devoted Christian", a "bibliophile", and as such may view that sexual content of the type recommended by these many AfD's and article blanking would be a positive thing, and that others may feel similarly, not realizing that that view would not be a majority view by most editors. I believe that the editor is well intended, but there is a line between bold and aggressive editing, and intentional disruptive behavior to make a point. Despite the editors previous fine work, that line was clearly crossed here. Atom 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose any block of CyberAnth at this time. I wonder what we have come to when applying existing policy in an attmept to improve Wikipedia becomes grounds for blocking. Unsourced information is being added to Wikipedia faster that it can be tagged with {{unsourced}} or {{fact}}, let alone sourced or removed. As Jimbo said, we need to be more agressive about either sourcing or removing unsourced information. The burden of sourcing information still lies with anyone who wants to keep the information in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Donald. This is a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, any problems can be solved by rational discourse. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, it is an ideologically-driven bowdlerizing purge, as CyberAnth has indicated himself. — coelacan talk — 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the application of policy that is the issue. The attempt to disrupt articles without prior attempts with editors in those articles is the problem. Correct application of policy, as a tool to make a point and disrupt others is the issue. No one objects to a policeman doing their job. Many people object to policemen using excessive force. This wasn't bold action, it was excessively forceful action. Asked to stop, and participating in numerous exchanges here, and on the editors talk page don't appear to have been effective at communicating that lots of peoples toes are being stepped on. (so far discourse has not solved the problem.) Atom 13:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is an attempt to disrupt, and I am not convinced that it is disruptive. People may reasonably disagree about what CyberAnth wants to do, but I think it's clear that he is working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. If there is no consensus to delete, the pages will be kept. If other editors think the content is notable and the sourcing is adequete, it will be restored. Either way, this is an editorial dispute. Blocking would not be appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is disruptive. This kind of edit by CyberAnth without any prior discusion look like disruption bordering on vandalism to me indeed this edit was automatically reverted by the anti-Vandal bot. Thse are just two of dozens of other similar edits. Jooler 15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have forgotten something. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No JzG, I'm sorry but it is you who has forgotten something here. Assume good faith has limits, and it does not mean we should "have blind faith". We began with a good faith assumption and attempted dialog. That has not worked. The editor is unrepentent. Even the blocking request here takes pain to point out that the editor is probably well-intentioned, but they have lost their way. A block is needed to point out to them that this type of extremeist behavior, in violation of WP:POINT, will not be tolerated. Johntex\^talk 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletion is disruptive and hurtful to Wikipedia. This is extremeism. Too much of almost anything is a bad thing. CyberAnth needs to source more and delete less. Sourcing takes time. We build the encyclopedia by volunteers adding what they can when they can as best they can and no one elected CyberAnth to establish deadlines for when things are to be sourced or deleted. CyberAnth should be required to add as much material as he deletes. Balance is good. Extremeism is bad. WAS 4.250 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If he is edit warring, we have a mechanism to deal with that. The pages he has proposed for deletion will be discussed, and kept unless there is a consensus to delete. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cyberanth has also removed at least one person's opinion from one of the AfD's, apparently on the grounds that Cyberanth misformed the AfD in his/her haste to put so many of them up at once. Inexcusable. Johntex\^talk 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where will the line be drawn? Removing unsourced information is not a difficult task. One user could easily clear out 500 articles per day. Is the line drawn at 1000 "blanked" articles? 10000? Can we let a small group of users take the problem of WP:V into their own hands? Systematic removal of content is not a good idea. The lack of communication between CyberAnth and the editors of the articles he has been blanking is strong evidence that good faith cannot be assumed. --- RockMFR 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is exhibiting bad faith here, Johntex?

Or at least incompetence or - lets provide a gracious option - making big mistakes? You appear to be merely retaliating, and are twisting the facts - because you do not like that I am actually attempting to follow policies.

Let's take a look at your vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Juicy_girl.

There, my nom was for "Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO."

Here is your "vote":

Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my reply to you, which you called "wild accusations":

Comment - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and are held to a higher standard.

He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one:

• Bar Girl Love (also see its root URL at [187]) - violates Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The site is a "community portal", primarily an Internet Forum. The article is an anonymously written "reader submission" (see here) and cannot be used per WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet.

