Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Giovanni33 part 2

Please leave this thread open for a while so people can discuss their concerns, and please be respectful toward the banned user. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See prior ANI thread

Some of us are very uneasy about Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) getting banned indefinitely based on a very short discussion, and when he's already been banned by arbcom for a year. It certainly wasn't a decision that the community came to. To avoid another edit war on Wikipedia:List of banned users I'm asking that this be discussed without premature archiving. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick clarification: the disputed community ban preceded the ArbCom ban (the community ban occurred while ArbCom was voting on its ban). Ned's account unintentionally implies the opposite. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error? If the positive CU results presented in the ban thread were available before the ArbCom case, there probably wouldn't have been any need for the case at all. (Also note the various legal threats on his pre-blanked talk page.) Since he's hard-banned by ArbCom for a year anyway, the only practical effect of the community ban is that we must agree to him being unbanned after that point in time. Sounds like a reasonable precaution to me. - Merzbow (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this now? It's not even an issue for another year. Let a year pass and G33 can appeal to be reinstated. The flames will have died down and the uneasiness will be put in perspective. But discussing now will only create more drama with the onl youtcome beign that Giovanni33 is banned for at least a year. Close this down and move on. Ignoring this now as there is no resolution that changes the status quo. Stop the drama. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"...nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error?" Yes, those who don't trust this ArbCom on sockpuppetry, for excellent reasons. --User:Relata refero 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, considering my comments elsewhere, that I should be counted as one of those uneasy regarding the indefinite ban. Indeed, I am concerned. But, at the same time, I find myself in agreement with DHeyward: waiting a while (perhaps not a full year, or perhaps a full year as DH suggests) before revisiting this particular issue seems like an acceptable plan. --Iamunknown 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To DHeyward, the reason I bring this up is because we should not take "community banned" lightly, regardless of the situation. I could easily see this as working against Giovanni when a year is up, and he asks for his ban to be reviewed. There are a lot of admins that will blindly support a ban without looking into the matter, seeing that it was listed as a "community ban" and trusting that it really was. This is a calm and rationale discussion, demanding that it be closed and saying things like "stop the drama" is exactly what creates the drama in the first place.

In general: Arbcom went with a one year ban, not an indef. Their decision is not an endorsement of the indef ban in any way. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Committee 1 year ban is a standard remedy. Even if an administrator is willing to unblock (god help us all), this will not change the fact he will remain blocked as part of the ArbCom remedy. It's futile and tendentious (and some might suggest it's trollish) to insist a ban be reviewed when an overwhelming number here continue to say "We are not willing to unblock. We will reconsider after sometime, whether it's before or after the Committee year-long ban is up, but not now." Take note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For about the 20th time, in the 30th place, an admin being willing to unblock, only invalidates an undiscussed community ban that exists when NO admin is willing to unblock. However if the ban has had community discussion the willingness of a single admin to unblock, will not overturn the ban. That requires more community discussion. The first is an effective community ban, it exists when an indef blocked user cannot find someone willing to unblock them. The second one is an actual community ban - a ban in effect after community discussion. (Ncmvocalist this is not specifically aimed at you, more at everyone who perpetuates that myth) Viridae^Talk 11:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. To clarify: I was making a massive assumption that after discussion, the community agreed for the 'willing' admin to handle it (even if it meant that the community-ban was overturned). Essentially, my point was that even with that assumption, the Committee ban isn't going to move, so those jumping up and down for review of this ban should go worry about that first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you maybe clarify the wording of WP:BAN? If the discussion end changes the situation so much, there should also be a stated minimum length of time to discuss to help prevent gaming the system (like we have on RFA and other processes). Jehochman ^Talk 11:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a reason the arbitration committee only does blocks/bans for a year - it trusts the committee in a year's time to get a review right. The community is more fickle and changeable, so it does indefinite bans because that both allows more and less flexibility (early unblocking and ignoring the matter forever). I said at the time that there was no need to have a community ban discussion, and that ArbCom had matters well in hand. Leave it as a year-long block and trust the committee in a year's time to handle the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any uninvolved admin willing to unblock Giovanni33 AND the ban will be in place after the discussion. Can we endorse and close this ? --DHeyward (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this discussion is kind of pointless. If, in a year's time, there is a good reason to unblock Giovanni33, we can do so then. Nothing we decide now will bind us anyway. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban and discussion closing. Ned Scott makes a lot of sense. I'm also very uncomfortable about the rush to close either of these discussions. This discussion is not pointless nor is it drama, as process never is. And since Giovanni is ArbCom banned for a year (without auto renewing), why even bother with a community ban. The ban discussion earlier was extremely short and occurred during a extended national holiday in the USA which clearly reduced participation well below the level that could be considered necessary for a community ban. This discussion should stay open for a significant time period, like the five days we normally give AfDs or seven days for RfAs. — Becksguy (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I really think this is much to-do over nothing. "Indef" does not mean "permanent." Given the ArbCom decision, this will be reviewed in 1 year anyway. If the ArbCom decides there is no need to reniew their ban, then the community can discuss the community ban as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be willing to say G33 is innocent with a straight face after looking at the mounds of evidence to the contrary, and especially since he's been making noises about legal action all through the arbcom case and even after it on his talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• He certainly should have an indef ban while he threatens legal action. --DHeyward (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He said his lawyer would consul and facilitate and he specifically disclaimed intent to litigate at this time. That's not a legal threat (ie - do X or I'll sue you) per WP:LEGAL, so that fails as a reason to community ban per se. As to innocence, I am not taking a position on the merits of the charges, since I haven't gone through all the evidence and discussions, although there has been a concern expressed about the validity of the sockpuppet charges. This discussion thread, and the earlier one, is about process, and the first discussion here was out of process, both prima facie, and as supported by the significant concerns expressed here and elsewhere. So no, do not endorse, as this ban does nothing but inappropriately trample on Giovanni's pride and dignity, per WP:BAN. It's dehumanizing and it lessens Wikipedia to beat him up with a community ban while already banned by ArbCom. We don't rub salt into wounds. — Becksguy (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Ned, this tries my faith in the community and it's ability to function in anything approaching a just manner when an ongoing, months long ArbCom case can simply be ripped out of the hands of the Arbitrators and decided by by the votes of a dozen unelected, unaccountable editors in just a few hours of discussion, especially when timed on a holiday to ensure the least possible number of editors would be around to complain. A community that behaves this way is hardly one I want to be a part of. Why do we even elect Arbs? Is it all for show? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was open for almost 18 hours; I'm sure you remember it was re-opened. Consensus to ban was overwhelming, which was why it was SNOW closed by two different admins. And this new thread has generated almost no interest by anyone to revisit the issue. Come to "Allegations..." and enjoy the newfound peace and quiet we have there. - Merzbow (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're just an unpaid volunteer, it's hard to justify spending time on someone that is deserving of some kind of block/ban, one way or another. A lack of interest isn't an indication of anything significant, because that in itself isn't an endorsement of the action taken. If you would care to actually respond to any of the points Kendrick7 made, or any of the other users who have stated valid objections, please do so. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to discuss something with someone who ignores all evidence that doesn't support their viewpoint. Jtrainor (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that directed at me? Because I personally think the guy had it coming. I just don't agree with the assessment that this is a community ban, and that an indef ban is appropriate when Arbcom has already given him a year ban. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that lynching guilty people is OK, then you and I will never agree on anything. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Characterizing the arbcom and community ban process as a lynching is a shocking violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL on your part, and further supports my argument. Jtrainor (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow says "Consensus to ban was overwhelming", yet at least six of the users (Ice Cold Beer, Jtrainor, John Smith, Merzbow, Sceptre, The Evil Spartan) voting to community ban were editorial and/or ideological adversaries of Giovanni. According to Red Pen, ignoring the six adversarial editors leaves 5 endorsing, and 3 opposing. Calling that an overwhelming consensus has got to be one of the most absurd and outlandish claims yet. — Becksguy (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The original thread was the discussion on whether to apply the community banning, and had at least 15 votes to do so, and was closed twice as SNOW, so you are greatly misrepresenting the situation. This thread is about whether to overturn that decision, and there are no new editors here in support of that, so sorry. And as long as we're putting people in ideological bins, I distinctly recall your name editing or advocating for G33's PoV on "Allegations...", as have most of the small minority against the banning. But thanks anyway for the attempt to turn this into a political WP:BATTLEGROUND. - Merzbow (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread is not about overturning a decision, it's about finding out if the current ban is actually supported by the community. Not by a small click that was closely involved in the dispute, but by the community. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ned for reopening this. Several comments:

• He is correct, this is a continuation of the earlier thread, not a new discussion on overturning the ban.
• I have no intention of turning this into a battleground, and I don't think others do either. As an indication of that, I'm striking a strong sentence in my comment above. Also no interest in rehashing the discussion arguments in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.
• One of my concerns is that this community ban discussion seems like a rush to judgment. If Giovanni did all that he is charged with, then he deserves to be banned. ArbCom banned him for one year (and this is not the place to discuss that), but why do some people here feel the need to kick him while down by community banning him also. And with very little initial discussion (originally less than five hours).
• Another concern is that six editors that voted to ban had adversarial relationships with Giovanni, and therefore their voting might be perceived as a lack of impartially. For the process to work and be accepted by the community as fair and transparent, it needs to be free from the perception of systemic and/or personal bias. Which is why we require that uninvolved administrators close deletion discussions, for example. Anyone looking at the terrorism article debates and edit wars will agree that there was extreme rancor between the parties. This is not a cry in the wilderness, six editors have expressed concerns about the impartially of this discussion.
• This discussion is about process and community involvement, and without the acceptance that process works, we have no Wikipedia, as that is the glue the holds this massive project together.

— Becksguy (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Becks, I am not sure that you have taken on board Jehochman's earlier comments. I am re-posting them because they are very informative. John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not vote on the fate of people. A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. No administrator has objected. Therefore, Giovanni33 is community banned, until an administrator objects. Even then, Giovanni will remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Becks, I had an adversarial relationship with G33 because he kept using socks on an article I was trying to improve. The egg indeed becomes before the chicken in this case. Jtrainor (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni should be unblocked after one year and the moment another admin objects to the current indef ban. The burden is not on them to find consensus to unblock, because the community never endorsed a community ban. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your view, Ned, but all the administrators that have commented here disagree with you. They're the ones that get to decide whether the community endorsed a ban or not. Also when an admin objects that will only lead to a discussion over unblocking. If you don't believe me I suggest you contact Rjd0060 and Jehochman on their talk pages to clarify the situation. John Smith's (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't decide things for the community. Saying they have a right to lie about what happened, to make what they said seem true, is absurd. Admins do not have a higher authority than any other user for simply being an admin. They are not little dictators. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand Jehochman's quoted comment. On one hand he says: We do not vote on the fate of people. Very noble principle. But on the other hand he goes on to say: A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. But that case was made by voting from what I can see, especially based on a comment made here that the community ban "had at least 15 votes". I just don't see community endorsement, and neither do five other editors. And no one has explained why Giovanni has to be community banned when he is already ArbCom banned. — Becksguy (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the community discussion, the ArbComm case hadn't yet closed. That answers one of your queries, probably the least significant one. GRBerry 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think his view was based on the fact that the administrators were lining up to support a ban. As he or someone else said, it is not practice to have people further humiliated by having a list of people asking for a ban.

As for why, well no one "has" to be community banned. But they are. I have already recommended you talk to the admins concerned. If you really want to know the answer, rather than stand on a soapbox, go talk to them. John Smith's (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that explains some of it, and avoiding a pile-on is, indeed, the decent thing to do. But then why not also do the decent thing and drop the community ban after the ArbCom decision rendered it moot. And what about the issue of six non-impartial editors voting in less than five hours during a major weekend holiday. — Becksguy (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom decision does not render the community ban moot. As it stands, if the arbcom decides not to renew their ban on the 1 year anniversary, the community can then decide whether to remove the community ban, or leave it in place.

Regarding the non-impartial editors, it's really not an issue. The decision was not a vote, as such, and there were many more people supporting the ban than the involved editors. More to the point, no admin has been willing to oppose the block, which is the minimum to consider overturning it. At this point, I'd say the issue is settled for the 1 year arbcom ban. After that point, if arbcom does not renew the ban, the community can discuss the community ban again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is premature and should be closed. It should take place when the ArbCom-imposed ban expires, at the earliest.  Sandstein  13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that line of thinking is that some of us who are interested in the situation might not be around in one year. -- Ned Scott 08:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. This is not a discussion to overturn a legitimately derived community ban, rather it's a continuation of the first discussion and in which the community ban validity is being challenged as being out of process per all the arguments by Ned Scott,The Red Pen of Doom, Sarah, Badagnani, 220.236.108.16, and myself. In other words, the ban is illegitimate per se and should be stricken from the list and nullified based on the concept of the fruit of the poisonous tree. — Becksguy (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, IP editors who make one edit to just join in a discussion should be ignored for obvious reasons. Second, Redpen is an involved editor. Third, neither Badangani nor Sarah said that the ban was invalid - Sarah openly backed it. Please do not misrepresent the situation. John Smith's (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"IP editors who make one edit to just join in a discussion should be ignored for obvious reasons." Anyone who makes a valid comment in a discussion should not be ignored. Wikipedia prides itself on allowing people to participate without an account. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if they make other edits. Single-purpose accounts, however, are not given attention for very good reasons. And it is a single-purpose account because the person behind it came here purely to attack the ban. John Smith's (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And the ban is legitimate. Giovanni33 was caught sockpuppeting even beyond the amount presented in the arbCom case. Giovanni has been the the subject of multiple community bans inlcuding last august and in 2006 when he was originally caught sockpuppeting. The concern about the notice being posted over a holiday is a red herring as the amount of support for the ban is overwhelming and it was closed to avoid piling on. The ban is de facto valid as it was implemented and there is no need and no one willing to overturn it. In any case it's moot for a year. I recommend we implement the revert block, ignore axiom until such time as the question becomes relevant. Trolls like Giovanni33 thrive on the disruption and angst caused by such things and we should not feed it. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got an idea to throw out: how about noting in the ban log that the community will review the ban in one year, rather than saying the community has already endorsed the ban. This basically means nothing will change, things will default to ban, but is far more accurate to the situation. Even the people who've endorsed the community ban don't seem to oppose reviewing it in one year when the arbcom ban expires. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That would not be appropriate because it implies that a community decision has been taken to do so - there has been no such decision. Comments have been made that if people still feel aggrieved by it they can bring the matter up. John Smith's (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I threw the idea out there, to see if it could gain support or not. -- Ned Scott 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Giovanni has been caught socking yet again - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33. This time it was confirmed that User:Aquarius28 is also him, not just likely. John Smith's (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this rather unwise conduct by Giovanni33 will be enough to satisfy any lingering questions over his guilt. Once a sockmaster, always a sockmaster. Jtrainor (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For me it was a matter of principal. I knew the guy was guilty and had a ban coming to him. However, I didn't like the idea that some editors could just upstage arbcom because they felt the ruling was too soft, and I felt the concerns about it not being an actual community consensus were valid. I'm not sure there is community consensus to indef ban him, but for myself, in light of his ban evasion for the arbcom ban, I now endorse such a ban (whether it exists already or is still being discussed/proposed). -- Ned Scott 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For me it was also a matter of principal and it had absolutely nothing to do with his guilt. Those that objected to the ban did not do so with the intent to create drama, rather it was concerns about due process and transparency. Now that Ned has dropped out, and this thread has been open for seven days, I don't see any point in continuing with this discussion. It's unlikely anything will change, so I don't object to archiving this thread. I will not endorse a community ban, as I believe that kicking a man when he's down (due to the ArbCom ban) is not the decent thing to do, and I still have major concerns about it's validity and the involvement of six of the original voters for a ban. But it's a dead horse for now.

I might however, make some observations. The more transparent, fair, impartial, and open to participation a process is seen to be, the less likely it will be challenged on process or procedural grounds. It's possible to railroad a guilty person, even unintentionally, and I think that was the perception here, right or wrong. What is obvious to some is not so obvious to others, so I would suggest that the next time, don't be in such a rush to judgment. It may not make any difference in the outcome, but people will be more likely to accept that the process was fair. And that is more important than getting the right outcome, don't you agree? OK, I'm done, happy editing. — Becksguy (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Baggini and Stangroom: The problem of 'living persons'

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here, just rampant speculation on admin's motives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think after several years of watching this 'from the sidelines' as it were, I can’t stand it any longer! Merzel has swung into action on behalf of a user called Chris who reads books for a living’. They may or may not know what they are doing. If not, I spell it out below.

There are important issues surrounding this apparently unimportant page. It involves numerous fake accounts, users creating misinfmatonon exisiting pages (to create edits) and creating junk pages to become admin figures to further their non-encyclopedic interests. Its a long story, and I certainly have only a sense of a tiny part of it. But, in sum, it is about the use of WIkipedia pages by individuals and organisations for advertising (at minimum) and propaganda (and most) purposes.

Allow me to go through some of it.

The page was started in 04:13, 1 August 2005 by SlimVirgin who at the same time started one for Jeremy Stangroom (05:02, 1 August 2005 ).

Julian and Jeremy are joint founders and editors of the Philosopher’s Magazine. This magazine they describe on Amazon [1] as “one of the pre-eminent philosophy publications in the world “. This is a nonsense claim. (incidentally, such material on Amazon is usually added (In my own experience, as an author, such material is added not by the publishers but by the authors direct to the website though I can’t of course say what happened in this case.)

The pictures of both Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom are described as being created by ‘Chris who reads books for a living’. This user, wanted to be called User:Continuum Photos ) but was obliged to change name for breaching WIkiguidelines on using Wikipedia for crude advertising efforts.

A glance at this user’s contributions [[2]] indicates that he is a particular interest in the publications of both Stangroom and Baggini, along with an interest in the neoconservative Adam Smith Institute in the UK.

It is this user who has just reversed an entirely proper contribution to the Baggini page Why do that? But the page. like Stangroom's, like Butterflies and Wheels the two ‘philosophers’ website’ like individual promotional pages on the style of The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People are not intended as public information, but as publicity, promotional pages. To this end they are assisted by gullible editors.

That is why, on the 8 July 2008, the page contains the information that there is a website for for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining. That is why Stangroom’s page contains an image for the cover of his latest book, Identity Crisis: Against Multiculturalism by Jeremy Stangroom, an image Chris etc. says ‘created entirely by himself’.

This fine Wikipedian is backed by SlimVirgin and Merzul, amongst others. Let’s see some of his edits. Under an earlier ID (he has used many devious routes to hide his tracks, including ‘adopting’ disused IDs) we can see a not entirely creditable interest in the ‘Great Philosophers’.

At 09:45, 18 June 2008 Anonymous Dissident made two small edits to the highly prominent Wikipedia Article on Aristotle. One was to change:

"Aristotle (together with Socrates and Plato ) is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. "

which is correct, to:

"Aristotle (together with Plato , his teacher, and Socrates , Plato's teacher ) is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. "

which is not, as the term 'teacher' is quite inappropriate in this context.