• description of a bar girl - an Internet Forum per WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet "should not be used as sources" and fails [Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources] because posts on Forums are clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"!

• "Asia's sex trade is 'slavery'" - a BBC article that nowhere mentions the term "Juicy girl". Using it in the article is thus Synthesis. However, the article would be a great source in Trafficking in human beings.

• South Korea Pages by ClarkRB - A bulletin board post that clearly falls under WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet that "should not be used as sources" and blatantly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Carefully go over the links above. Carefully look at the policies.

Now let's look again at your vote:

Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So here we have you voting "Keep" for a page - in clear, blatant violation of one of Wikipedia's foundational values, WP:V. The nomination was in error because of the links, so keep? Who is dreadfully in error here?

I too wonder what we have come to when applying existing policy in an attempt to improve Wikipedia becomes grounds for blocking.

CyberAnth 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, you are the one attempting to twist facts, or else you are as misguided about this as you are about your attempts to delete content from Wikipedia.

I stand behind my comment above that the article had multiple sources at the time you nominated it. If you didn't like those sources, you should have worked on them or discussed them rather than nominating for deletion everything that doesn't fit your tastes.

When I said you were "making making wild accusations", I was correct in so saying. You act as though I didn't explain what consitituted wild accusations. I provided a link. I hid nothing. You were making a wild accusation that my "edits may have been in bad faith...apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies". Yes, those are wild accusations you made. Yes, you are being incivil.

Also, you are misrepresenting my comment by adding in your own formatting. If you are going to quote me, please either quote me with my emphasis or acknowledge that the empahsis is yours. You are violating WP:POINT by exhibiting such extreme behavior. I'm not the only one who has said so.

I stand behind my comment above that the article had multiple sources at the time you nominated it. That is a simple fact, which you do not dispute. If you don't dispute the fact, then don't complain about me stating it as fact on AfD. If you didn't like those sources, you should have worked on them or discussed them rather than nominating for deletion everything that doesn't fit your tastes.

Furthermore, you continue today to be unrepententant and argumentative with other editors. Edison asked you very reasonably to either not delete his AfD comment or to at least have the courtesy to notify him on his talk page.

You need to settle down and play more nicely with others. Your disruption of wikipedia in violation of WP:POINT and your repeated violations of WP:Civil are more than grounds for blocking. Johntex\^talk 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Support blocking. CyberAnth hasn't apparently done any of the recommended prior tagging on any of these articles prior to AFDing them. As AFD's instructions rather clearly and forcefully recommend that you do so, this spree is in violation of AFD policy. Rampant deletionism in violation of AFD policy IS bad for the project. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the AfD instructions, the deletion policy likewise places verifiability issues in the category of problem articles where deletion may not be needed and prescribes steps to take before proposing deletion for articles that are truly unverifiable, not just unverified. Process is important to strike a balance between damaging the project by having unreferenced articles and damaging the project by mass-nominating such articles for deletion. --Ssbohio 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• No need to assume good faith after this, in which CyberAnth lays out his ideological motivations. — coelacan talk — 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

When there are literally a dozen AfDs submitted in a row from a user, and all dealing with the same topic (sexuality), it raises eyebrows. See here. Combined with the above statement, and various uncivil comments in AfD - Erotic Spanking it seems clear that CyberAnth is not acting in good faith, but attempting to enforce an idealogical agenda through abuse of Wikipedia policy. -- Kesh 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can we refocus the converstation to talk about the line between when an article should be tagged as needing cites, and when it should be tagged for deletion. As practical consideration, it is much easier to tag something as needing citations. Consider all the effort by all the people arguing about deleting these articles, consider all the discussion here. If you simply tag something there is usually no argument, and hopefully it will lead to citations being added. So when should an article be tagged for deletion? When it seems blatantly obvious that there is no chance of a good article existing. Anything short of that and you are wasting everyone's time. -- Samuel Wantman 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the situation will not get any worse in the coming time, as CyberAnth has said to leave AfD for a while: [188]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we drop discussion, as the request has failed, de-facto, as no admin has issued a 24-hour block (or any other block), and although opinion weighs heavily towards a block, no consensus was reached. As indicated above, the editor is no longer pursuing massive AfD's and removal of non-cited material en-masse. Atom 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with Atom. Let's let it rest for now and see what CyberAnth choses to do in the future. In the meantime, I call everyone's attention (for a second time) to a proposed wording change to WP:V that might help encourage people to improve first and delete as a secondary option. Looking forward to feedback, Johntex\^talk 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. I hope CyberAnth takes this to heart in the future, and I'm willing to AGF on his contributions in the future. -- Kesh

Angry Bahraini/Iraqi dinar vandal

He's back again, this time from 89.148.40.211 and he's vandalizing the same articles. He hasn't started following me around and reverting me yet (or Ashmoo). Could we have another block, please? We'll see if that does it. The last spate of abuse came from many different IPs and we had to semi-protect a number of articles to stop it. Zora 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrebiobot - bot?