The other change, at the end of the first paragraph, was to add a reference, which seems unnecessary in the context. It is to a book called 'The Great Philosophers' by Jeremy Stangroom.

ref name="stangroom">Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)/ref

These edits are here: [[3]]

At 10:16, 18 June 2008, Anonymous Dissident added this source to another prominent article, this time in the second paragraph,

The sentence previously ran:

"He is best known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince) on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other. "

After revising, it runs:

"He is best known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince , which he considered his Magnum Opus ) ref name="stangroom">Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)ref> on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other. "

There is no known record of Machiavelli saying or thinking this. Indeed, the Discourses is the earlier and more substantial work so it seems unlikely.

Similar edits show up for Marcus Aurelius (09:57, 18 June 2008 , no content added), Thomas Aquinas (Revision as of 09:57, 18 June 2008 (edit ) ( undo ) no content added) , Socrates (Revision as of 09:41, 18 June 2008, in which a gross error is introduced: the sentence "His work continues to form an important part of the study of philosophy." becomes "His work continues to form an important part of the study of philosophy , even though he did not leave behind a great deal of textual material ref>Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)/ref)

), Nietzsche (Revision as of 07:15, 16 June 2008 ) etc. etc...

It is quite legitimate, indeed very helpful, for authors to share their expertise on matters. But this is a long way from that. No new information is being added, indeed some misinformation is. It looks just like crude advertising.

It is a reasonable assumption looking at the various pages that there is a sort of conspiracy here, with many users with far more usernames several of and them now administrators. It is not possible for me to unpick it all - I wonder if there ANY honest Wikipedians left to worry about this. (It’s tragic to see all the honest users futile efforts to use Wiki procedures to hold back the tide, eg at [[4]]

Certainly SlimVirgin, apparently (to judge by all the ‘brown nosing’ by other editors that goes on the Bagging discussion page) a key figure in WIkipedia is deeply involved in all this. User:Nick_Mallory, again curiously intimate with Stangroom and Baggini’s publications, seems to have created vast numbers of ‘mock’ pages in an attempt it seems to become an administrator. [[5]]

Few enough of these editors attacking myself and others for ‘vandalism’ of the page has shown any concern for the blatant advertising under the picture of Bagging, only removed last week: ‘Courtesy of Continuum”, or the information about a website‘ for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining’, surely so clearly contrary to Wikipedia’s purpose.

I offer a few possible conclusions:

1. I urge some independent administrators (if there are any left) to pick up the leads that follow from this page and the one’s mentioned, via all the different usernames and IDs and to take, as they say, ‘appropriate action’.

2. SlimVirgin in particular needs to be desysopped. Whatever their intentions, they have clearly become a kind of negative role model for other users in the abuse of admin status.

3. Far from ‘protecting’ BLP and pages linking to living persons (which are the vast majority of course) editing BLP etc. needs to be made more democratic, as for sure powerful interests are there in these pages which otherwise will triumph.

Of course, given the ‘wikirot’ I wonder whether this contribution will even be allowed to be seen. Docmartincohen (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I just wanted to point out that I laughed out loud at the way you spelled misinformation: "misinfmatonon." Beam 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I don't get it. What particular action do you think is 'admin abuse' that should be evaluated? I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, but the long explaination you've given isn't very clear as to the specific problem you have with these editors and what your conclusions are. you've given some recomendations for action, but I'm not seeing how they follow from your discussion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Could you summarize your point in a few sentences? --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to typing those 5 letters, Carnildo. Maybe I shouldn't have first actually tried to read this, & figure out what Slim Virgin did that deserves to be "desysopped" for. (I think this editor means she be denied root access to the servers.) In any case, her chief crimes here are: (1) starting two articles on philosophy topics, & (2) having a lot of people "kiss-up" to her. I have to agree with this poster -- shame on everyone for starting articles! Stop that immediately! (And everyone who starts articles on Wikipedia ought to be denied root access to the servers immediately -- including me!) And as soon as I figure out what Docmartincohen thinks Anonymous Dissident did wrong here, I'll agree with that. And he should be denied root access to the servers, too! -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried reading that, but I'd appreciate a TL;DR please. Also, I have seen on the intarwebz (no not just ED) some pretty shady stuff involving SlimVirgin, with diffs and other proof. so I wouldn't say that this person's allegations are so outrageous. Of course I don't think SlimVirgin is really evil, but from all the things I've read it doesn't seem, as Ralph Wiggum would say, unpossible. Of course it's also not unpossible that it's all bullshit. But if I get Caballed out of no where, than it's even more valid. ***looks over shoulder*** Beam 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's a known fact that SlimVirgin is one of the major malign influences of the 21st century. UN resolutions have been passed calling for her desysoping, but all to no avail. Her reign of evil continues, and as the above ramblings conclusively prove, the 'Pedia is but a handy tool she's using to bring about her self confessed aim of world domination. RMHED (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone becomes sarcastic and mocking when it's brought up, it's either obviously not true, or very true. Meh. Beam 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me drop the sarcasm for a minute, Beam, and explain the problem here. First, long, rambling posts complaining about another user get ignored. Second, any dispute that could possibly involve content gets a brief "Take the matter elsewhere" response & the matter is either closed or ignored. Third, accusations of a "cabal" get ignored -- unless there are a bunch of malingering Wikipedians reading WP:AN/I at the moment, who then engage in some sarcasm &/or mocking. Lastly, complaints about certain people (like Slim Virgin here, but others are Giano, Betacommand, Giovanni33, & a few others whose names I have forgotten) come up so often that people stop reading the first time their name appears & move on. (Not to say those 4 are always unfairly treated or above the rules, but a lot of Wikipedians are tired of reading rants about them. Any complaints about BetaCommand, for example, will get moved to a special WP:AN/I page.) The OP managed to hit a Grand Slam here, & scored all four runs.

So what if you honestly believe that you have a case that involves one of these tired topics? Simple: be short, get to the point, & furnish plenty of diffs & relevant details to prove your point. Punctuation, spelling & grammar also help. Definitely use the conflict resolution process first. But know some people would rather handle a nationalistic edit war, which is part of an off-wiki war that involves bullets & bombs, than read a post with one or more of the above. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, at least part of this has to do with new editor User:Wikigiraffes finding the page Julian Baggini and attempting to edit it. He added a non-profane, highly literate put-down of Baggini sourced to the well-known reliable source, Mr. Some-Guy-On-A-Blog. He added something about Baggini writing sympathetically about British National Party voters, citing a The Guardian piece by Baggini which was indeed sympathetic of certain BNP voters on its face, that was its raison d'etre, though clearly it's pretty controversial/WP:SYNTHy to say so in an article. He added something about a Guardian review of a book of Baggini's, which mentioned that it was similar in concept and structure to another. This was fine. He added something about an extended discussion between Baggini and the author of this other book, on these similarities, which was sourced to an article on some kind of philosophy website connected to the other author, and which reprinted parts of emails the two authors exchanged. Probably not cool, as you can imagine.

Baggini complained, basically of WP:UNDUE, Slim protected the article, Tim Vickers supported and renewed the protection, numerous editors directed the new editor to our policies. The new editor, like many smarter-than-average people, read some policy pages and immediately assumed he had grasped everything and was armed to fight a case, which he did at several venues at some length, and in such a manner as to get himself blocked, after which he resorted to socks.

He had a point in that short WP:BLP articles here are often bland C.V.-like entries, but obviously he could not find a way to edit in accordance with our policies in this area, and he was, I think fairly, described at one point as "a POV-pusher with a grudge". 86.44.27.87 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So, how do I gain access to the cabal to do my bidding on articles? Seriously. Beam 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The alchemy by which User:Slim Virgin and User:Tim Vickers can be made to act in concord is indeed mysterious, little one. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure it is just a stunning coincidence that Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs) and Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) are on the same ISP and IP range and share other technical similarities. No direct IP match but it's an ISP that assigns a new IP every day. Thatcher 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for almost 6 years now, & I'm still trying to figure that one out. And I have a specific, pressing need: forget winning edit wars, I want free child care! Someone to look after my daughter while I try to create content. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You have children? I doubt, then, that you are taking Wikipedia seriously enough... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I took Wikipedia as seriously as some folks you & I could mention, I wouldn't have lasted here as long as I have. -- llywrch (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Executive Summary

Sure, there’s a need to summarise things. But that’s difficult! Wikipedia has 10 zillion pages, the information needs summarising - don’t blame me for that.

Right:

The issue is about the abuse of Wikipedia for personal ends - ranging from mere advertising to more sinister propaganda purposes. The strategies for both are very similar

1. I gave a detailed account of how one user whose interests seem to revolve around one Jeremy Stangroom, has planted misleading and plain wrong information on key philosophy pages whilst adding apparently unnecessary references to ‘Jeremy Stangroom’.

2. I also indicated how this user has been creating numerous junk pages and running through user names apparently in pursuit of editing privileges.

3.Baggini is not important in himself, but the issue of his page’s function is.

4. All pages about individuals on Wikipedia, whether alive or not quite, need to be open to editing so as to present a range of perspectives on the individual and their work, subject to academic standards of factual accuracy only.

Baggini’s page is not, and has not been open to contributions for several years. ('Established users' only can put them on, but even so, they'll be off the next day!) Already, in many ways, the Encylopedia is a ridiculous animal, click on [6] if you don’t believe me! full of pages designed to flatter egos but the process has barely started yet...

It is not coincidental that ‘Chris/Continuum Photos’ user also edited Julian Baggini’s page as ‘real life’ Baggini and Stangroom are colleagues. His edits have been allowed to stand there, indeed the page has been ‘protected’ to make it difficult to challenge them

No one has expressed any alarm at the idea that a user is floating around Wikipedia under various names adding misleading information and spurious references. Perhaps, that is because editors assume that this is what most people are doing, but in that case, we get to my general point , which is that

4. there is evidence of a network or conspiracy here which can be traced to several hundred dodgy pages.

I don’t spend ‘all’ my time looking at edit histories, not least because administrators continually falsify them. (Someone ought to check closely the voters for or against admin positions, not just the IP addresses, for example... The problem for Wikipedia is that there is an awful lot of shared ‘POV’ pushing going on, with networks of users stifling contrary views and administrators not so much editing pages as manipulating them. (Note, yes, Thatcher is right I have done a bit of POV networking in talking to friends myself, but not to stifle views only to air them.)

5. The most obvious network is that of SlimVirgin.

I have noticed how criticism of SlimVirgin is immediately drowned out by supportive comments from other users (off hand I recall particularly) Merkel’s “I think we ought to thank SlimVirgin for all her good work here”, and then there is Tim rushing to reinforce SlimVirgin’s protection of the Baggini page even as he argues that it was ‘inappropriate’ for an admin to protect pages they had started to stop others adding information from a different POV.

Point of View is of course is fundamental to Wikipedia. Take Mao for instance, there is a lot of negative comment on Mao, (I would say) much of it ill-informed and prejudiced. That reflects some editors' agendas, and in particular the views of the ‘administrators’. Similarly, the Ayn Rand page deifies this dubious bigot as ‘a philosopher’ of some importance. We can imagine why that might be. But POV is a subtle concept, in proactive the Neutral POV is the point of view of the dominant group or individual.

6. To make any sense of the NPOV concept we have to allow a range of opinions on subjects

Some of which some people agree with and some of which these people dislike. To some extent the Rand page has done this, Baggini’s page, again, provides a particularly blatant example of how that principle has not been applied.

Ok, I got too long again - hope this helps even so.

Docmartincohen (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

too long, didn't read

I posted up what I 'naively' thought was evidence of systematic abuse of Wikipedia. This was the response of several editors... tl;dr

(Here it is as short as I can make it... but to make sense of it, you would 'have to' read up not just what I wrote but lots of the pages cited too... so sorry!)

WIkipedia's structures, notably the NPOV policy and the division of Wikipedia into two groups, a secretive network of powerful adminstrators and a deliberately ineffectual mass of powerless editors, are designed not to promote the interests of truth seeking, but to promote sectarianism and propaganda.

Docmartincohen (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How does NPOV divide administrators from non-administrators? You've lost me. The stacked adjectives are fun, though. Orderinchaos 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this secret network of admins? Is there a cool t-shirt and a secret handshake? How come I haven't been invited? Is it because I'm not "powerful"? Sarah 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you're not powerful? I've been living a lie! —Wknight94 (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. I've been getting it so wrong! Ever since I became an admin, I've been being powerless and deliberately ineffectual. Damn. Is there a quick reference card I can keep by my computer so I'll know for next time? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an old IBM punch card I could send you. That should work as well as anything. It works for me, even though I'm just a powerless and ineffectual editor. :'( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I try to make up for that effeteness by being a nattering nabob of negativism. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans. --Kbdank71 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. With such a short contribution history I'm startled you were able to glean all that so fast! Has the secret decoder ring been cracked/hacked? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the sarcastic comments above to be inappropriate. If you disagree with the argument and don't want to make a counter-argument, you can just ignore it. Everyking (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's glow of systemic bias along with the lopsided and unhelpful PoVs of many high profile articles is very much acknowledged. However, it has yet to be meaningfully quantified and understood. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the short version makes me glad I didn't read the long version. Quietly filing such things in a drawer labelled "Unfounded claims of systemic abuse by administrators" doesn't seem to work. They keep coming. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If these charges were true, why wouldn't the admins have removed all traces of this discussion? Or... maybe they did? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request permission from the cabal to just wave my hands ineffectually in the air at this point and let out a heartfelt harassed wail of "but what do you want from us!!?!!?!?!!" Is there any admin action that could satisfy this user, other than mass harakiri? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful - don't make any promises you can't keep. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartin, the problem is that you don't have any evidence. All you've done is claim that "some articles appear to have bias" is proof of some vast administrator conspiracy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange, isn't it? I put the evidence up (with a summary paragraph explaiing the reasoning) and several users asked me to summarise it. Then several more users say, 'where's the evidence?'

Look, take just a couple of the egs given. Machiavelli and Socrates. These edits are plain spam, with errors added that make Wikipedia look ridiculous too. Yet they are all being left there. Then take Chris who reads books a lot or whatever his name is - he used to call himself by his supposed company's name. This was plain spam. Before I posted he had already been obliged to change his username, but his promotions elsewhere stick. Then I pointed out linked users creating junk pages, adopting old user ids etc - no one has checked that. TimVickers and Thatcher, who like us to think of them as decent chaps doing a dirty job as they run round Wikipedia blocking users and deleting 'sockpuppets' have not shown much interest in any of that!

The bizarre 'protection' of Baggini's page is still in place, despite it only protecting 'this philosopher' from having his work quoted. In fact, the only thing that has changed is on Bagginni's talkpage - there's a mysterious new box about "a request emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation concerning addition of entries intended to misrepresent the subject". And the edit history has been oversighted to shift the latest change from 'Chris' to some previously unheard of user...

'One' connection I see is SlimVirgin, for the reasons in the tl;dr piece above - which is offered as just a starting point for investigation. My 'deduction' if you like, is that Wikipedia is as I put above, ' a secretive network of powerful adminstrators' whose function is sectarianism and propaganda. Of course I don't know what's going on. I'm just a contributor who read some lousy pages in my subject area and wondered why they were still there.

90.62.158.129 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Everyking - I kind of think there maybe a method in this suffocation of users raising concerns... anyway, if not, here's a link that describes a possible 'club' for Wknight94, TenOfAllTrades etc to try to join...

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Oversight_%28Or_Lack_Thereof%29

90.62.158.129 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, DocM, but you still haven't provided any evidence of a vast Wiki-admin conspiracy here. All you've shown is that a particular editor may have a conflict of interest, and that a couple people still think the information presented is reliable. You've given us zero evidence of "a secretive network of powerful adminstrators whose function is sectarianism and propaganda." I understand your concerns, but I think you've blown this way out of proportion. At best, this is a content dispute or a matter for the COI notice board. There's really nothing for admins to intervene on here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've read loads and loads of 'evidence' by many users, all of which seems to be going nowhere. I really don't think there's any shortage of serious issues to address, and the list is getting longer... Its curious, isn't it, nothing is a matter of concern until the press report it and then suddenly Wikipedia sorts it out. Essjay-style...

- there are numerous pages including ones argued about on this page! that are not open to editing which should be, due to abuse of admin powers. My favorite example though is the Baggini page, guarded as it is by the internet's most famous abusive editor, SlimVirgin - there are numerous pages that have no reference merit at all, created either for advertising (I gave some examples as above) - and there are 'junk' pages created it seems for 'gaining admin status' purposes - I gave the links to follow to see a few of these. - there is regular abuse of the 'oversight' power by admins, to change edit histories. Again, I have seen this happening on the Baggini page to change responsibility for various actions, editing and administrative - and lastly, and this is what the above discussion has certainly revealed to me, there is almost no interest in correcting false information!

I pointed out a couple of examples and indicated where I believed there was a whole vein of deliberate mis-editing to be followed up. I'm not, as I stressed, an administrator, I'm attempting to add 'content' but have got definitely side-tracked! I'll go back to adding content soon... don't worry. (I'll go mad otherwise, that's for sure.. like lots of good editors before!) But those who have sought the 'authority/ power/ prestige or whatever it is, ought to be following up the leads I gave, if only to be sure they're misinformed. It 'might' all be a case of I've spent too long looking at WIkipedia and addled my braincells, yes.

Obviously there's a lot of stuff to be corrected/ watched/ patrolled or whatever - but I think the worst failing is systemic. That is why these in a way trivial cases are worth raising and why I think they 'would' have been taken up here, if the system was functioning.

I'll offer a view if you like on what is a possible solution: it's not complicated, it's a US style division of powers. All administrators should be obliged to forego any content role, they cannot create or edit pages, only adjudicate between editors over claimed breaches of policy. Any pages historically they created/ edited they are not allowed to have a role in, nor can they have others (obviously no 'sockpuppets) edit content for them which they then guard later.

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You think the Baggini page is protected incorrectly? According to its protection log, the last protection was not done by SlimVirgin. It was done by someone else in response to an WP:OTRS request. Why don't you make a WP:OTRS request to unprotect it? WP:OTRS is not something that many of us casual volunteer administrators are wont to overturn. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who is doing what anymore! One day I see SlimVirgin has protected the page, the next day that edit is oversighted and someone else 'appears' to be responsible (takes over). If you check the edit history, (http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl) you will find SlimVirgin has made 25 edits of which only 18 are left on the wikipedia history page!

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That page says she made 17 edits, 8 of which were minor. That's exactly what I see in the history now. If your concern is oversighted edits, you'll have to bring it up elsewhere - ArbCom perhaps? Administrators are not able to see oversighted edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

- yes I am referring to oversighted ones but I have not got proper records so I can't be sure...! You're right the pae doesnot show much = except that SlimVirgin has spent a lot of time on it (contrary to her comments on the BLP noticeboard)

Those off-site statistics are notoriously inaccurate. It really sounds like you're grasping at straws here. And trying to make it so admins can't edit content/create new pages is just absurd. I really don't see anything to do here, just rampant conspiracy mongering. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay! I give up! Too bad for anyone who thought Wikipedia had positive aspects... thanks to everyone who joined in the belittling and pooh-poohing of user concerns - they're not just mine! - raised here and everywhere on Wikipedia - anyone who wants to share positive ideas, please do so on my user page. I'm also hoping to weave some of the 'general' issues into an article, so any comments for that will be welcome. 90.17.15.184 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture

I want to bring attention to the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture that degenerated from subject article into editor bashing. The editor/admin dab, who was already warned against pushing his POV, assails this editor for using term "Türkic", adopted in the UN publications, instead of his preference for semantically dissimilar "Turkic", falsely accuses this editor in sockpuppeteering, and threatens with banishment for my contributions. The editor/admin dab consistently avoids subject discussions, and instead uses forceful enforcement of his opinions without a need to back them up with any references. Instead of heeding the POV warning, and obstain from the field where he holds strong views, dab is systematically engaging in removing referenced materials, pertinent illustrations, and whole articles, impoverishing WP in Türkic-related class of subjects, and aggressively discouraging contributing editors like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefact (talk • contribs)

Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others

Stuthomas4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4 Contributions

Revision History of Talk:The Dark Knight (film) [added the link due to the ongoing personal attacks on NYScholar --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Diffs. -- For the record, link to "Diffs." --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Continual personal comments about me and escalating violations of WP:HAR, most recently making threats on my talk page. (Most recent Diffs.) Following Wikipedia User space and user talk page guidelines (which I have referred this user to and which I link in my talk page prominently), I have been deleting such continual postings after seeing them. I find these continual remarks personally offensive and see them as increasingly-escalating attempts to harrass me. (I remove such offensive comments from my talk page; I explain my editing practices clearly in my user space.) Please also see this user's uncivil comments posted about me in Talk:The Dark Knight (film), on other users' talk pages, on the user's own talk page, and on the user's own user page, where these comments about "NYScholar" violate Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, as well as Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (particularly, WP:UP#NOT (#9): "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors") and WP:NPA. This user and the others with whom this user engages in such conduct need to receive warnings from administrators about this behavior; this user and others may need to be blocked for this kind of behavior if it continues. I seek administrative help with this matter. Thank you. (Please note: I have no time or inclination to become involved in what I have found in the past to be extremely-time-consuming Wikipedia administrative dispute procedures; I am simply asking for assistance with this matter so that it stops before it goes any farther. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [Added links to most recent "Diffs." and Contributions as further examples for convenience of administrator(s) here. Thank you for assistance if you can provide it. --NYScholar (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC); added dir. sec. link & q. from it. --NYScholar (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

[Added the number for the item in WP:UP#NOT; since I first posted this request for administrative assistance here, the user cited has further violated that UP [guideline], in my view. The user's comments below are in my view inappropriate and should be understood in the entire context of that user's postings about me throughout Wikipedia space, where they appear to me to be further personal attacks and an attempt to marshall other users to silence me and to drive me away from editing an article or articles on which I have contributed a great deal of good-faith editing. These attempts appear to me to be a violation of WP:HAR. In order to see how this problem began, one really needs to review Talk:The Dark Knight (film), so I have posted the editing history link to that page above. I have other work to do offline, and I cannot take further time to comment about this matter. I updated my comment below and updated my comment in the film article's talk page. I have also updated my own talk page and archived the most recent comments by some of these users posted in it. I expect to be offline doing non-Wikipedia-related work. --NYScholar (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

[That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Rubbish. You started the ANI but that doesn't give you control over it. Any user and any administrator may contribute here. The heading needs to be descriptive for people scrolling though. Also, please make use of the preview button. Your hyper-editing on a busy noticeboard such as this causes edit conflicts for people. Thank you. Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made several good faith efforts to engage this user. Tonight He/She/It (this user insists on no gender identification) has requested administrative help. By looking at the edit history of Dark Knight (film) and the comments by several users, ThuranX, Erik, among others, you will see that there is a consensus that this user has been abusive to other good faith editors. This user declines to engage the real issue of their abusiveness by instead resorting to quoting wiki laws and shouting that they have been the victim all along. I admit that there has been some hostility that has arisen from this entire interlude and I am guilty of an uncivil tone at times. Nevertheless, I believe that there are several users that will attest to the fact that NYScholar has driven many long-time and collaborative editors from this article through brow beating and the sheer mass of the number of edits. I have copied this response to the NYScholar talk page with the full expectation that it will be summarily deleted.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally if you actually look at my comments and those of others, you will see that a series of successive criticisms (valid I might add) were just deleted without comment. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And as far as threats are concerned. I specifically stated that I would be "watching for abusive tactics". Not intended as a threat, just that this user can't continue to brow beat and condescend to other user with impunity.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And furthermore, NYscholar claims a violation against WP:UP#NOT. I quote the rest of the passage here, conveniently left out in the above quotation: "An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process. This exception is subject to common sense, but as a general rule, two weeks is a reasonable time to prepare such a page." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthomas4 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lastly NYScholar claims that "I have no time or inclination to become involved in what I have found in the past to be extremely-time-consuming Wikipedia administrative dispute procedures" which is clearly false as his/her/it's extensive quoting of several wiki rules and long-winded argumentative responses to good-faith queries, one that are laden with what can only be described as sarcastic and condescending language and, if he/she/it had been in person would have been "air-quotes". I have stated before that I did indeed inflame the situation but I feel that the consensus is that NYScholar, while an intelligent person and valuable Wikipedia editor, is nonetheless in need of a lesson in civility, not unlike the one he/she/it has prescribed for me, and others. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here but can I suggest you refrain from calling other users "its" if you expect administrators to take you seriously. Sarah 10:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This editor insists on gender neutral language and in-fact has used that pronoun in their own writing. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I did not know that NYS wanted to be referred to as "it". Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at that talk page and it looks like NYScholar is once again being an obstructionist and driving people away ala the Heath Ledger article, however, the last time I dealt with a complaint about NYS I felt like I was pounding my head into a brick wall, so I'm going to leave this to other admins. Stuthomas, it might help if you can get ThuranX and the other users from that page to come and comment. Sarah 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Hi, I have encountered both of these editors at Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and through associated edit summaries. Stuthomas4 has made comments that he/she has admitted have had an uncivil tone, in response to comments from NYScholar that some have interpreted as not in the best spirit of collaboration. I happen to agree with that assessment of NYScholar's attitude, but I would urge that no action is taken at this time against either editor. Stuthomas4 has apologised, and NYScholar, judging by his/her past editing practices, will not be online for a few hours. In the meantime, I will leave NYScholar a message in the spirit of reconciliation, explaining why certain editors (myself included) took issue with the editor's tone, and hopefully this whole episode can be put to one side. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 11:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I read and appreciated Steve's comments and archived them. I do have to go back offline again, but I wanted to make clear that I appreciated what Steve said. I do not appreciate the others posting comments here (as Sarah instigated them to do, despite recusal), which further creates an impression that they are "ganging up" on me. I have "disclosed" the entire situation; I've posted links to it, which anyone can follow. The editing histories of The Dark Knight (film) and Talk: The Dark Knight (film) and of my own and others' talk pages bear witness to the history of this "incident". Some people have deleted my own and their own comments from some of the film's talk page, but they can be found in the editing history; as for my deletions of material from my own user talk page; I rarely completely delete users' comments; I generally archive them; but when I find the comments personally offensive and harrassing, I do delete them, as I state I will do in "N.B." on my current talk page and in user boxes. Users are not required to archive comments on their user talk pages; but I generally do so; exceptions are the offensive and harrassing material, which I properly delete. Examination of talk pages of some others commenting below will show that they have deleted my warnings; it is permissible to delete warnings, according to current user talk page guidelines; deleting them is taken as a sign that they have been read. Usually, I archive warnings. If I do not archive a user's continual barrage of comments, it means that I find them obtrusive and offensive and that I do not feel obliged to archive them. Obviously, I read them in deciding whether or not to archive them. In my experience, I archive far more material than many users do; many simply delete comments that they do not like or agree with from their talk pages. This AN/I was not intended as a way for others to attack me further; frequently, the posting of an AN/I turns into a "free for all"; I hope that a neutral administrator will review my request and stop the barrage. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to act as an administrator here but that doesn't mean that I'm prohibited from commenting. Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To weigh in on this, I think it is a bit strong to say that Stuthomas4 is "most recently making threats on [NYScholar's] talk page". NYScholar has not fully disclosed the entire situation, that there are several editors who are uncomfortable working alongside him/her due to his/her inflexible tone in discussions, particularly at The Dark Knight (film). I'm not considering Stuthomas4's comments completely appropriate, but I really think that filing an AN/I report over open, multiple concerns regarding this NYScholar's conduct is improper. I've tried to explain to Stuthomas4 the best way to describe situations like these, and Stuthomas4 has acknowledged that calling the editor a "royal pain" was a mistake and struck it out. This was not accomplished with any difficulty, so I think that going to AN/I is extreme. NYScholar believes that our criticism of his/her conduct is failing to assume good faith and that continuing it was detracting to his/her work. I think that much of NYScholar's edits have been excellent, but he/she seems unable to cordially discuss challenged edits, so the focus has moved from his/her contributions to his/her conduct with other editors. I'm not trying to say that this is blowing up the community as a whole, but I think a group of editors should be able to exchange constructive criticism in a collaborative manner. I do not believe that this mindset and transparent discussion in favor of it warrants a call for administrative action and possible blocks for Stuthomas4 or anybody else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since ThuranX is a regular watcher here, ThuranX saw this thread. ThuranX is not at all surprised that NYScholar ran here. In addition to being a rampant obstructionist, NYScholar deflects all discussion by invoking various rules and policies. Any use of pronouns voids all that an editor may have to say. Should pronouns be avoided, NYScholar deflects by asserting that since most comments want to discuss a change, or set of changes made BY NYScholar, then the commenting editor is 'attacking the editor, not discussing the edits', and thus, guilty of violations of WP:NPA. No matter the approach an editor takes, there is a counter invoking policy, guidelines, and so on. All responses by NYScholar are presented as coming from the right way, and deride either directly or implicitly, the intentions, ideas and character of all other editors. For the most part, editors Erik, Steve, and ThuranX have dropped this article as a result of the constant frustration the group of editors just identified feel. NYScholar refuses to present an acceptable pronoun, asserting male when identified as female, female when identified as male, neither when ‘Hir’ type is presented, gets offended by ‘it’, and so on. No matter what other editors do, there is simply no way to broach the actual meat of a topic. NYScholar basically asserts that only civil comments will be responded too, and all responses thus far are incivil.

Such behavior makes it beyond frustrating to deal with NYScholar. ThuranX notes that NYScholar has a lengthy block log for edit warring, which seems to have dropped off as the reputation for being obstructionist in tactics grew. Clearly a mastery of the text of policies allows NYScholar to invoke them to NYScholar’s advantage, and bully editors into submission and retreat. Consider the false accusations against Erik, on Erik's talk page, that he has been a problem on the Heath Ledger article, when in fact he hasn't edited it recently, if ever. Erik seems willing to assume that this was an honest mistake, but ThuranX believes this was a deliberate intimidation tactic. ThuranX feels NYScholar needs a topic ban, as NYScholar simply can not engage in cooperative editing. ThuranX (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above comments by this gang of editors is a clear violation of WP:HAR. I have added a link to the Revision history of Talk:The Dark Knight (film), where one will see that the above user (ThuranX) said to take this matter to ANI, which is indeed what I have done. I have asked all these users to stop posting comments about this matter on my talk page, to no avail. I have requested "administrative assistance", not this barrage of further personal attacks. Wikipedia has become a very unpleasant place to edit, and it is not surprising that so many editors who edit in good faith (like me) are continually being driven away from it. The aim appears to be to drive me away, which violates WP:HAR and which I have and am protesting. I stand by my edits in the articles that I have edited and I stand by my explanations of my edits in editing summaries and in talk pages when asked for explanations (which I have provided in good faith). The above users violate WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, as well as many other Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:CIVIL. In my view, they are making false claims above, and I welcome the examination of Talk:The Dark Knight (film).

I filed the ANI in response to a suggestion on that talk page (by one of the above users, ThuranX Diffs.) that I do so after the constant barrage of posts on my talk page from the user in this section heading, despite my civil requests that [this user] stop posting them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [added the "Diffs." link. --NYScholar (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC); corr. --20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Well this just proves the point. Good faith efforts have been made and NYScholar refuses to acknowledge any wrong doing. People with more level heads than mine have extended the olive branch and it has been refused. The point is not to drive NYScholar away, the point is to create a more civil environment for all editors. NYScholar has quoted no less than three wiki rules above, which was part of our original complaint. It is fine to stand by your edits because we have all agreed that you are a valuable contributor - we have said it time and again. But you cannot hide behind regulations and continue to interpret any criticism as a violation to WP:HAR. I have and will continue to press the issue until you understand that it was your uncivil tone that started this entire affair. If you feel ganged up upon it is because you have managed to alienate many editors on many different pages. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One other thing. NYScholar complained that the thread on the Dark Knight page was inappropriate because it veered off topic. But when we moved the discussion to the NYScolar talk page, to me the most obvious place to discuss NYSholars actions, the user delete most of the comments saying that they are harassment. I'm just sayin' --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, you have never asked me to stop posting on your talk page. Indeed, I have only posted once on your talk page, today. This was a good faith attempt at reconciliation. If you please take the time to review my comments both there and in this AN/I thread, you will see that I have urged no administrative action against you. Please do not classify my olive branch as harassment; it was intended at bringing about a harmonious atmosphere in which we could all work together in the proper spirit of collaboration. You do not appear to have read it. Please do so again before you present false accusations of attempts to "drive you away". Good day, Steve ^{T • C} 21:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition: as a message to the administrators watching this, NYScholar's response to my blatantly good faith attempts to put an end to this are exactly the sort of behaviour the editor has become renowned for in such a short time. Either misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation. I would prefer to believe the former. There is still time for the editor to prove that. Steve ^{T • C} 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Steve missed my comment in archive page 20, where I said that I "appreciate" Steve's comments; I just had added the same point above before seeing this comment by Steve. I certainly do "appear to have read it": I stated that I "read and appreciated" it. (I'll post the diffs. in a moment.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I missed the comment. It's on "Archive page 20"! Never appearing on your talk page or mine. And yet, I shall strike my comment and apologise. Steve ^{T • C} 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs.; see also the editing history of User Talk:NYScholar. I state very clearly on my current talk page that I archive exchanges that I feel are finished and/or when I cannot take any more of my time to participate in them. This is the case. I do not want to take any more of my time discussing this matter; that is why I filed this AN/I. I hope that some neutral administrator will review this matter and end it. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [(ec): had trouble fixing a link. May have to re-fix it. I did and do appreciate Steve's comments; I did take them as a sensible attempt at "reconciliation": scroll up for my additional remarks saying that, which I had posted before seeing his comment at 21:20.] --NYScholar (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

We both appear to have been editing at the same time; while I don't think I can be expected to have seen your comment on Archive page 20, I have read it now. I have struck out my second reply and apologise for my side of the misunderstanding on this thread. Steve ^{T • C} 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above sections are more indications of the games NYScholar plays. NYScholar hides responses on archived pages. NYScholar asks that no one use NYScholar's talk page to communicate with NYScholar, as such communications would be 'off topic', and thus verboten. Further, NYScholar regards such communication as a personal attack, or harassment. Note that NYScholar lumps all editors into a group which violate WP:HAR by communicating on his talk page, when apparently, few if any of us have done so. However, when the article talk page is employed, all topics are deflected in the aforementioned manners. Note also that here as well, nothing which has been said has been directly addressed, it's all deflection and accusations. It needs to stop. As for the idea that all of us are trying to push NYScholar off the project, to the best of ThuranX' knowledge, there is no conspiracy to do so, ThuranX certainly didn't receive an invitation. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. We have repeatedly stated that NYScholar's edits are generally constructive but the intimidation and condescension to other editors is the problem. --Stuthomas4 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, NYS's disruptive talk page practices were the subject of a previous ANI #NYScholar_block_overturned which lead to discussion about rewriting part of the talk page guidelines but I don't think the changes were ever actually implemented, unfortunately, but I'll have to go back and check. Several people advocated for indefinite blocks of NYScholar and I note that NYS has been blocked numerous times for disruptive editing, 3RR on his own talk page, and making legal threats in the lead up to an Arbitration case in his/her name. I think it's time for the community to consider implementing community-based sanctions such as talk page and archiving restrictions. Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah was involved in a weeks-long editing controversy which I have archived. Sarah needs (as already acknowledged earlier) to be recused. Wikipedia has policies on this kind of situation. My archive documents the involvement of this user in previous attempts to block me, which were overturned. I've done my best to edit in good faith, but this user and others violate WP:AGF. I do not use "sarcasm" as some state. My words need to be read literally. I state exactly what I mean to state, without irony and without sarcasm. Those who perceive sarcasm are simply reading their own interpretations into my statements, which are intended to be taken literally. When I intend emphasis, I use italics. I do not use emoticons. Tone of voice is extremely difficult to interpret accurately in written communications and online communications like talk pages in Wikipedia are written communications. Sarah's interpretations of my intentions have been misinterpretations; and I have clearly stated that in my archived talk pages. I believe that Sarah is still nurturing the same grudges as earlier, which has already been recognized by other administrators. The only mistake that I have made is to devote my time to trying to correct errors in Wikipedia and to explain my edits. I have answered questions posed to me as forthrightly and sincerely as possible. That Sarah and others make the mistake of assuming otherwise is their mistake, not mine. --NYScholar (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, once again I have to ask you to cease making false and unfounded accusations. You have just accused me on my talk page of abusing administrative rights in realtion to you yet I have not touched a single tool ever in dealing with you. I have never blocked you or used any other administrative tools. And here you are claiming that I tried to block you but was overturned and that other administrators said I held a grudge against you. These allegations are all blatantly false. I have never blocked you and if you think otherwise you need to review your block log. Furthermore, no administrator has ever said or "recognised", as you claim, that I was holding a grudge against you or acting with a grudge. Your false accusations are outrageously disruptive and they cause damage to people's reputations. Please cease doing this or I will be moving for a community ban. I will also have you know that I did not delete any of your comments, as you falsely allege on my talk page, but simply changed the header to a more descriptive one for admins scanning the page. Sarah 03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I still remember the archiving drama, where NYScholar was rapidly archiving user talk page rather than engaging in any form of discussion, then throwing bad faith accusations around without foundation. Sarah was not involved in a "weeks-long editing controversy", on that occasion we were all trying to uphold the rules of the encyclopaedia against wanton disruption. Please do not mischaracterise past events in such a manner. Orderinchaos 03:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (added above, for the record).