This account was just created and started uploading images (probably promotional ones) - Special:Contributions/Eyrebiobot. Name suggest it's a bot, so I blocked indef and directed the user to WP:BRFA. Any second opinions? Миша13 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be blocked for WP:U, anyways. However, on the point about being a bot, I don't think so - two mins between uploads[189], no "bot-like" repetition (ie. if they were all tagging with the exact same image upload description etc. it would be more likely) - on that note, the two images should be speedied as no image description, let alone a FU rationale, is included - although the account hasn't done anything except upload images since it was registered (contribs). Not much to go on, but it's hard to piece together that it is a bot, but then again it's hard to prove it isn't. By the way, the user requested {{unblock-auto}}... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that this account is uploading the same images strikes me as bizarre... I still don't know, given the images are slightly different (171/158kb). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Images were obvious spam. Gone now. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Block request

Raphael1 (talk · contribs) has been warned against readding Category:Anti-Islam Sentiment to Ann Coulter. He's once again reverted the page against consensus. Could someone please BLP3 him? Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you change WP:NOT? Is Wikipedia a democracy or do arguments count? There have been no arguments voiced other than it could be regarded as defamatory.Raphael1 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLP, Raphael? – Chacor 16:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have and there are plenty of references, which confirm my addition. Raphael1 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned by a neutral party about this already Raphael. I could have placed this request yesterday, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you continue to try to weasel yourself an excuse for ignoring the BLP warning.... Kyaa the Catlord 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have not ignored the BLP warning. Instead I've provided Will with references two days ago[190] but haven't heard from him since then. Raphael1 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard, not a boxing ring, we have noticed you. No need to argue here, keep it on the talk page. Someone will look into it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article cites numerous references. There is a whole section on the subject at wikiquote:Ann_Coulter#Islam. The 'Council on American-Islamic Relations' calls her 'islamophobic' and 'bigoted'. If Coulter doesn't qualify for inclusion in an 'Anti <whatever> sentiment' category then nobody does. Either move to get them all deleted (good luck) or give up the ghost. --CBD 17:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article cites numerous references, but wikipedia itself does not meet WP:RS nor does pinning this category on a living person meet BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

La la la. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to go through Mediation to correct the mistakes that are so bloody blatantly obvious. Kyaa the Catlord 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the citations from outside wikipedia? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ALL of the citations are from outside Wikipedia. The Washington Post, Chicago Sun Times, Editor and Publisher, CAIR, her own columns, et cetera. They are shown in Wikipedia, but they don't originate here. --CBD 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Drawing a conclusion is OR. Labelling someone in a defamatory manner is against BLP. These are hard and fast rules, why the debate? Kyaa the Catlord 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

By that logic Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (and 'Anti-semitism', and all the others) simply should not exist. Yet they do... because such 'labels' ARE allowed when they are properly sourced. As in this case. --CBD 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have left a note on Raphael1's Talk. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration notice — This isn't the first time Raphael1 has been disruptive. According to the decisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1, "Raphael1 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility." and "Raphael1 is placed on general Probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Wikipedia for an appropriate period of time." I think he can easily be banned from these pages he's being disruptive over; if any three of you guys decide it warrants a block under the probation clause, that can happen too. --Cyde Weys 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna have to disagree here. Guy, you said on Raphael1's page that WP:BLP requires consensus to include any negative comment about a person. That isn't my reading of the policy at all. Indeed, the word 'consensus' does not even APPEAR in the text of the policy. Our 'living persons' policy requires that negative comments be properly sourced. We DO have general policies against edit warring without consensus, but they'd apply to both 'sides' here and have nothing to do with BLP. So far as I can see... addition of the category IS properly sourced here. --CBD 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Per BLP, the subject of the article needs to pretty much state word for word that she is anti-islamic. She has not done so. So labelling her in this manner is subjective, POV and draws a conclusion based on her statements, which equals Original Research. BLP has a higher standard. Kyaa the Catlord 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, everyone else in the talk page has pretty much stated "we'd rather that category deleted than have it applied to this article". How much consensus do you need? Kyaa the Catlord 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the same amount of concensus which would be needed for Category:Terrorists. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not include trolls and POV pushers. Disputed content should be reviewed by other editors and consensus reached. Cited content of unambiguous significance stated in neutral terms is unlikely to fail to gain consensus, I'd have thought. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Things being accepted just because they are cited, significant, and neutrally worded... you funny man. :] [191] --CBD 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