Sarah should be recused; obviously holds a grduge from previous problems. I really went through a terrible ordeal as a result of previous involvement of that person, and the person has no business changing the heading of this AN/I. I filed it. Strenuous objection to these and earlier comments by Sarah; the full record is archived in my talk page archive. It was a horrendous experience and one that I have no intention or desire to relive via this. The purpose of filing this AN/I was to stop the personal attacks on me and on my editing; Sarah simply aims to continue them. I object in the strongest possible manner to such tactics. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to archive 19 of my talk page: [7]; it is a continuation; my life was made miserable for weeks as a result of the actions of Sarah, and that person should not be posting further comments about that resolved past matter here. This is a separate matter that I filed. If Sarah or anyone else wants to file their own AN/I they can do so. But I will not be participating in them or in any dispute resolutions in Wikipedia. They are, in my experience, a total waste of time. I tried to bring attention to this matter in a cordial way over and over again, but the incivility of these other users, their grudges based on sometimes a single word or phrase taken out of context, This is really beyond the pale. To those of you engaged in this attempt: Please get a grip. Thank you. I appeal to another administrator who is actually neutral to review my requests. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, NYScholar is now saying the cabal that's out to get NYScholar is huge? NYScholar has included no less than 6 people in it so far explicitly, and if I've been reading right, closer to 8 or 9. When that many people, as well as the raft of admins who've blocked NYScholar 7 or 8 times, hard to tell how to count a couple, and the people who showed up to NYScholar's arbcom and previous AN/I threads, doesn't NYScholar think it's possible the problem lies not in everyone else, but in NYScholar? (Note, no pronouns used.) ThuranX (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Rubbish. You started the ANI but that doesn't give you control over it. Any user and any administrator may contribute here. The heading needs to be descriptive for people scrolling though. Also, please make use of the preview button. Your hyper-editing on a busy noticeboard such as this causes edit conflicts for people. Thank you. Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be looking for my original heading; Sarah needs to be recused and to stop editing my AN/I to make it into something it was not. The changes are escalating a matter into a worse situation than it was, and are entirely counterproductive. I seek a neutral administrator.

I will also suggest that those claiming that I have so many blocks etc. have a good look at their own block records and at the complaints filed against them on their own talk pages and in their editing histories. Sarah is clearly not a neutral observer, as my archives document. There is a policy in Wikipedia pertaining to grudges against editors, and I suggest that Sarah and ThuranX (both involved previously) review it. I stand by everything that I have already stated and object most strenously to the judgments made by Sarah, by ThuranX, and by others that I engage in "abusive" editing; the record simply does not support such claims. It is easy to block users; what matters is why the blocks are removed (sometimes within minutes) and what the end result has been. Taking these situations out of context to support long-standing grudges is not going to hold up in any administrative review, so I suggest please stop doing that. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly do not have a grudge against you. I have raised prior cases to show that this is not a once off issue with you and that in fact it is a very long term and on-going problem, not because I have a grudge. If you are unwilling or unable to deal with other editors then you should refrain from editing Wikipedia because this is a collaborative project. Saying that you're permanently too busy off-site and unable to respond to queries while you hyper-edit every single day just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. I do not intend to act as an administrator in this case, however, that's not because I feel compromised in anyway but rather for the simple fact that I find you incredibly tendentious, disruptive and impossible to work with. Having acted as an administrator in a case involving you six months ago does not prohibit me from commenting on other cases if I so desire. I do not excuse the personal attacks from other editors but your editing style and practices are extremely antagonistic and I am not at all surprised that other editors have become so frustrated and reached the end of their tether with you that they have abandoned articles you're working on and eventually snapped and made inappropriate comments. If you would edit in a more congenial manner, you would not have these ongoing interpersonal issues with most editors you edit with. Sarah 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously NYScholar, edit warring on this page really doesn't do anything to help your case; please leave the title and convenience links alone. I would also have to agree with he above assessments of your behavior; you are very combative and skilled at winning by simply wearing down anyone who disagrees with you. This has been a problem since your first interactions on Wikipedia; I think the community is saying that you either need to find a better way to handle disputes or you may find yourself placed under restrictions to help limit the damage. This is an excellent opportunity for change; try to take the comments here in the spirit of constructive criticism and see if you can't find a way to edit harmoniously with others. Shell ^babelfish 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Shell, I must set the record here straight. I have not been "combative"; I have defended myself against others' personal attacks (which continue in talk pages among them, in the talk pages of articles cited above). It takes more than one "to edit harmoniously with others"; I believe that if you yourself examine Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and my talk page archive 20, and the editing histories of these pages, my current talk page, and The Dark Knight, you will find ample evidence that it is not I who have been "combative" or, in any way, "abusive"; I have been entirely civil, as I am being now. I have just updated my current talk page to state that I will make no further comments about this matter. Enough is enough. I have no desire to deal with it anymore, and no time to do so. This process is so unpleasant that I am steering clear of it. I will be doing my own other non-Wikipedia-related work and not dealing with this matter any further. I will also not contribute anything further to The Dark Knight (film). I devoted enough time to it. If there are errors, other people can find and correct them, if they wish to spend their time doing so. Repeatedly, I have found Wikipedia a hostile and unpleasant environment (not a "community") and unconducive to productive work. It would seem to me that it would be the task of neutral Wikipedia administrators to sort out the useful contributors from those who are lurking in talk pages and fueling controversy. I do not see that happening. It is not a "community" in which I feel welcome and not one which I believe deserves my contributions. "Physician, heal thyself." --NYScholar (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have purposefully stayed away from this discussion as I felt that I was perhaps unnecessarily fueling the conflict but I can see that it continues unabated. It has truly gotten to the point where I can't believe anything that NYScholar says, including protestations that they are innocent, declarations that this is either beneath them or that they don't have the time to engage the discussion further. The real truth is that NYScholar has only one opinion, and that is his/hers and is not willing to admit to any culpability in the matter, no matter what the matter is. Any criticism is met with a quotation of wiki policy and a cry of victimhood. We would all welcome NYScholar's contributions, just without the condescension and attitude. If this is not forthcoming I welcome a neutral administrator's input on how to address this pervasive and ongoing issue. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another denial of wrong-doing from NYScholar. One hand distributes distractions and redirects all fault at ALL who dare speak back to NYScholar, the other hand show a flat palm out, saying 'Sorry, NYScholar has no time to face the situation or learn about pronouns, or identify a gender for the writing convenience of others, so only a proper noun may be used.'. Same shit ,different day. ban this editor already. Two admins are telling NYScholar to knock it off, and the jerk keeps swinging, saying all teh admins who comment are cabal/conspiracy. ThuranX (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is "I told you so" time. Back in February, I blocked NYScholar for refusing to discuss his edits - the specific methodology was (a) a wikibreak notice placed permanently on his talk page, while editing at full pace; (b) a message at the top of his talk page demanding that people not post there; (c) the immediately archiving of any messages posted there, citing "harassment", i.e. disregarding his request not to post; and (d) responding to posts, if at all, only in his archive, which others are not permitted to edit, thus allowing false accusations of harassment to stand unchallenged.

For reasons beyond my ken, some of you guys decided to characterise this block as Hesperian blocked NYScholar for archiving his talk page, and overturned it. And here we are five months later, and nothing has changed except that it is a different group of people who are going insane from frustration. NYScholar's management of his talk page is disruptive. I don't care if it meets the letter of WP:UP or indeed all our policied put together. It is disruptive. Hesperian 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And judging from the overwhelming consensus against NYScholar, that criticizes the editor for gross incivility/disruption, edit warring and refusal to discuss any changes, I would support an extended block. seicer | talk | contribs 15:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse a block, too, but I would also support some type of community sanctions, such as a restriction on archiving his talk page less than 24 hours since last posting to that section, civility parole, a blanket prohibition on making accusations without presenting evidence and so forth. I note that NYScholar has continued making utterly false accusations without a single piece of evidence on my talk page, accusing me of violating 3RR on this page (untrue - I made two edits in 45 minutes and none were reverts), deleting his posts (utterly untrue), of violatinmg LOP [List of Policies] "at whim or will", (go figure) of abusing administrative privileges in relation to him (despite the fact that I have never once used admin tools against him). These false accusations are easily dismissed since they are all patently untrue and the actual evidence disproving his false accusations is easily available but it is time consuming dealing with his false accusations. I would prefer to ignore them but I don't want passers by thinking my lack of response isn't an admission of guilt. And if i do respond, he accuses me of harassing him and upsetting him. Regardless of what he says, it's really not my goal to ban him from contributing to Wikipedia; I just want him to stop this incredible disruption that simply rotates to other people - same problems, different editors. I read over the arbitration case earlier today (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar) and the behavioural and attitude complaints from other editors 15 months ago were practically identical to what people still complain about today. This is such a longterm and ingrained issue that I don't see it improving without external intervention. However, apparently I am one of a cabal who are holding grudges against him and trying to get him banned so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, I guess. 8-/ Sarah 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(after EC with below) Might I suggest that a better preventative measure would be for everyone to stay out of each others' way for a while? No more comments on the editor's talk page, no more communication from the editor to this thread or the Dark Knight talk page (the editor has indicated as much), and absolutely no response to comments the editor might make on his/her talk or archive page, no matter how unfair you/we might feel the editor is misrepresenting yours or others' words; the record is already clear enough without further escalating matters. A cool off period might serve to open avenues of constructive criticism and collaboration that aren't immediately obvious right now in this atmosphere of misunderstanding (whether deliberate or not on his/her part) and mistrust. Steve ^{T • C} 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I would see merit in a cool off period if this was a once off issue that suddenly came to a head. However, this has been going on for way too long and needs to be dealt with one way or the other. I feel a cool off period would just serve to delay the inevitable, and I don't think it is an effective way to deal with this sort of disruption. As Shell said above, these issues have existed since NYScholar first came to Wikipedia and that has been around three years now. This should have been dealt with properly in February but it wasn't and now here we are again and I would not support once again delaying a resolution. I don't think it is fair on the community, involved editors or NYScholar himself to have this hanging around unresolved. Sarah 18:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not planning to return here to comment further; but given the false statements and false claims made above, I feel compelled to do so (by those making them). I suggest that you find evidence of "gross incivility/disruption, edit warring and refusal to discuss any changes" in Talk:The Dark Knight (film).

[A user who later apologized for calling my work "crap" had complained that I was discussing my changes to The Dark Knight (film) too much: see the links to the editing history above; then the same user asked for an explanation of the present tense that I had used for coherence in a section, and I explained it; after expressing my surprise ("I do not understand....") that editors of Wikipedia do not know that one uses the present tense in writing about texts. Then I was taken to task for explaining why the present tense is appropriate in such passages about reviews (film criticism is a sub-field of literary/artistic criticism). Please consult the record.]

Those are false claims. Post the diffs. This is not a arbitration/dispute resolution; this is a notice that I originally posted due to the personal attacks against me posted in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) by User:Stuthomas4 initially, and that user's continuing unwelcome posts on my talk page and restoration of them or similar ones despite my civil request that the user desist; I posted this AN/I report when the user posted negative comments about me in the user's own user page (since deleted by the user: see the editing history of the page) and what I regarded as a threat on my own user talk page. The history of the talk pages will bear out what I have stated. I posted the links some time ago now at the top. The way I initiated this AN/I was changed by Sarah, who continues now in what appears to me to be a concerted effort (a campaign) to ban me from Wikipedia. It is not true to say that I do not explain my edits. The complaints made in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) are that I explain them too much. That is not evidence of incivility; that is not evidence of disruption; and that is not evidence of lack of good faith, etc., to name some of these what I regard as entirely false claims. I made all the edits that I have made in Wikipedia only in good faith. The insinuations and innuendoes and false statements made by those summarizing this situation are not accurate, are taking comments made out of their contexts, and are being fueled by one another. One needs to return to the actual comments that I have made in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) [including the editing history] and in the editing summaries of The Dark Knight (film) [including the editing history] to see if there is actual evidence of "gross incivility" etc. [See WP:CIVIL for the definitions of "gross incivility".] I do not believe that there is. I have probably been the most civil of anyone posting on that page. I edit in good faith, and others continally violate WP:AGF in stating that I do not. I have spent hours of my time trying to correct errors in that article to benefit "the project" Wikipedia; instead of recognizing that, others have focused on one sentence or a phrase or what they perceive as a "tone" of voice of "condescension" that I do not intend in the sentence or phrase. They have misinterpreted my reasons for my explanations and construed them as other than what they are. Among my academic fields is literary and critical analysis and interpretation, including many genres of writing. The evidence that others see of "tone of voice" is subject to their own interpretations; accepting one another's interpretations as fact, they have collectively decided that I am "condescending" and project other negative "attitudes" on me which I do not have. If I had such "attitudes" toward others in Wikipedia, I would not have devoted so much time to editing articles in this project, nor would I have taken so much time to respond to others asking me questions about editing. That I took the time indicates not "condescension" but responsiblity. I feel responsible enough to explain my edits when asked. If I write with more words than one would like to see, it is because of the propensity for misinterpretation in Wikipedia. I try to be clear. Sometimes clarity requires stating a point in more than one way and repeating a point for emphasis. I cannot apologize for the comments that I have posted in good faith. I made them in good faith, just as I make this statement in good faith. If others are unwilling to accept the fact that I edit in good faith, that is a function of their own attitudes toward me and my work. But it is not a statement of fact about me, my attitudes, or my work. --NYScholar (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many different kinds of people who contribute to Wikipedia; I am an academic; my style of writing is an academic style of writing. If Wikipedia wants to keep from Wikipedia writers with an "academic style of writing", then its WP:MOS and core editing policies need to make that clear. It is common in Wikipedia to label as "disruption" any explanation that someone writes that has more words than people prefer; my above comments are not intended to be a "disruption"; I write them in good faith; when a situation has become as unnecessarily complicated as this AN/I has become, it does take some additional words to point that out. If those posting in this AN/I section have not got the patience to read this explanation, that is their lack of patience with this project, not mine. I am a very patient person. But I do expect fairness in this proceeding. When I see unfair accusations tossed about, I feel compelled to point to the unfairness. Those of us who have been contributing to Wikipedia for over three years have a responsibility to others like ourselves who contribute in good faith but who are maligned for being who we are. I believe that the kinds of statements being made about me and about my editing are extremely disrespectful and themselves uncivil and violations of Wikipedia:Etiquette. My words are not "rubbish". --NYScholar (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid this editor because my only prior interaction was so unpleasant and unproductive that any comment here would be taken as a grudge or attack. It was a long time ago so water under the bridge. Briefly, in August 2007 NYScholar decided that BLP needed a rewrite so as to ban any self-published external links in BLP articles (he/she/it also took the matter to WP:EL and WP:V on the iffy claim that EL and V were in conflict because we were allowing external links to other than reliable sources). The policy dispute doesn't matter, other than how misguided the editor was on policy. In any event, over the next month or so it made 72 edits to the policy[8] and more than 700 edits to the talk page,[9] occasionally hitting 50 or more edits per day. The edits were full of sniping, snideness, attacks, statements of outrage, accusations that others didn't know what they were doing, etc., and more or less shut down the policy page for a month. Feel free to look for yourself if you want to wade through 800 diffs. That could have worn most anyone down on most pages but I'm pretty persistent when defending Wikipedia against disruption, and he also ran up against Geni, Jossi, and SlimVirgin. Obviously nobody is going to be banned for something they did almost a year ago. The only reason I rehash this is in relation to the question about long-term disruption and the likelihood of reform. The issue isn't bad faith versus good faith. Whether sincere or not (and there's no reason to doubt the editor's sincerity) their presence on Wikipedia has been disruptive, causing lots of grief and wasted time. Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to Sarah's addition, the matter that she alludes to ("February") was "properly" dealt with at that time. She was overruled at that time and the entire record is archived in my own talk archives. As I said before, from my own perspective, she made my life miserable, misinterpreting out of context material that did not support her claims and continually referring to my explanations of what I intended as "rubbish" or similar words ("crap"), continually assuming bad faith when I was responding in good faith, accusing me of "lying" when I was actually telling the truth.

Now she has taken this opportunity to restate the same misinterpretations in her own talk page archived content, which she posted on mine (since deleted, since it is already archived there). [To see what actually transpired, one has to consult the fully-archived talk pages where that matter transpired; her summary is not accurate.]

That she is now back to restate points she made before, again taken out of context, in this AN/I that I filed about another user — what about that user's violations of civility, etiquette, and user space guidelines? That user takes this opportunity to continue to malign me, despite my objections to those earlier transgressions of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines — indicates to me that she now intends to have me "banned" from Wikipedia.

Her earlier failure to block me before was based on administrative review. There are good reasons why her attempt failed, and, just because people in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) do not like the fact that I was responsible enough to answer a user's query with more words than they would like or a sentence that they objected to is not a reason for banning someone who has worked as hard as I have over three years to contribute in good faith to this project.

There would not be such a mess going on here if one would examine with an open mind and fairness what I have been objecting to in my initial reasons for filing this AN/I and to stop trying to make it into another witch hunt. I am not a witch, and I should not be treated as if I were one.

I am a responsible editor who edits in good faith. That should be valued, not maligned. --NYScholar (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral administrator supports block of above editor, based on previous discussion and discussion above. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral editor seconds that emotion. Responding to someone in your archives, like the editor did to Steve, then responding with "Apparently, Steve missed my comment in archive page 20, where I said that I "appreciate" Steve's comments"? That's beyond comprehension. Just wow. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed this AN/I about User:Stuthomas4; after first posting here, Sarah has directed everyone posting here to make this AN/I about me and changed the heading to include me; after her doing that, no one has focused on the continual posts by USer:Stuthomas4 attacking me on my own talk page and in other user space; attacks continuing unabated in this very AN/I. I have already told STEVE that I appreciate his comments posted on my talk page (archived in archive page 20), and I do. But I do not see the others posting in this thread taking his comments into account or trying to act in their spirit. I have indicated to Steve that I appreciated those initial comments (more than once). I do not, however, appreciate the comments of Stuthomas4, Sarah, and some "others" (cited in the heading), which I find inflammatory and unfair. Posting this statement does not make me a "jerk", by the way (another uncivil epithet); it makes me a responsible contributor to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Her earlier failure to block me before was based on administrative review." - please stop making false accusations. As you've been told multiple times now, I did not block you previously. I have never blocked you. Click on the block log button at the top of this section and you will see exactly which admins have previously blocked you. The administrator who blocked you only to have you unblocked by another administrator was User:Hesperian. I really wish that you would stop making these claims about me that are paatently, provably, false. I also do not want to ban you from Wikipedia. I want to end this disruption that is always around you but I prefer to do that by means that allow you to continue editing. That is, through use of community-based sanctions. I am not advocating a ban or even an indefinite block, but if you don't stop making these false claims and accusations about me I am likely to change my mind about that. I would ask that you stop talking about me and instead focus on the issues that brought you here. I had nothing to do with the article on The Dark Knight or your dispute there and have never edited that article, ever, so I suggest you get back to responding to the issues raised pertaining to that and the editors you are currently in dispute with. Thank you. Sarah 18:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason people are talking about NYScholar and not me is because I apologized for my comments and struck them out as has been noted above. I deleted the one comment that was on my user page for the same reason. For those of you who haven't seen it it said only that "I find NYscholar to be particularly annoying." Not really the most awful thing that could be said, but nonetheless it wasn't nice so I deleted it. I have made mistakes in the past and I have exactly one block to my name for an edit war, and one recent warning from another page. As I have not researched the entirety of NYScholar's history I cannot comment on the above users' claims. I only know what I saw at Dark Knight. Anyway, that's why you're still the focus. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Why should others focus on Stuthomas4? He has already acknowledged his incivility at the beginning of this report. You have accused many of attacking you here, but I don't see it. What I see is your assumption of bad faith of quite a few editors indiscriminately. Good faith is a two-way street. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec/2/3)\(ec)

For the record, here is the direct link to my "block" log: NYScholar block log. Hesperian has apparently not gotten over administrative overturning of his block. Frequently, people who look at this block log (which is the entire list of blocks over 3 years) miss the fact that some were done in error and quickly unblocked (scroll down); some occurred when I was a relatively-new user of Wikipedia and not aware of all the "rules and regulations" (policies and guidelines). Over these three years, I have tried to familiarize myself witht Wikipedia's WP:LOP, though there are so many that I may not have full knowledge of all of the subtleties, and there are frequent inconsistencies that confuse me and other users. Project pages are often revised and edited frequently and changes occur. I do my best to be aware of what constitutes "edit warring" (a term I had not heard of before I was accused of doing it), and I try not to engage in edit warring; my user boxes indicate my preferences in editing practices. I prefer using talk pages of articles to reverting others' changes; when they revert my edits, and I believe that they have done so improperly, I explain why I think that way. If they convince me of their perspective, I do yield to it. In the case of Talk:The Dark Knight (film), I figured out a compromise that in my view solved the problem so that one could have an EL in the EL sec. without causing a conflict relating to (how I read) WP:EL (and I have read a lot of the pages of discussion about WP:EL in the past. I believe that my "compromise" by re-casting the section of The Dark Knight involved improves the article. It will undoubtedly change in the future (future film) when more reviews are published; right now, it's rather stable. I will not be editing that article any further (as I say above). --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC) +

(ec) Re: my original complaints about posts by User:Stuthomas4: After posting a so-called olive branch, that user went on to post further negative personal comments about me and added the post on his user page that the user has since deleted; the time stamps indicate the order of events. I did not accept the apology because I had already read the additional negative comments and I was referring to them in my response to the "olive branch". There was no direct apology to me about the user space posting, the continual posts and re-posts of unwelcome further personal attacks on my user talk page, or clear indications in editing summaries of an apology. The material was deleted only after I posted this AN/I and it took some time for that to occur. In the meantime, the same user and others turned this into an AN/I about me, neglecting what I was objecting to initially. I suggest one return to what I was objecting to in order to see why I filed this AN/I report. See the top links. As far as I am concerned, this matter is partly resolved because I will no longer edit The Dark Knight (film) at all, and these users can edit it themselves to their heart's content, without my contributions; but the matter of Stuthomas4' original personal attacks against me have not been sanctioned, as they should have been (in my view). To me that kind of lack of even-handedness among those responding to this AN/I indicates a problem in this process. --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks and other sanctions are supposed to be used preventatively, not punitively. Stuthomas4 redacted the comments and apologised numerous times so there is nothing "preventative" to be gained from sanctioning him right now. If he makes other personal attacks, then I'm sure he will be sanctioned at that time, but it would seem sanctions at this point would be purely punitive. Sarah 02:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense - I tried to be civil and you were, in my opinion, ungracious abut it. I am sorry that I maligned you. I have retracted, redacted and retreated. What more do you want? It's over. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I do not "play games"; my work in Wikipedia and my comments are serious and people reading them should take them seriously. This matter is not a "joke" or a "game". --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar seems to not understand that just because User One complains here about User Two does not mean that only User Two's actions will be assessed, but both users', to make a sound and reasonable decision. What has happened here is the community has looked, seem one apology, and one pattern of continued disruption. With apology, for an action many find understandable, if not justified, that editor's part is settled. However, the disruptive editor is seen to be persisting in the behavior which provoked the incivility, and seen to be deliberately obtuse about the disruptive editor's actions and their effects. As a result, numerous other editors, who have experienced the deliberately obtuse disruption from the editor before are speaking up. You opened the door to this by coming here, NYScholar, and asking others to look at how someone treated you. They also looked to see what caused that treatment, AND how you treated that person. ThuranX (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)\

Post the diffs. to support claims being made; look at the time stamps; stuthomas4 did not apologize to me for the personal attacks made after the so-called olive branch; Stuthomas4 continued to re-post the same or similar messages on my talk page complaining about me (making the same "criticisms") after I read and deleted them. I deleted them because I considered and still consider them to be ongoing personal attacks. ThuranX participated in fueling these personal attacks and "criticisms" of me further above; I have "treated" all users engaged in this matter (including the one who referred to my work as "crap") with respect; I have not been uncivil; many of them have been uncivil. When I have pointed that out, I have been accused of being "tendentious" and "disruptive". There are policies and guidelines in Wikipedia re: WP:CIVIL, WP:Etiquette, WP:AGF, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which I felt (and feel) are being violated in this discussion and in Stuthomas4's previous actions about which I filed this AN/I. Turning the accusations against me, people are doing so without posting "diffs." from The Dark Knight (film) to support the charges. Let us compare the "incivilities"; I civilly responded to Stuthomas4's "olive branch" with the knowledge that Stuthomas4 had already continued the personal attacks on me elsewhere despite filing that "olive branch"; thus I referred Stuthomas4 to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, giving the section that pertains. --NYScholar (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledged my uncivil tone here and elsewhere and have retracted my statements several times. I have apologized above. I'll do it here again. I am sorry. Am I done here? --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(I was offline taking a shower and the computer was still on; so I checked this thread again.) Yes, Stuthomas4, I accept your apology for past statements about me. My acceptance of that apology does not give Stuthomas4 or anyone else carte blanche to attack me personally in the future, or to claim that I do not edit in good faith. I edit in good faith, and I am probably more "civil" (WP:CIVIL) than many of those "criticizing" me here (including some administrators). Being an administrator does not excuse any Wikipedia[n] from [abiding by] WP:LOP. In turn, I apologize for being wordy. Many academics appear "wordy" to non-academics. As I have said before, however, I have been "wordy" in good faith. From my perspective, I do not appear to be "wordy"; I am trying to be clear. (Back offline to eat and to go to the Post Office to check my mail; it closes at 4:30 p.m. ET; then must do some non-Wikipedia-related work; I work seven days of the week.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC) [Logging off after tc. --NYScholar (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

"Many academics appear "wordy" to non-academics." I just had to point this out. Now that's funny. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Let's. You bring all the diffs that you're using to accuse everyone of conspiring against you. Do you understand that people are uspet with you? Do you understand that you have irritated and alienated numerous editors? Do you understand that in asking others to examine his conduct, the people looked at your part in the situation as well? Do you understand that they found your long term behavior more problematic than his short term loss of good temper? ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

break1

I've read the above as well as the exchanges at User talk:Sarah and see that the root of this discussion is the same as was had here in February (NYScholar block overturned) — NYScholar is incapable of getting on with the rest of the community. He (I'll use the masculine - apologies if anyone is offended) makes unfounded accusations of bad faith against other contributors and when asked to put up or shut up, obfuscates and avoids; his selective and rapid archiving, hyper-editing and frequent adjustment of signature time stamp practices are disruptive and make it almost impossible to investigate the flow of past discussions; using these practices combined with a "do not post messages here" notice on his talk page effectively stifles discussion; he cannot accept that despite an overwhelming body of opinion that it is he who is out of line and not anyone else. He is alone in defending his own behaviour. A single acknowledgement of his own faults and a promise to try to follow the established norms of bahaviour would go a long way to diffusing this, by I think that that is now unlikely.

NYS is now saying that he will no longer contribute at The Dark Knight (film), but even if true, what does it achieve? He'll be here tomorrow exasperating another set of editors on another page who all somehow manage to get on with each other. I'll bet that someone will be back here discussing the same issue within 6 months. Its time that NYS was formally sanctioned. Moondyne 05:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who undid NYScholar's latest block based on a reading of blocking policy that might, in retrospect, have been too restrictive. At any rate, the above discussion shows that, based on the long-term experience of numerous users, NYScholar does not appear to be able to work productively in a collaborative environment. I would support any sanctions imposed by an uninvolved administrator that would remedy this issue (including an indefinite block) until NYScholar shows clearly that he understands what the problem is and will act accordingly.  Sandstein  15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Sandstein's comment above is surely one of the strongest single indicators of the problem NYScholar's conduct represents. That an admin who advocated so hard for NYS before, sticking their neck out and taking some flack for it in this AN/I, now sees the problem as more serious says it is time for sanctioning. I'm not sure which sanctions should be implemented, but something needs to be done. ThuranX (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I did not at any time "advocate for NYScholar". I did once respond to an unblock request of his by lifting the block that had been imposed on him for his talk page management, because I was of the opinion that deleting and archiving messages was allowed by the applicable policies, and that a block cannot technically prevent such conduct anyway. I still think that short blocks purely for poor talk page management are a bad idea. But a longer block for persistent misconduct (which may also manifest itself in poor talk page management) may be required here.  Sandstein  16:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, that portion struck out. ThuranX (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Per his own words, NYScholar will no longer participate in, nor, apparently, recognize the authority of, this thread and it's resultant sanctions. As such, it's clear that NYScholar is intent on expanding the radius of disruption, and that this may best be brought to WP:AE for some significant and permanent sanctions, or push for a community ban. I certainly haven't heard anyone really appeal for us not to do so. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Orderinchaos 06:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would request an uninvolved administrator close this discussion. If and whatever sanctions are applied, I request we don't apply an indefinite block, though I would support a fixed term block plus restrictions on hyper-archiving, making false accusations, accusations without evidence and refusing to discuss edits with other editors within reason. NYScholar has refused to participate further in this discussion and has stated he refuses to participate in dispute resolution but sits on his talk page responding to comments made here with long an inaccurate screeds but objects if anyone attempts to respond to him and accuses them of having no heart. His behaviour continues to be unacceptable. I don't see any benefit in leaving the discussion open any longer given the circumstances. Sarah 08:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspending a moot sanction

Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) were under a community sanction designed to ensure that the two editors disentangled from each other (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi). Martinphi has since retired from the project. Some discussion has taken place about this matter.[10] Myself and the other editor (Nealparr (talk · contribs)) that were the principal architects and proponents of the editing restrictions both feel that it is largely moot at this point. GRBerry (talk · contribs) recommended raising the matter here to ensure there is community approval to suspend the sanction. It was intended purely to separate two editors who had a difficult time extricating themselves from each other and it would seem to serve only as a one-sided weapon if left in force (since only one of the two editors is active in the project). Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "suspending" is a good way to describe it. It can always be reinstalled if they were to 1) both be active editors and 2) continue to be at each other throats. Otherwise there's really no need for it since it only applied to edits regarding each other. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi has edited Wikipedia this month, so I would be reluctant to say that he's completely gone. If he is absent for a few months, then it might be worth revisiting this, but it probably really will be moot at that point. Also, for those who are wondering why this is even an issue, it's because ScienceApologist today abused the "undo" button to specifically target an edit of Martinphi's[11] from March.[12] There have been several edits from other editors in the meantime, so ScienceApologist could have easily just edited the article to his preferred version. But that he is going through article history, looking for edits of Martinphi just so that he can undo them, tells me that the ArbCom restriction is still necessary to avoid disruption to the project. In any case, this probably isn't a discussion for ANI... A better venue would be a request for clarification at WP:RFAR. --Elonka 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely up on the latest incident was that caused this note, but if Martinphi has left, why would it matter if the sanction were in effect? Shouldn't it be rather impossible to interact with someone who's not present or, if this is a case of ScienceApologist selectively reverting Martinphi's edits now that he's retired, should we still be discouraging that? Maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on the method here, but I think if ScienceApologist were to make editorial changes to articles Martinphi had edited instead of specifically undoing Martinphi's edits, it probably wouldn't even catch anyone's attention. Shell ^babelfish 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell - Am agreed with you in principle, but in practice it's tough to read that and quickly understand that it's really only meant for SA-Martinphi interactions. To save everyone time and headache, I'd support suspending this, just so there's no ambiguity. Antelan^talk 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion, I obviously support it. I had proposed suspending it so long as one editor has been retired for two weeks. Since 23 June, MartinPhi has commented on his retirement, but not edited anything but his user talk page and user page. The last edit to the user page could be interpreted to say he might consider returning, but since he is quoting someone else I think it would be a stretch to put that interpretation on it. He might, he might not. I wouldn't object to a longer term prior to suspension, so long as it is defined. (Also, this is a community sanction rather than an Arbitration sanction, so the community is the right venue to modify it.) GRBerry 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pre-mature for a couple reasons, not the least of which is that people usually come back. Let's look at the restrictions: "...should not enter into discussions solely to fight against..." I don't doubt that some of the discussions Martin participated in (before leaving) are still ongoing. "...should not make a comment about..." We should not condone attacks against departed users any more than we should condone lower content standards for, say, articles about dead people (but unfortunately we still do). "...should not edit policies or guidelines based obviously on his interactions with..." Sounds like open season. SA's marked difficulty in abiding by the restrictions is not a strong argument to lift them. I would recommend waiting a few months, both to see if Martinphi returns and whether ScienceApologist's behavior improves during this likely brief hiatus. — CharlotteWebb 02:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hate to point out the elephant in the room, but this is about the 3rd block by Elonka on SA that is dubious. It's time to see what this is and that's Elonka on some mission to reform SA via blocks, blocks and more blocks. Shot info (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Support suspension. On the one hand, if one editor is gone, this sanction is inherently inapplicable. On the other hand, it is easy to miss that point, making suspension worthwhile with respect to reducing drama from accidental applications of an inapplicable sanction. Antelan^talk 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I retired partly because my sanction devolved into having an admin (who was quite well intentioned) looking over my shoulder and banning me because he thought I wasn't right about what the sources said- even when I explained fully how I was using the sources. I can't base my editing on what I think an admin, who is no expert on the subject, might think of the content. I retired mainly because I saw no hope that Wikipedia would come to its senses and notice that debunking is not NPOV. I will remain retired as long as Wikipedia doesn't wake up and notice that debunking is no more acceptable than promotion of fringe ideas. People must recognize that WEIGHT is relative to the subject of an article-- Mainstream science is highly notable in an article on Creationism, but doesn't really have a lot of WEIGHT; certainly not more than Creationism (I don't edit that article). And Creationism is notable in an article on the science of evolution, but not very notable. And I remain retired because of the absolutely abominable actions and nastiness which debunkers heap upon pro or neutral editors in the paranormal articles. I remain retired because of the double standard which applies to debunkers versus those, like me, who oppose debunkers. This double standard allows debunkers to get away with almost anything, while those who try and follow the rules but nevertheless oppose debunking, have to endure month after month and year after year of abuse, even when they don't desire to make the articles sound positive toward fringe ideas. I see little hope that this will change, and so I intend to remain retired. Wikipedia has already suffered because of the debunking: its articles are much less developed, most of its editors who know the subjects have been driven away, and the negative tone is the best way to make people reject mainstream science. Even if mainstream science is wrong about some fringe things, this is a very bad outcome.

However, I might come back if Wikipedia wakes up (though I do feel I have lost the joy of the thing). I monitor the situation, but so far Wikipedia seems to be ascending into a flight of chaos (see the ArbCom situation). However, at least some people are making a noble attempt, including Vassyana, even though I disagree with part of his method as relates to me (being a judge of content). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your editing, I hope you let us know when you decide to come back. If we were to change the NPOV policy, your modified version of WP:WEIGHT that you summarize here could certainly be considered. Antelan^talk 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Views are being pushed against policy from both sides of the fringe debates. Non-scientists are being presented as scientists and their speculations are being presented as science. For example, James Randi is not a scientist, yet in many places he is cited as the scientific view - here [13] for example. But with me gone there are few if any people left willing to do something about it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This account appears to be operating from a proxy. The contribution list of this account makes it appear to days old at Wikipedia, an assumption that is incompatible with such knowledge of the SA/Martinphi controversy, and incompatible with antagonizing SA on his talk page. Therefore, the next good-faith assumption is that someone is using this instead of their real account in order to avoid backlash on a topic in which they are involved with another account. This behavior would be in violation of the sockpuppet policies. Finally, this could be a banned user such as User:Davkal, back to push his agenda. It is unclear which this is, but none of the probable options are allowed by WP policy. In other words, this IP's comments should be ignored or perhaps stricken. Antelan 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

An article about Santa Claus should not consist mostly of scientific rejection of his existence. WP:WEIGHT makes it clear that minority viewpoints can have articles specifically devoted to them. But this could not happen if in every case the mainstream view dominated the content of the article. For example, Creationism should not be turned into a duplicate Evolution article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate your novel reinterpretation of NPOV's WEIGHT clause. Antelan 14:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that Creationism should be turned into a duplicate of the Evolution article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using proxy servers to try to evade blocks and bans. Antelan 16:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Debunking is POV?! So Wikipedia should knowingly propagate discredited information just because some people believe in it???

Debunking can be WP:OR, but not inherently. If a reliable 3rd party source presents facts that prove a fringe theory is false, then Wikipedia better present those facts. Or should we modify Coriolis effect to say that toilets flush the other way in the Southern hemisphere, just because most people I know believe it to me factual?

The day debunking becomes pov is the day Wikiality has taken over. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not support. Many of you assume that Martin dislikes SA and that is the reason for the altercations. If you took the time to review Martin's edits, you would see that he opposes SA's edits, not the person. SA is very skeptical, and by his own admission on his personal page, his skepticism leads him to be a strong protector of the status quo. His way of doing that has been to push what he thinks is the status quo point of view at all cost. Martin has only tried to balance SA's tactic.

With that said, Elonka's first reason to block SA--edit-warring with Martinphi, using "undo" to remove an edit of his from March as "irrelevant"[14]-- acknowledges the reason for the earlier sanctions. SA made exactly the kind of point of view edits that has brought them in conflict in the first place. The article was "...it says that it..." and SA made it "...it admits that it ..." "Admits" establishes a denouncing point of view by innuendo.