209.244.43.209

I unblocked 209.244.43.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as per this conversation. The Showster (talk · contribs) was caught behind the autoblock on this one. This stems from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bowser Koopa. However, I want to get input on this. I'm curious if I should reblock the IP address with the indefinite expiration time but make it for anonymous only (and disable account creation). Would this be more appropriate? Or should it just be the outright unblock? Thanks, Metros232 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon user

Just see this anon user:

LOL, haha, you fuckin loser Wobbs, yeah maybe I am Epf......NOT. Although he shares some views with me on race, hes some dumb Italian-British mut from Canada that actually annoys me. I have used other accounts on here, but with other anon. accounts, not as a registered user (which is allowed by Wikipedia since IP #'s change all the time). Hahaha, Wobbs, you are a fool, especially with how you place so much emphasis on those books recently released by Sykes, etc. which are a minority opinion in the world of population geneticists and other researchers. For your information, Racial Reality isn't a "neo-nazi" site you anarchist loser with no hope because your life is meaningless and you don't know ANYTHING on what you read about with these issues. RR is a neutral point of view that seeks to refute neo-nazi, white supremacists, multi-racial, race-denier, assimilationist, biased opinions that influence works including the authors of those books you mentioned. Stick to being a pathetic lab assistant and get a life you fuckin tool and stop vandalizing pages and makin edits to suit your twisted opinons you fool. Hahaha, wow, do u accuse 'sock pupety" of everyone who gets under you skin you douchebag ??? 69.157.107.88 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You can see him at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wobble#Anon_user_conduct

What shall we do about him? Veritas et Severitas 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Subsequernt edits seem less problematic and responded to warning [192]. I say we watch and wait. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he reposted an even nastier version of the above again on Wobble's talk page ([193]), so I blocked him for 24 hours for abusive behavior, personal attacks, and disruption. Antandrus (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Eoganan repeated the latest set of personal attacks on my talk page and User:Wobble's and as a result has been indefinitely blocked. As I mentioned in my block notice to him, IP addresses used by the editor to evade this block and make further personal attacks should be blocked without notice. Gwernol 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He's now being asked to be unblocked [194] on the basis that if we don't he'll go on an IP rampage and disrupt Wikipedia. I'll leave it to another admin to respond to that... Gwernol 22:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done so. Jkelly 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, enjoy this. I wonder how he thinks he'll upload a virus onto the Wikipedia servers? Gwernol 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia allows ignorant and nihilist opinions on its articles which are insulting and detrimental to many people, so I will take down the whole thing. Numerous new IP's and user accounts will be vandalized many articles as possible and I plan to insert my newest virus into the system by "next week".....Also, User:Wobble, User:Epf, User:Gwenrol and others will be located and assaulted."posted by 69.157.116.202 (talk · contribs)

Certainly there should be a block on sight policy for IP that vandalise the three named users. David D. (Talk) 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nardelli, User:Enriquecardova and more

I am suspecting that Enriquecardova (talk · contribs) has recently made edits using these accounts: Nardelli (talk · contribs), Micardis (talk · contribs), Zaynata (talk · contribs), Wickwick (talk · contribs). I am not sure if the number of edits qualify for CheckUser yet, but the nature of the edits are very much the same as those of Enriquecardova. User:Nardelli's first edit is this immediate talk page message [195] on the Egyptians article and his third is this massive deletion of the entire history section [196]. I am going to revert this edit but if these are sock accounts, I'm anticipating a lot of edit warring because Enriquecardova has a history of such behavior on Controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians (see his talk page history as well). He also edited Egyptians using an IP and I asked him on his talk page not to do that (he said he wasn't logged in). We actually appear to have reached consensus on a different issue [197]. I'd like to assume good faith, but given the history of disruption I'm highly suspicious. I'd appreciate some community input. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As expected, he began engaging in disruptive editing [198], [199]. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Shared Account