It is clearly the operational policy of Wikipedia to preserve the process by which it has arrived at what it is today. Unless you plan to kill off Martin as an editor, the processes are still alive and active. I am a little astounded by how quickly SA supporters have seized the opportunity to unleash SA from this one enforceable requirement that he be nice. The reasons for him to be nice are still active. Tom Butler (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is talking about lifting the ArbCom-imposed civility parole (to my knowledge), which is the only "enforceable requirement that he be nice". Vassyana (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

By now you should know that any disagreement with SA results in him not being nice. Being "nice" also means respecting consensus, discussing changes and not being so determined to characterize subjects in as negative a light as he thinks he can get away with. I have to admit that I am disappointed in your studied determination not to see that all of this is just reinforcing the fact that SA is untouchable. Instead, it appears that you admins have teamed up with him to attack any admin who may be so foolish as to attempt to modify his actions.

It is your wiki now, but don't be dismayed when some of us decide to complain in public. Tom Butler (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a breath and a step back. You're replying to one of the admins who has stepped forward on multiple occasions to intervene against SA's favor. (Such as, apropos for the discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement.) On the other side, despite my actions against them, I've maintained polite (and even friendly) lines of communication with Martinphi and DanaUllman. Taken together, the situation is nowhere near as one-sided/two-dimensional as you'd present. Vassyana (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but after being abused by SA and his friends for so long, being called a moron, a fraud and accused of lying, seeing him abuse others and outright drive off constructive editors, basically telling admins to butt out and seeing articles he edits become more and more biased toward his myopic point of view, I think my response is pretty modest. However well intended your efforts have been, and I agree with Martin that you intended well, your actions have apparently been the last straw and I literally see no editor willing to even attempt balancing SA's excesses. It is a one-sided/two-dimensional situation from my perspective.

I know this is not the place to right great wrongs, as SA is so fond of saying in his kinder times, but Martin is right. Until the rules are changed so that categories such as fringe are no longer relevant because it is not permitted to characterize subjects (probably not a good paraphrase of Martins intention), Wikipedia will continue to be a platform for people like SA to push the skeptical viewpoint. Until you see that, I really cannot see how I can think of Wikipedia as something in the best interest of our country. Please do not argue with me here about this. Just show me with deeds that I am mistaken. Tom Butler (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom and MartinPhi. Removing comments from Anon editors is another example of protecting the Golden Boy. Of course all critical anon users must be banned users! --71.18.216.36 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does every discussion about ScienceApologist get derailed into a string of attacks on his character? This thread's purpose is essentially procedural, and we have gone far askance. Antelan 00:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably because in the last six months SA has breached his civility and AGF restrictions on over 300 separate occasions. Or maybe it's because in the last six months he has edit warred articles until they were locked over 25 times. Or maybe it's because he has about 6 sockpuppets or IPs on the go at any given time. Or maybe it's because he goes to 3RR on multiple articles virtually every day. That is, maybe it's because hundreds of editors have now had enough of the perpetual abuse, edit warring and seeming untouchability of someone who, when all is said and done, contributes virtually nothing of value to the encyclopedia. You think I'm making this up? Would you like to see the diffs? 66.96.243.12 (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that SA is under a specific ArbCom restriction to only use one account, yes, it would be very helpful to produce diffs of suspected sockpuppetry or usage of anonymous accounts. Even better, file a report at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. --Elonka 03:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to revert a "redacted" (you all are creating a world of your own) But every user has the right to an opinion here and as SA has shown us, using your "real" screen name does not matter. Antelan, stop deleting legitimate comments! Tom Butler (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the IP that posted this is an open proxy, the use of which is (as far as I know) forbidden on Wikipedia. I blocked it until sufficient evidence is shown to prove that the IP belongs to a normal ISP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

what does "redacted" mean? Does it mean "censored"? Is this part of wikipedia's new [WP:ScienceApologistIsAlwaysRight] policy?--feline1 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourselves with the policy on banned users. Tom, please particularly see the portion of that page that deals with removing comments made by banned users, and the portion that deals with posting information on behalf of banned users. The policy on no open proxies may also be of interest. Antelan 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, while I respect the spirit of Wikipedia rules, I question wether or not they are intended to be used to promote your viewpoint. It does seem that you are always close at SA's side and taking such actions appears to me to be a conflict of interest. Perhaps explaining why you felt the comments were so harmful to the discussion and offering some evidence to support your claim would diminish the appearance of impropriety.

It seems that this might be a good time to ask you to accept the offer to see the diffs or move to close this discussion without a decision. Tom Butler (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate how this extended commentary on ScienceApologist relates to the purpose of this thread, I'll reconsider. First, please reread the many sanctions on him, and make sure that you are familiar with which of the many of the SA/Martinphi sanctions that they are talking about suspending. I'm convinced that even you wouldn't mind lifting this sanction, which applies only to SA&Martinphi - an interpretation which has been endorsed by the very creators of this sanction. Once you have demonstrated this to me, I'll be happy to continue talking with you about whatever you'd like (on one of our talk pages). Antelan 17:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is kind of you to offer to continue talking with me ... after I demonstrate an understanding of the sanctions. If Nealparr thinks it is a good idea to close the sanction, that is his choice, but he and others made a proposal that was accepted. Having been accepted, it became policy. I do not agree with the idea that it is now "largely moot ." I am under the opinion that the sanction was set in an effort to modify behavior and I have not seen that happen. The only way that it would make sense to remove the sanction is if you permanently banned one or both parties. As it stands now, there has been no contrition and there is no reason to believe that the sanction would not be needed again, should Martin decide to return to editing.

I call for the question. Count your votes and move on. Tom Butler (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed as a suspension (and as I proposed it only when the other editor had been inactive for at least two weeks) precisely because if the departed editor returns I want the sanction to go back into force without any need for a drama thread. The two editors need to be kept apart, and the community has realized this. If one editor is retired, they are apart. If they are both active, the sanctions will be back in force. GRBerry 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I wanted Tom to reread the sanction and your proposal. From his previous comment, it seems that he thinks that the proposal makes much more sweeping changes than it actually does. It is "largely moot" until Martinphi decides to start editing again; this !vote simply makes that even more clear. Antelan 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that Martin is busy here in AN/I enabling a banned user [15], does this mean that in fact he is (inter alia) editing again? Also, does this qualify under the restrictions per the policy (see WP:BAN and WP:MEAT? Shot info (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One, have you established he is enabling a banned user and two, are you saying that he is not permitted to advance an opinion of a respected contributor? Since as I understand it, SA is the purpose for the ban of the person you think Martin is enabling, should we also be talking about reinstating that person so that we can benefit from his input? As I see it, SA is the cause of that ban just as he is the cause of so many editors abandoning Wikipedia.

You tread on dangerous ground. I recommend you have your vote and go on. And for the record, I am aware of the finer points of this discussion and see nothing to change my mind. Some of you have turned from releasing SA from the sanctions because Martin is gone to condemning Martin for not being gone. Win at any cost? Tom Butler (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lajolla2009

I'm having issues with User:Lajolla2009. I disagreed with their edits to David K. Jordan and List of University of California, San Diego people regarding the inclusion of Mike Hou, and so I reverted them, explaining why on those articles' talk pages and asking for discussion. Lajolla2009 proceeded to re-revert, and then delete my comments on those articles' talk pages, as well as the comments I made on User Talk:Lajolla2009. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I'm not sure of the proper course of action. Would you please advise? Many thanks. Realitycookie (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I did not revert back the notability under UCSD's Notable People. According to WP:TALK I have the right to remove my own comments off my talk. At the same time, when an issue is resolved, the talk can be removed to prevent future complications.

Thanks.

Lajolla2009 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did remove my comments the discussion page for List of University of California, San Diego people previous to the ones that have been left. I also don't believe that the issues were resolved, but rather that you are now unilaterally declaring them resolved, as I don't feel satisfied by your explanations. Also, WP:TALK which you cited, specifically says, "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission" and I haven't given you permission to do this.

I don't dispute your right to remove comments from your talk page, but my questions have as a result gone unanswered and I believe that is relevant. Realitycookie (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First, on the "protocol" side of the dispute. Realitycookie is correct here. Lajolla2009 removed Realitycookie's comments to Talk:David K. Jordan twice:[16][17] and to Talk:List of University of California, San Diego people once [18]. This is unacceptable conduct that constitutes disruptive behaviour. Comments of other users on talk pages other than your own talk page should not be removed, but for a a few exceptional circumstances (e.g. obvious vandalism). Lajolla2009, if you disagree with another editor's comments, you should add your comments below them. This way other editors will be able to see the entire exchange and to add their comments as well. Second, on the substance of the dispute. Realitycookie is quite correct there as well. Adding the name of a person, who only received his undergraduate degree in 2008 and has no other significant accomplishments yet, to the list of notable alumni of UCSD (such as this edit here[19]) is clearly inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And now there is apparent sockpuppetry, as Lajolla2009 stopped editing but an anon IP from San Diego, 128.54.197.138, keeps adding the name of the same student to the David K. Jordan article, see here[20]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwain

I thought User:Dwain was inactive, but apparently not for as long as I thought. His userpage consists of nothing but an external link to a Geocities website as his "profile" here, which has a bunch of linkbacks to his userpages. Other than the fact that there is no reason to have an external site hold your WP profile (unless there's something in it which makes it WP-inappropriate, which there is), what specifically concerns me is his "my private website" link and the "Freemasonry" page therein, which is full of all the stuff various people would not let him put on WP for various reasons, and a list of Wikipedians who he thinks are Freemasons here. Then as now, I see this as an attack page, and while this issue was brought up a long time ago, it apparently wasn't quite resolved. Therefore, I'd like to see Dwain's userpage blanked and locked. If he can't use his userspace responsibly, and has to find ways to get around policies, he should simply not be allowed use of it. MSJapan (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be germane to this discussion to point out that you are one of the Wikipedians whom Dwain alleges to be Freemasons. Skomorokh 11:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're attempting to suggest the existence of an actual Freemason conspiracy, no, it's not germane at all. --Calton | Talk 11:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Freemason conspiracy? I thought it was Jewish... Sceptre ^(talk) 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a timeshare thing, with the Freemasons on Saturday, the Jews on Sunday, the Trilateral Commission on Monday, and the Vatican on Tuesday. --Calton | Talk 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Wednesday through Friday are still open. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone comes to ANI with a complaint about another editor's behaviour, it is somewhat less than scrupulous not to disclose their involvement in the situation. In this instance, the OP's claim that the external link is to an attack site has different weight coming from an uninvolved outsider than it does coming from someone who may see themselves as a victim of the alleged attack. Sincerely, Skomorokh 13:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, if there is a notice regarding possible links to racist websites it beholds the reporter to comment on their own ethnic background? I think it is the link/content that is the issue, and not the motives of the reporter - unless it is a particularly egregious report (which, per AGF, I am certain you are not insinuating). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous strawman of course, but it is my fault for not being specific enough in my wording above. User:MSJapan is explicitly listed among a short list of Wikipedian Freemasons on the linked page. I assume good faith on the part of all concerned, but the way you read an account of a particular situation varies dramatically based on your information of the source of the account. It is often difficult to be entirely neutral when you feel personally attacked. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a strawman argument; my point is that the decision here can only rest upon whether the link is appropriate or not, and not on who initiates the discussion. Yes, a personal reason might be involved in the reporting - but not on whether it is an appropriate link; therefore it is irrelevant on whether MSjapan has a personal stake in the matter or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, implying that I was committed to mandating racial disclosure is a strawman. No, I never commented on what the decision should rest on, nor on the appropriety of the link, and do not understand why you are bringing this up in response to my minor, obvious, and procedural point that as JASPencer's comment below shows, is quite relevant. Good day, and regards,Skomorokh 15:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest, respectfully of course, that if you don't wish to read a sysop's opinion on a matter, that you do not interact upon any of the admin noticeboards - it would certainly allow me to concentrate on helping those who might appreciate it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly there's no link on Dwain's Talk page to this discussion. This is discourteous, but I don't really expect much courtesy on this matter - all things considered. More practically it's bloody confusing. I came on here because there seemed to be some unprovoked vandalism and I suggested it go here. And what do I see? Something that makes it all clearer.

Secondly the original link was a compromise between sensitivity and free speech. This seems to be the pertinent edit. I personally think that this blanking out of any content critical of Freemasonry is poor show, but even so this compromise should not be overturned on a whim.

Finally censorship may at times be necesary, but it should be carefully examined and not done on a whim.

JASpencer (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To those editors who are saying that it doesn't matter who lodges a complaint... what are you talking about? Of course it does. A simple note like "accusing editors of freemasonry, including me" would have been the right thing to do. Beam 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, JASpencer was clearly tracking my edits; there was no vandalism involved with this at all. It is a long-term incident that was supposedly dealt with and wasn't. Frankly, what it is is a guy maintaining lists of Wikipedia users outside of Wikipedia because of what he thinks. That's simply inappropriate. And why, if it didn't affect me, would I come across it or bother to bring it to anyone's attention? "Then as now" should have pretty much made my past involvement clear anyway; it's not the accusation so much as the maintenance of the list that concerns me, and the circumvention of policies that indicates. MSJapan (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, it doesn't matter what lists someone maintains off wiki of various WP editors, even if it is only based on the listers own opinions - until there is a link from the listers userpage. If an editor wants the general public to know something about themselves then they use their own userpage; they have the right for any conjection about who they are or why they edit to be removed from other accounts pages. To have a third party list "facts" about a user is not appropriate without the consent of the individual concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I myself have the impression (rightly or not) that the individual is free to say on wiki anything that he wishes to. However, to use that as an excuse to set up an off-wiki link, which that person uses as a wikipedia userpage, which directly links to what appears to be a form of conscious derogation (at least in the eyes of the user creating the page) seems to me to be unacceptable. It might be possible to restore the user page using the material from the off-wiki page, and not allowing the link to the apparently intentionally (if not factually) derogatory page? And I have left Dwain a notice of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The material is off-wiki because (IIRC) it was MfDed out of userspace at least once and possibly twice for precisely the same reason I've brought it up here now. This is nothing but policy circumvention and chronically arrogant behavior. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Was it the content on this page which was MfD'd, or was it the list? I personally don't see much wrong with the page above that isn't at least as bad on some other pages. I wouldn't have any objections to that being restored myself, although I would object to any links from wikipedia, direct or indirect, to the list of Freemasons which the author seems to consider to be derogation. I do note that some members of Masonic bodies prefer not being identified as such, respect that, and consider that possibly/probably sufficient grounds for removing such a list and ensuring that it is not linked to from wikipedia. But the main page above seems to be to be basically no worse than a lot of other userpages I've seen. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that originally there were objections that the user page was too strong, and a succesful attempt was made to suppress it, the author then thought that he had been censored (as obviously he had, but there may have been some justification) and so set up a mirror page off-wiki and linked to that. This was then objected to as it was still too strong, the off wiki page was then toned down and everyone was happy. Now the whole thing starts again. JASpencer (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked through Wikipedia:Userpage and noted this, which appears to allow what Dwain has done - since the problematic listing is a link from that site. I also think that the language of the ArbCom regarding Badsites permitted the link to a site that wasn't directly directed to contentious material. My opinion is that Dwaine is wikilawyering around policy to enable a campaign against an ideology he disagrees with, and is doing so succcesfully. However, if the editor is no longer active on WP and has links on the userpage that is offensive to current contributors then I can't see that there is any good served by keeping it up. When not actively contributing such information does not help in building the encyclopedia, but rather falls under WP:SOAP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more like a series of problems - content was shuffled here and there to superficially comply with policy until said content was found again, and LHvU has summed up my position and reasoning (plus some) for bringing it up here again. The simple fact is that if Dwain did what he was supposed to instead of trying to play policy games, I would never have had to bring this up again. MSJapan (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to set up a policy or guideline to deal with what sort of external links are acceptable on user pages. Unfortunately, Dwain as per here has been active once recently, reverting his user page, so I'm not sure if he can technically be called "inactive." Welcome comments from others. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwain was active in a controversy about whether George Washington became a deathbed Catholic. JASpencer (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) ps. The answer I am not looking for is 14th December 1799! ;~)

He asked for my help at the end of May, beginning of June. I think that was when it died down but it had been going for some time. JASpencer (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It stewed for a long time, but things really broke out in February 2008 as fallout of a project to cleanup and improve the citations of List of United States Presidential religious affiliations. This led to looking at George Washington and religion, which in turn led to Leonard Neale. The issue was sourcing of the claim; I removed it from the second and third articles mentioned because of substantial doubt that the source even existed, and because it conflicted with eyewitness accounts. This went on for some time, and we eventually ended up with a compromise version. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of these periodic attacks by people with differing opinions. My account is NOT inactive! MSJapan is now taking issue with a page that I edited and where a compromise was already established by me and another freemason editor. Originally:I was attacked by several people who purported to be freemasons years ago because I had made some notes on freemasonry on one of my Wikipedia pages. I had these notes so I could possibly use them when editing an article concerning freemasonry. These notes were successfully deleted by MSJapan and others. My userpage was also attacked and I removed it onto another location. I have tried to stay clear of these people in editing and elsewhere but apparently that is not good enough. If MSJapan does not want to be listed as a freemason I suggest he remove the information box which purports that he is one and stops telling people on talkpages that he is one! My information on Wiki-masons came from the editors own userpages and assertions. I pointed them out because they were editing articles on freemasonry and because as masons they takes oaths not to reveal things about the group and they are obligated to lie. As a result, if one is a good mason they will lie when talking about certain aspects of the group. I wonder if he realizes that by making attacks, such as this, may make some people think that his beloved organization is made up of petty, ignorant, zealots. He may be doing more harm for his cause then he is helping it. My Wikipedia userpage has a warning and the link to my personal page has a warning. I have not added anymore information to these pages. This issue was settled years ago. I have worked with a purported freemason on Wikipedia and resolved an issue in an article by compromising. I just want to be left alone. If MSJapan thinks that he can remove any mention of freemasonry not sanctioned by his organization on the internet he is just plain wrong. Dwain (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"...petty, ignorant, zealots"? I think a line just got crossed here. Not to mention the blanket assertions that Freemasons must lie. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found Dwain the easiest person to work with, but frankly it seems to me that this is rather a tempest in a WP:ATTACKSITES teapot. It doesn't seem to me to be worth the fuss. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

All this fuss over bricklayers? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Save humanity

Adding

Unresolved

though

Resolved

 – blocked for 24 hours --Allemandtando (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Save humanity (talk · contribs) is conducting some disturbing behaviour at the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena‎ article, introducing bloggish/spammish/soapboxish commentary (like posting contact phone number of the party), breaching 3rr, creating a fork article and not responding to the various warnings posted at his talk page. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User has been notified, please notify the Subject of AN complaints in the future. Also, I recommend you file a 3RR report by going here and filing a complaint. Beam 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone delete the very clear POV folk that is Maharashtra Navnirmaaa Sena (MNS) --Allemandtando (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this user seems to have copied my user page. I came to know of this as one of the fellow editor with whom I regularly interact left me the message. Check this - User_talk:Gppande#Question & User:Save_humanity. I would request Admins to be help me by deleting his/her user page. I have never ever got involved with this user earlier. Looks like he/she is making improper use of my name. --gppande «talk» 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What is confusing is why does Save humanity assume Klopto (talk · contribs · count) to be Gppande whom 'he' (Save humanity is a male as per his userpage declaration) refers to as Dear Klopto (Gppande) in a message at Klopto's talkpage?! KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the first thing to be done is to clean the message coz I am definitely not Klopto. I would prefer admins doing this as I hesitate to wipe off discussion threads on others talkpage. BTW, my userpage got vandalized had to get it semi-protected. Something fishy is going on. --gppande «talk» 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer

I have been working on a page tilted Joel Widzer. It has gone through a number of edits. I just finished a major reedit to comply with policy however, editor Daniel J. Leivick seems to have unreasonable issues with it. Could someone help out? Thank you (cur) (last) 12:20, 12 July 2008 Daniel J. Leivick (Talk | contribs) (10,178 bytes) (some much needed tags, I will go through the article and fix what I can soon) (undo) --reagan (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to ask someone to look at his edits on this page for abuse of editor power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Widzer thank you--reagan (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! No sources other than the subject's own web site, and it does indeed read like an advertisement. Your editing interests also seem to be very narrowly focused. I think that Leivick's issues with the article are quite reasonable. -- Donald Albury 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I went through the article and added references. I agree that my edit interests are narrow—this mainly is because it seems that getting an article on Wikipedia is more difficult then getting congress to pass legislation.--reagan (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

no but i will--thanks--reagan (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reagan, did you notify Daniel Leivick of your posting here? I don't see any notice that you did so on his talk page. -- Donald Albury 12:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not--wasn't sure how to, thanks for doing so and bringing to my attention--reagan (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential case of proxy editing

Hi, chaps. There's been a long-running squabble at Viktor Rydberg and Lotte Motz recently. A couple days ago I blocked one of the main participants, Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs), for 1 month for continued disruption. Jack didn't bother to appeal this, because he has two equally SPAish mates, Finnrekkr (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs), who have just kept on fighting for him. Please see also this thread on my talk page. The main opponent of these chaps is Rsradford (talk · contribs), whose conduct has not been absolutely perfect but has been much better than the other side: far more importantly, Rsradford has done a much better job of presenting the academic mainstream.

Ergo, I am inclined to block indefinitely Finnrekkr (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs) as proxies for Jack the Giant-Killer. Checkuser says these three accounts are unrelated, but all they have done is edit the same articles pushing the same POV. I suspect an off-wiki campaign somewhere. Opinions before I dole out the blocks? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Give them a warning. Yes, I know that you think they're either the same person proxying it up or are part of a conspiracy, but still.... a final warning can't hurt anyone. Beam 23:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can. It can waste my time. I've really had enough of these guys, and besides, they've had enough warnings already. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 06:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Say Christiano, did you ever find out whether Jack is related to that other guy (I don't recall the name). — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. CU came back negative, surprisingly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't block them indef, but you can block them for a month as you did Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) (Wikipedia:Meatpuppet#Meatpuppets). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get that. If we regard them as proxy editing/meatpuppetry for Jack then this comes under block evasion, not to mention disruptive editing in general. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia:Meatpuppet#Meatpuppets, if it's proxy editing and not sockpuppetry, A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

it is obvious that these accounts act in unison, but it is difficult to prove they are socks. Since there seems to be a consensus that some dishonest editing has been going on, I would suggest we (the admin community) impose on them a restriction of one revert per day, which will take away their sock advantage while still not locking them out completely. As Moreschi says, both sides in this disputes have not shown impeccable behaviour, and if we were to clamp down on one side only (even if it is the worse behaving one), we might be acting partially. A 1RR parole, and a stern warnining of using one account per editor is on order though. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. I'll implement that soon if there are no objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom's uncertainty principle for socks is this: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." This probably could use a convenient shortcut. — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

These have been consistently difficult articles, with an exceptional amount of personal animus for something not obviously controversial. I've been trying to keep things objective at the Motz article, but I would be very glad for some additional eyes on it. DGG (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

controversy is good, as long as both sides act above the table and avoid confusion tactics. We don't want to exclude the "pro-Rydberg" side from this discussion, but we want to enforce honest good faith behaviour. I take it we have a compromise to clamp down on this article a little bit, imposing restrictions of the "article probation" type such as 1RR, strict WP:TALK discipline, etc. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange New Editor

Resolved

I notied User talk:Happy vs. Sad registering a new account, then immediately posting a confirmed sockpuppet/blocked notice on User:The King of All Mascots. I reverted, since this user isn't an admin and wasn't actually blocked. When I went to HvsS's page to ask what was up, I noticed he had immediately created five more accounts [24], and hadn't posted again.

I have no history with either of these two users, so I thought I'd bring it here for admins and more experienced editors to examine. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All blocked as socks of User:MascotGuy, thank you for bringing it to our attention. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gonzo. That's what I figured, but I thought I'd just turn it over to the big guns. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, know this is all finished off now but thought those interested might be interested in possibly dealing or adding to the RFCU I opened to try and weasel out more socks. treelo _radda 11:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Cjdm1604‎

User creating many soccer-related articles, all of which he fails to expand. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean these? Well, you issued a warning, but there's no admin action needed right now. If the WP:CSD#A7 articles keep coming despite the warning, please report this at WP:AIV.  Sandstein  10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321

Resolved

Preface

[[25]]

Latest Saga

[[26]]

In short Xp54321 has been given numerous chances and has been making to many mistakes when it comes to reverting other users edits and for this reason I am pushing for his rollback access to be reconsidered on the grounds that he is being far to slapdash with rollback (via huggle). He needs to slow down and i think revoking his rollback will help do this. This is enlight of him reverting and template warning legitmate edits by an ip user, possibly putting them of from ever contributing to wikipedia again. Opinions?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The links you provide do not immediately show any indications of recent abuse of the rollback feature. Please substantiate your request and notify Xp54321 (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Also, using correct grammar and syntax would help.  Sandstein  11:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like overenthusiasm only to me - the content removal (which was entirely correct) does look like vandalism without a knowledge of the subject, and it seems he wasn't the only user to think so. Orderinchaos 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. It was just an error; he's already been warned for it. People make mistakes all the time; live and learn. HiDrNick! 16:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Xp's been warned before, but punishing him for this kind of mistake seems a bit unfair unless it's part of a current (note the emphasis) pattern. – iridescent 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

River Thames frost fairs

I have removed an 'fact' not supported by the reference provided (which is available to all online). Everyone should note that User:William M. Connolley has edit warred on this page AND used his blocking powers against those who he has a content dispute with. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please, and notify William. You don't look blocked to me.  Sandstein  11:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I sourced the claim, there are many other sources available for this being an exceptionally cold winter and likely one of the coldest ever recorded. It doesn't make a lot of sense to simply keep removing it, it needs tweaking and better sources is all. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:RRaunak

User:RRaunak has started editing wikipedia on July 12 using this account: User:Rnkroy and gave it up. I busted him doing suspicious activities with User:Infraud and he said that was "his friend" because they were both editing their talk pages and copying. But now, User:RRaunak is trying to get himself more popular and it seems he activated the WP:Twinkle and the WP:Friendly gadgets on his preferences. After careful observation of his contributions, he made quite a lot of mistakes by putting inappropriate CSD or tagging in established articles. I have reverted his mistakes and warned him a few times. Edits such as this: [27] [28] [29] actually shows how unexperienced he is with the tools but what is blatantly wrong is that he put a inappropriate block template as a warning on a user page. [30] What is the course of action for him? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 12:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot! He also created a bot and put the {{Bot|RRaunak}} tag. It is located at User:Corebot. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 12:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bot" usernameblocked. Looking at the user's recent edits, it really seems as though he's enthusiastically doing everything wrong that can be done wrong (such as nominating articles for CfD). Per WP:BITE, though, I think he just needs good advice, not admin intervention at this stage. Contact me or another admin if there's excessive misuse of automated tools.  Sandstein  13:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do immediately. He's on close watch. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtle hints have failed and I'd rather avoid screaming at him, so could somebody ask him nicely to choose a less obnoxious sig block? Thanks in advance. — CharlotteWebb 15:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to check his two half complete portals, finish them or delete them. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did CSD'd his unused portals. They were empty. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC) --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 21:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He raises his editcount by copying other people's userpages and adding it to his userpage. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In case it hasnt been already noticed, RRaunak has selectively deleted this ANI message on his talk page: [31] --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Another problem I have noticed is that he is too eager to do major edits and play around with templates, even if he does not have any editing experience. This hoax tag was totally uncalled for:[32]. And I seriously dont know why he wanted to add the flag here: [33]. From what I feel, he is tring to experiment with designs, scripts , bots and templates without understanding the consequences first. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet accounts

Resolved

A number of accounts and IP addresses have been found to be sockpuppets after a request for checkuser was placed.

Appropriate action should be taken against the offender.

Please note that the accounts are listed on the same page (i.e. here)

Cheers! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate actions taken; including blocking the main account for two weeks. GDonato (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of the worst kind

Resolved

Article linked hasn't been edited in 11 days, no apparent issues. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey check it, someone f-ed up the Gran Turismo 5 article. And I don't just mean blanking. 72.218.215.149 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong, exactly? Can you provide a diff? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The article has not been edited in eleven days, and while the article is in bad shape, I don't see any obvious vandalism. -- Donald Albury 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the non-protected templates that are transcluded on that page as well, and did not see any recent changes.

Maybe they are confused because they think it should have all the content that is in Gran Turismo 5 Prologue? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a corrupt page. Maybe PS3 Browser just didn't understand it and I thought someone screwed it up. 72.218.215.149 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that this epic, critical, and worst kind of issue of someone messing up the GT5 page on your PS3 has been resolved. --mboverload@ 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Againtools

Resolved

 – Just another blocked Hagger sock... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Contributions of Againtools.

Listed above are a series of edits by a user called Againtools. This user's edits consist of moving vandalism, such as moving a page at random to some random word or comment. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a well-known sockmaster who always does the same thing. The account is already permanently blocked. Thanks for the heads-up though! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistrygeek/BG7

Section header modified by GDonato (talk) was: "Emergency"

User:JzG need a break from an article

Resolved

 – Not an AN/i issue. Try dispute resolution for disputed content, or WP:AE for Arbcom enforcement, if even necessary. Beam 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher I am asking that JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be asked to step aside from editing the related article. For a week now several editors have been going line-by-line in reviewing the article and editing it. Along comes JzG who bans one editor (who was a sockmaster but then making good edits, per consensus) and blanket reverts to a highly POV and non-neutral version, all against consensus. Further, JzG is bordering on violating 3RR on this article. He has lost his objectivity and needs to take a break from this article. Bstone (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the context: this article was the subject of an ArbCom case due to the volume of single-purpose meat/sockpuppets trying to whitewash the article. It more or less faded from everyone's radar, and Guy was on a wikibreak, during which at lesat 6 or 7 single-purpose meatpuppet accounts showed up to pick up where they'd left off. No admin except Guy really watches this article. I tried to step in and rein in the meatpuppetry, and was the subject of a coordinated campaign of wikilawyering, admin-abuse accusations, etc which made me appreciate the work that Guy did/does all the more.

Currently there are a handful of actual (non-meatpuppet) editors working on the page, including Bstone, myself, and Orlady (talk · contribs). I think Guy's block of the meatpuppet accounts was reasonable, certainly in the context of the ArbCom case and surrounding issues. That said, I think there is room to improve the article, and discussion was moving in that direction on the talk page. I'd just say we should thank Guy for being willing to deal with yet another abuse of Wikipedia, and kindly ask him to give discussion amongst actual editors on the talk page a chance to move the article forward. Surely we don't need WP:AN/I for that? MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to love the "need a break" bit - Bstone skimped on his research there. He also failed to mention that I have justified my revert on the talk page, not least by reference to the fact that the disputed text was introduced by banned users, and is used in the main to obscure the fact that the school, identified as "worthless" by the BBC, lacks any provable accreditation and has, uniquely I believe, caused the GMC to rewrite its rules on foreign medical schools. Sure it's in some directories, it's probably in the phone book as well, but it's a scam. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG, scam or not (which is highly disputed, as their graduates are practicing medicine all over the world, with full medical licenses in most all locations), you are blanking and reverting consensus-approved edits to a version which is highly POV and not neutral. As an example, there was a conversation on the talk page here in which we all discussed, debated and finally agreed that listing the IMED listing was relevant and appropriate. Yet you have undone that edit based upon your own opinion. This is a violation of WP:OWN. Instead of following consensus, you simply deleted it, saying that listings in directories are not valid. Again, you did this against consensus and discussion. Why? I am incredibly eager to hear as, currently, you're editing against consensus and it's highly confusing. Bstone (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly disputed? When the GMC changed its registration procedures and struck off the only doctor they could find in the UK who was a graduate? Every single reliable independent source which gives any kind of critical evaluation of the place, characterises it as substandard, including several US state governments. I would not call that highly disputed. In fact, I'd say the only people disputing it are the people who run the school. Obviously you don't have as much experience with diploma mills as some of us do, on wiki and on OTRS, so you may not be aware that use of directory listings which also include legitimate schools, is a standard technique used to obscure lack of accreditation. Being duped by the whitewashers is forgivable, pretending that everybody else is the problem, which you seem to be doing here, is more of an issue. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is currently protected (by User:Ryan Postlethwaite). Also, although its fairly obvious, you've failed to note that you are editing against JzG. And judging by *your* comments on the talk page, its not just JzG, you have a problem with Orlady too. JzG has just blocked some socks on this article; that is rather more a matter for ANI, *if* you have any concerns about that action. All of which adds up to me disagreeing that JzG should be asked to step aside William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. Bstone seems to want an editor with whom he disagrees with removed from the article. I definitely do not condone behavior like that. I see no admin action needed, at least with JzG. Beam 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It absolutely it a content dispute, tho since this article has an ArbCom case behind it, and JzG is supposedly enforcing those ArbCom sanctions, it needs to be discussed here. Further, as JzG refuses to discuss edits (other than in his summaries) and is ignoring consensus, AN/I is the appropriate place for discussion. Further, the ArbCom case broadly allows for individual editors to be blocked from this article. Bstone (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the ArbComm case. The only things the case empowers admins to do is to ban single purpose accounts from the article and related pages. Nobody with a lick of sense would call Guy a single purpose account. If you think any of the blocked socks were not single purpose accounts, you could take that to WP:AE and ask for a review of their block. But for your content dispute with Guy and others, you need to follow the usual methods, which don't involve this page. And, in case you hadn't noticed, Guy just got back from a 7 week break from Wikipedia, so asking for him to take a break from an article is more than a little ludicrous right now. GRBerry 23:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the sanctions being requested have nothing to do with the case being cited. Its also rather discomforting that in addition to trying to stretch the limits of the Arb case, Bstone is also making other false claims, like stating that JzG isn't discussing his edits when the talk page of the article clearly shows otherwise. Bstone, you might try working on the dispute for more than a few hours before suggesting that someone "take a break" from the article because honestly, between that, the not quite so true claims you're making here, and your comments like "scam or not (which is highly disputed.." it really looks like you've developed a strong POV on the issue and you're trying to cut out the other side of a dispute here.Shell ^babelfish 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• JzG is, however, going beyond the ArbCom sanctions, which only permit the imposition of page-specific bans, and limited-time blocks if the page-bans are violated; there is no authorization for indef blocks such as he issued. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Admins don't require special authorization to block disruptive agenda-based meatpuppets, though the ArbCom case is useful background and context. Indefinite blocks are the standard administrative response to such disruption, ArbCom case or no. I don't think you'll find anyone who will seriously argue that these were anything but the latest batch of the same old agenda-based sock/meatpuppetry, so it seems a bit academic to argue the letter of the ArbCom decision when the end result was to prevent an abuse of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 01:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think even Mary Poppins would have trouble concluding that this is anything other than the same banned user returning time and again. The edits, the style and the article focus are the same in every case. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:The Great Editor In Chief is editing my talkpage comments and tendentiously editing Tim Russert

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours by User:Sandstein Beam 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning on his page based on his continued removal of agreed-upon merge text at the Russert article. He then proceeded to edit my comments to make it look as if I'd insulted him. You can also view his tendentious editing at the Russert article simply by viewing the history of that article. He's stated on my talk that he will continue edit warring to remove the section, even given the consensus to merge it, developed through some hard work by a number of different editors. His "reasoning" (in his edit summaries) is that people are still "mourning." S. Dean Jameson 21:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Still at it. S. Dean Jameson 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be blocked immediately for this edit. Trying to get other editors into trouble with such lies requires a strong response from the community. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24h as an immediate preventive measure just for these edits. You might want to go directly to WP:AIV if he keeps that up after the block expires.  Sandstein  22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there's another editor removing whole blocks of text from the article. I'm unwatchlisting it, at least for awhile. We worked too hard for a compromise merge, that I'm too invested in the article to be able to dispassionately edit it right now. And I won't edit war for inclusion of our merged text. S. Dean Jameson 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, put the diff here and I'll edit war for you. :D Beam 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Username is a violation too, IMHO. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Check his style of writing on talk page he uses tooo sweet and goody goody language, He has just created account on wiki and is trying to become a admin!! my sixth sense says in future he will creat a mess Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and tenditious editing on Tucker Max

Theserialcomma is an account who has edited exclusively on the Tucker Max article, with a clear non-favorable point of view. User's posts have been in the past tenditious. Initially engaged in personal attacks, he was the subject of a wikiquiette alert and the personal attacks have to his credit ended, however, the tenditiousness has not.

While I admit that this is borderline between AN/I worthy and a content dispute resolution, I'll explain why I think this is an AN/I issue.

Despite being a newly registered user, Theserialcomma has enough Wikipedia experience that he was able to go into the history of the Tucker Max article and retrieve a "criticism" section that was deleted repeatedly as a egegrious violation of WP:BLP. Theserialcomma's position through the entire incident is that the criticism is so important that it must be mentioned in the article and worked from there rather than on the talk page as per BLP [34]. He has been warned by others that this behavior was inappropriate [35] but has continued.

Within this section of the article, Theserialcomma was quite insistant on the inclusion of an interview that was again both a BLP violation, and a violation of WP:UNDUE as well. [36]. He then left a borderline harassing message on my talk page [37]. He also accused me of vandalism [38], and shortly after fought with me over the removal of a comment left by an IP vandal [39]

After myself and TheRegicider disagreed on whether the section should be included at all, we agreed to post it with a "neutrality" template and file an RfC on it.

However, theserialcomma has continued to edit the disputed section - most problematically he has been editing a direct quote in such a way that the intent and context are changed. [40] [41]

He is now attempting to POV-push by insisting on the removal of a statement that is favorable towards Tucker Max and his website - a claim that it gets over 1 million unique views per month. He insists that the three sources given are all invalid. [42] [43] [44].