A groups of students is using a shared account to implement strategies developed off-wiki for intervening in a dispute about the New Way Forward article. [200]. Editors of several popular blogs are aware for the situation, and are watching to see if a new precedent is set. As of late 2005, shared accounts were considered harmful, and have until now have been routinely blocked. So far, no edits have come from the account, but their stated intent is explicit. Umpteenages 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm done as of this time. Newcomers are welcome, and we do not prohibit anonymous editting. Is there something specific you are requesting? Johntex\^talk 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I left a note (hey, it's a wiki!) about shared accounts. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• I noticed they have posted the name of the account and the password, but I was not able to log into it. Perhaps they haven't finished the E-mail authorization. Should we block an account before it is created? I suggested that they redo the password as soon as they go into the account, and suggested abandoning it. -- Samuel Wantman

flaw in anti-vandalism bot

I've already deleted twice an article I wrote. The bot has already undeleted it once. It's obvious that the bot can't tell when an author deletes his own work. The article is Analisis de imagenes=Imagery analysis. I made the mistake of writing the article in the wrong version of wikipedia, and have already started the process of translating and introducing the article into the spanish edition.Radical man 7 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not a flaw. It's quite deliberate. You did not delete the article, you just blanked it, which leaves an empty shell. We do not want empty, blank articles left lying around. The proper method for what you want to do is add a tag at the top of the article that says {{db-author}}. This is the code for "Author requests deletion" so an admin can actually delete the article properly. Fan-1967 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Just a quick comment - this sort of thing would be far less frequent if the current definition of G7 on WP:CSD were brought up to date. As it stands, it implies that an author only has to blank a page to request deletion. I feel that this needs to be changed to make it clear that authors must use {{db-author}} to get an article G7'd. Tevildo 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not always the way it is used though. Fairly reguarly an author blanks and someone else comes along and adds the speedy notice. Viridae^Talk 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot reverted an Article that I feel was a legit edit. Lenzar 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. It might be better to discuss that further on that article's Talk page, but I suspect a "See also" directed to Indoor Soccer would be more appropriate than removing a large section of this article. I see you've already created a seperate article for Indoor American Football (note improper capitalization) as well. I would suggest putting a {{db-author}} tag on that article for now, and discuss the changes on the Talk page first. -- Kesh 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some new linkspam sites

There's a medium-sized linkspam effort against Wikipedia underway from "gocurrency.com", "fxwords.com" , and "forextradingllc.com" (the parent organization of these.)

• fxwords.com Wikipedia references(48 links)
• GoCurrency.com Wikipedia references (5 links)

These sites have no real content; they exist to draw Google and Yahoo pay per click traffic. GoCurrency sales pitch: "Advertise with us! One of the fastest growing websites in its category, GoCurrency traffic has increased by twelve times the amount from May through October of 2006. Get on board to reach a unique global audience of 690,000 unique users with 2 Million page views per month!" http://www.gocurrency.com/advertise-with-us.htm Fxwords is a glossary of financial terms, which gives them an excuse to link from Wikipedia for many of the words in their vocabulary.

Some editors are cleaning out the links, per a discussion in Village Pump, but a link block might be in order. --John Nagle 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest a trip to m:Talk:Spam blacklist to request blacklisting. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Trip successful. Please don't give direct links to spammer sites, because every page with them becomes uneditable after blacklisting. I had to unlink 'em in your post, John. MaxSem 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed all of the linkspam and banned the account responsible. --Cyde Weys 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert vandal back

Admin SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · logs) removed protection on Universal Image Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) two days ago and apparently Uifan (talk · contribs · logs) has just noticed with his various IP edits. Admin FayssalF (talk · contribs · logs) has been involved in the past also and agreed that this was obnoxious vandalism. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

VoABot II malfunctioning

VoABot II keeps reverting The Neptunes to a vandalized state.--Jonpro 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be an isolated incident, as far as I can tell. I've reverted the page. Chick Bowen 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)