The reason I consider this an AN/I incident rather than a conduct dispute is because of theserialcomma's disregard for wikipedia policy and extreme tenditiousness. McJeff (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a SPA with a purpose. ThuranX (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have one of his comments a {{subst:spa|username}} tag. Hopefuly that will be suitable chastisement to aends his awful behavieur. Smith Jones (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Most accounts start off as single purpose, I know I did. This seems like a content dispute. Also, I read diff 42 and it wasn't harassment, I don't even think borderline. I recommend dispute resolution. If he does attack you, and not your content, bring it back here. This is of course just my opinion. It couldn't hurt to suggest for him to edit other articles. Oh, and that is sort of supsicious about knowing enough to dig through the history. If anyone notices that his behavior matches a banned or known feetcover master, than say something. Beam 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and anyone who supports the serial comma can't be ALL bad. ;) Beam 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it looks bad enough. He's just not listening. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

however tedious this may be, (and for this, i apologise), i must respond to mcjeff's allegations on a point by point basis, because i think he has misrepresented the facts of the situation.

1. "Theserialcomma is an account who has edited exclusively on the Tucker Max article, with a clear non-favorable point of view." response: this is blatantly false. you can easily check my history to see the other articles i've edited. to say i've 'exclusively' edited the tucker max article is a lie.

2. i edit with "a clear non-favorable point of view." response: i am trying to balance the article out so it's not a pro-tucker max fanboy article. the fact is, he is controversial, and he deserves a controversy section. that is what i am trying to do. for over 3 weeks of a consensus that there should be a controversy section, mcjeff would not allow it. just because i disagree with him, and because i think the article is balanced in favor of a person contrary to the facts, doesn't mean i am interested in only non-favorable points.

3. mcjeff claims i engaged in personal and harassing attacks on his talkpage. his evidence is [[45]] response: i don't believe this to be harassment or a personal attack. but i do believe that falsely claiming harassment, personal attacks, and WP violations is a form of harassment. please view this yourself and decide if it's a legitimate complaint.

4. mcjeff claims that my position is that, "the criticism (section) is so important (to me) that it must be mentioned in the article and worked from there rather than on the talk page as per BLP. this is another misrepresentation of what actually has happened. if you check the discussion page, you'll see that i talked about my edits first, and solicited ideas from others as to how to make it neutral. some ideas were offered from mcjeff, they were incorporated into the addition of the criticism section, and then mcjeff continually reverted every attempt i made to add it. even though we agreed a criticism section should be there, he still reverted every attempt i made at adding it, instead of trying to edit the changes to make it more acceptable.

5. "theserialcomma has continued to edit the disputed section -most problematically he has been editing a direct quote in such a way that the intent and context are changed. [46] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tucker_Max&diff=225470745&oldid=225427936] response: please view the diffs and decide if the intent and context are truly changed. this is a matter of opinion, but i think mcjeff just enjoys reverting any changes i make, and i don't think my edits changed the context or intent.

6. "(theserialcomma) is now attempting to POV-push by insisting on the removal of a statement that is favorable towards Tucker Max and his website - a claim that it gets over 1 million unique views per month. He insists that the three sources given are all invalid. response: the sources are clearly invalid and the claim that he gets 1 million unique hits is clearly dubious, and it is not really up for debate if you check the discussion page where i cite the evidence. however, mcjeff responded that he shall revert any edit i make, regardless of the evidence. this is one of mcjeff's most egregious and obvious blunders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A large part of the problem is that Theserialcomma has got certain ideas in his head that he refuses to let go of.

For starters, the accusation that I don't want a criticism section. This is wrong - I was reverting out an improperly done criticism section per WP:BLP. I actually did want one all along, and I was the initiator of attempting to rewrite the section, as I will demonstrate with difs. [47] [48] [49]. His other accusations against my conduct also fail to take into account that as per WP:BLP they were to my underestanding the correct actions. (I have at various times offered that if an administrator tells me otherwise I'll cease and try to make amends.)

In regards to the "false harassment" charge, I find it harassing to have people speculating my motives, and I feel that it violates both AGF and CIVIL. But even if it violates neither of those, it doesn't support wikipedia's policy of "Address the edit not the editor".

In regards to the claim that he was editing exclusively on the Tucker Max article, I see that he has made a few edits outside that article since the last time I checked his contribution history. Still, it would be safe to say that the vast majority of the edits he made were to Tucker Max and the corresponding talk page, with most of the rest in individual talk pages.

As far as the idea that he is POV-pushing, I feel that in his very rebuttal to the AN/I, he has confirmed his POV, as he stated his intent: i am trying to balance the article out so it's not a pro-tucker max fanboy article. With the sourced criticism section added (which is undergoing an RfC at this time) I see no lack of balance.

Finally in regards to the controversy over the sources section - I do not think it's unreasonable to require extra opinions before allowing a long term tenditious editor to make controversial changes to an article.

McJeff (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat embedded in Noelia

76.109.234.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), claiming to be legal counsel for Noelia, has threatened legal action against "Wikipedia, memebers [sic], and collaborators" [50]. Considering his poor spelling, I doubt this is a legitimate threat, and in light of the recent court case highlighted in the Signpost, I don't think he can hold us liable. Either way, I have reported this here in accordance with what I have seen done with similar incidents. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

you did the right thing,. can take it from here, Smith Jones (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this thread. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. 13 of the IP's 16 contribs are related to the subject, which seems pretty random to not have some resemblance of legitimacy. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IDK. It's just that someone who is actually a lawyer would know that their edits notifying us (Wikipedia) of his impending case would be submitted as evidence in the trial. Would a real lawyer embarrass himself (and his practice) by using such poor spelling and grammar? I counted no less than 10 spelling errors in his post, and that doesn't even touch the grammar issues. ("please beware of this actions wil be liable to Wikipedia, memebers, and collaborators") J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Any lawyer would know better than to do that, most should know to contact the WMF directly. Another thing: a internet search doesn't show any connection between Noelia and Richard Wolfe, although it's still possible. And in reply to J.delanoy, A.)A lawyer wouldn't be embedding the statement in an article, and B.)No, I think most lawyers are better spellers than that. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all changes the user made. Was that WP:BOLD or WP:MBOVERLOADISAMORON? =) --mboverload@ 01:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you make sute that all of the edits were disruptive or unlawful?? There is no real ned to remove the edit unless its against policies or designed to be tendentious. Smith Jones (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a good enough Wikipedian to wade though those edits and remove only the threats. I have failed Jimbo. --mboverload@ 01:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are dealing with a lawyer.The user made many typos, left no edit summaries, didn't source the edits so reversion of all of them was probably best. I would have blocked the IP per WP:NLT but the message sent seems to have stopped them, though they have not responded yet.— Ѕandahl 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also left the IP a note. Hopefully they'll respond in some way that's a bit more open to discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nutsheller and Incivility

User:Nutsheller is continuing to be insulting towards other editors, particularly me, for the last several days despite being warned about it. He has made personal attacks in the talk page of the article Pygmy Kitabu, which I originally visited due to a CorenBot alert and tagged for CSD for being a copyright violation. For some background: Pygmy Kitabu was created by User:Mbabane, who immediately removed the CSD tag and rewrote the article some[51]. I removed a final bit of copyvio, then tagged the article for notability for failing to meet WP:BK.[52]. Mbabane then disappeared from the article, and another new user User:Plannedobesity appeared and removed the notability tag[53]. User:NawlinWiki tagged it for needing non-primary sources, and Plannedobesity removed that tag and added a source[54]. I put back the notability tag and added a refimprove tag.[55]. Enter Nutsheller, third new editor. He removed both tags and added a new paragraph with two references[56]. There is an open sockpuppet case to see if these three are all the same, as all three edited the same three articles, with no simultaneous work and one picking up the edits of another seemlessly, etc.

In talk page discussions began "defending" the article by making personal attacks against me[57]. He implied I questioned the article's notability because I was racist saying: "There is already an extreme amount of prejudice against the Efe and other pygmy tribes of Africa (such as the Twa of neighboring Rwanda). Please disclose any prejudice you also may harbor."[58] He accused me of being on a crusade to remove information on the pygmy tribe from Wikipedia.[59]. Out of concerns of the seeming sockpuppetry going on, I attempted to request page protection, which he responded to by accusing me of "abusing an editorial position to assert my unsupported stance" that the book isn't notable.[60]. The reviewing admin suggested I just AfD the article, so I did.[61]. Nutsheller responded by asking for a 30, claiming I was "tagging maliciously"[62] (3O denied as there was an active AfD). In the AfD, Nutsheller continued the personal insults, accusing me of creating false facts and acting unethically. User:HouseOfScandal suggested a merge and offered some advice to Nutsheller on how to save the article and change his mind, but Nutsheller attacked him as well, ending by accusing him of making "it personal and involved your ego."[63]

Lengthy history done, for the most part I've been ignoring his insults though I did remind him a few times of WP:CIVIL and that his false accusations were inappropriate and I gave him one warning.[64] I figured he'd just be blocked once the sockpuppet case was done, as I am fairly confident they are socks. However, I'm not inclined to continue ignoring it when he plasters personal insults on his user page as well. First, in response to the sockpuppetry[65], saying I was "specious and small-minded". Then today, he changed it to say I "made this accusation just because [he] wouldn't use the letter c, the silly bunt."[66].

As we have been clashing for days, I didn't think it would be appropriate (or even useful) to warn him again or ask him to remove the comment. Posting here instead for some assistance. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of that isn't really uncivil. That's my personal opinion, I'm not really one to consider any negative comment uncivil. Of course, this has made me an enemy in the past, check my block log. So yeah, I'm going to give him a warning, as a disinterested third party, as well as link him to his discussion. Beam 03:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he's being a bit tendentious, but incivility is not strictly a blockable offense, and what you label as his personal attacks are rather borderline to me. The AfD seems to have been resolved, so to be totally honest, Collectonian, I'm not sure what admin assistance you require here. GlassCobra 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most is borderline, but the user page attack goes over the line to me. I'd like a warning and it removed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I talked to him, he hasn't responded. I also notified him as should have been done by you. Beam 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, sorry...I meant to do it when I post and got distracted. :( Long long week...-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Viridae's ban of User:Dyinghappy as sockpuppet

Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Dyinghappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for being a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Internodeuser. I don't know if User:Dyinghappy is User:Internodeuser as I am not familiar with Internodeuser or why he was banned but Viridae hasn't filed a sockpuppet notice or RFCU or responded adequately for evidence [67]. He hasn't posted a block notice on the users talk page or tagged the user page with a sockpuppet notice. It's not not obvious to me that he's a sockpuppet and it appears unseemly as they were both engaged in editing Wikipedia Review. I am concerned that Viridae may have turned a content dispute into an opportunity to block this user. In any event, Viridae should post his evidence, leave block notices on users talk page and template sockpuppets. The community needs to be able review his accusation of sockpuppeting and see if it has merit or whether Viridae was too hasty with the ban button on a relative newcomer. Dyinghappy doesn't appear to have edited improperly. Relevant discussions are on Viridae and Dyinhappy's talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you linked this thread from Viridae's page, but have you actually tried talking to Viridae about this? Seriously, all we can do is talk to Viridae for you, so why not just do that first and then perhaps you will not need further input(perhaps you will). _{1 != 2} 05:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read his talk page and Dyinghappy's talk page, you will see that the discussion has occured with a very dismissive comment. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on some of the edits made by Dyinghappy, I can see where there may be grounds for concern; there may be additional evidence that Viridae is not in a position to post publicly. It would be best if you discussed it directly with Viridae; he may or may not be willing to give you a full accounting, depending on the circumstances. Risker (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am very familiar with Internodeuser given that he is Blissyu2 (think i have the spelling correct), a former admin of WR. Blissyu2 was somehow (forcibly or not) removed from his admin position at WR and sitebanned. I don't know the details, and I don't care. I very rarely enforce bans, because I am very rarely sure that the new person is the same as the old. In this case I am sure. Dyinghappy and Internodeuser share similar editing interests (see in paticular Port arthur massacre). The strongest evidence is that Dyinghappy added a link to the new version of wikipedia review, that blissyu2 started after he (blissyu2) was banned from Wikipedia Review - fair enough except that that forum has only 2 posts to it that aren't by Blissyu2 himself. Given that: similar editing interests (including knowledge of and interest in the founding of wikipedia review, adding a link to the new forum Blissyu2 is the almost exclusive poster to, interest in the port arthur massacres) and the tone of writing that is not incompatible with being internodeuser (not saying definite - just saying they are similar) i am pretty damn sure that is who I blocked him as. As to the charge of a content dispute - what content dispute? There is no content dispute - by and large I was pretty happy with Dyinghappy's changes to Wikipedia Review, until he posted the link to his forum and tipped me off about who he was. Banned templates are not required to be posted, I personally prefer not to label accounts with the sockpuppet and banned templates - at least until user and user talk pages are added to robots.txt - and there is no policy to force me to do so. The user knows why he was banned - it says so in the block log (which comes up in the message displayed when blocked). It also clearly states in the block log why the block was performed. I have been in contact with Dyinghappy via email, he has questioned his block, I have told him I know exactly who he is (and he hasn't actually denied it) I have also suggested that he can (as Internodeuser, Zordrac, Bissyu2 or Dyinghappy - the four accounts known to be used) appeal to arbcom or the community to get the ban overturned if he wishes to be productive - however he was given a year long block as a result of the arbcom case originally, which was extended to indef (and a ban) following sockpuppetry and legal threats. Finally (and I think I am going to get an edit conflict - this is a long comment) why wasn't this information requested on my talk page first? (incidentally I considered buzzing alison for a RFCU but the accounts are far too stale) Viridae^Talk 05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It was requested on your talk page. You blew it off. [68]. It's rather presumptive to think that it was Blissyu2. Anyone reading the WR thread would have been pointed here which would have lead them to the link that you seem to think is the smoking gun. Considering the edits were productive, the lack of AGF is somewhat disturbing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just got on-line here. Given the nature of the case, the fact that he's already blocked, and the evidence provided, I ran a check on the account mentioned and can state that Dyinghappy (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be a sock of Internodeuser/Blissyu2 - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the following accounts are  Confirmed as being socks of Internodeuser/Blissyu2

1. Myrrideon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Akmereal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Nova63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and  IP blocked, as before - Alison ^❤ 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder for DHeyward's acknowledgement (and thanks) for Viridae's correct and prompt identification and blocking of sockpuppet of indef blocked account LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Judgement Call

Is this okay? I mean, I know it doesn't violate WP:USER in any obvious way, but...well, let's just say I have concerns about this user already, per some of his other edits.Gladys J Cortez 03:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What are your concerns with the userpage exactly? Skomorokh 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't like the posting of what could be personal information. I'd highly recommend that get deleted, probably oversighted (although it's a lot of revisions) and the user strongly warned and/or blocked. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious, blocked? I'm not sure Erin T. Femaleboy, Fludder the Butterfly et al are in a position to protest the publication of their personal information. Skomorokh 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So it gets stupid later on. That doesn't change the fact that most of the earlier entries could very well be real people, and the latter ones, as dumb as some of them may be, could be attacks against real people (Erin T. Femaleboy, for example). The content of the page is inappropriate, and merits speedy deletion under G10 or WP:IAR. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the names could be real people and all but a few are minors. If they are real people personal information is being posted.— Ѕandahl 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about over reaction. I have this crazy idea, and bare with me while I say it.... don't stop reading I'm going to drop the bomb.... why don't you guys ask him about it? Beam 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP 89.132.227.181

Hi there,

I hope this is the right forum. IP 89.132.227.181 continues vandalizing Convergence criteria (and now other articles), at the beginning I was asking to source the changes and I was reverting them. Now it turns that the editor is changing even sourced data (like the recent changes done to Hungary and the euro). I have warned the user several times, even in the talk page and the editor continues doing random changes without sourcing them. Can this IP be blocked for a period of time?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to use WP:AIV, for future reference. I can't block the IP at the moment (logged into the wrong account) but it should get handled shortly. (Note, I didn't review the edits, but this does sound like obvious vandalism. Complex cases do belong here.) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the trouble, I was told by another administrator to use this forum instead, will use WP:AIV going forward. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I just tried WP:AIV and true, it was considered a stale report, since that IP has not done any changes in 36 hours. Shall I just wait for another vandalism to happen and try there then? Or shall I leave it to this forum? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan2

Unresolved

 – MFD closed, but the sock isn't blocked

• Anon deletion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At first I didn't know where to take this. I had considered UAA or AIV but both seem like the wrong place at present. This is clearly a disruptive username, and the only edits have been disruptive. I assumed it could be a sock since we all know that new users just don't go straight to MfD over project namespace articles. I closed the MfD as such and I'm looking to see what transpires. — _Maggot^Syn 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I missed the part where they said it was a dummy account. So now I'd suggest we look into a block. — _Maggot^Syn 06:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the motivations of the user proposing the deletion, I don't think that your closure of the MfD as a WP:SNOW within an hour of it being opened, and after 4 comments was in order. Four people in the first hour may not be representative (or they may be). I suspect that the page will be kept, but out of process closure of the MfD is not the way to achieve that. Mayalld (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That closure is well within the guidelines. They acknowledged that it was a sock account. Its clearly snow applicable. — _Maggot^Syn 06:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree, and I have reverted your closure. On the subject of the account, the user is entirely open about it not being his/her normal account, and has explained why. I don't believe that this counts as abusive sock puppetry, unless you believe that the proposer has used his/her main account to support the deletion. Could I suggest that we wait to see what happens over a more reasonable time scale. Mayalld (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it is a loopy account, the deletion discussion is still semi-valid. And it may not be a loopy account which DOUBLES the validity of the upcoming consensus... ;) Beam 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a comment that it appears that User:SynergeticMaggot has had a fair bit of previous controversy around premature WP:SNOW closures of xfD discusssions as keep, and it seems to have been a factor in his most recent RfA failing. Mayalld (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... well that's not very good. Maybe a mentor or someone who can sit down and explain how WP:SNOW works or maybe even how xFDs, and WP:SNOW specifically in xFDs, work would be in order. While I actually understand the concepts myself, I'm not sure he'd accept me to teach him, although I am willing if he would. Beam 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed again. Textbook SNOW candidate, even if it was only up for four hours. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the account needs blocking. Even if it's sock, it's not a legitimate use. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

When you closed it, it was a WP:SNOW issue, but when originally closed after ONE hour (not 4), it had only 4 keep !votes. WP:SNOW is a useful tool to allow us to curtail a debate which is unambiguously going one way. It appears that User:SynergeticMaggot is closing many xfDs early as WP:SNOW when it isn't yet clear. Mayalld (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The initial SNOW close was appropriate, as the nomination was clearly in bad faith (and the rationale was utter garbage, but that's a moot point). Obvious efforts at disruption should be dealt with quickly. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that at least two editors who had nothing to do with the nomination felt otherwise rather suggests that it was not appropriate. Mayalld (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld: Check my editor review. This is the first snow close that was contested in almost a month. Normally, I would contest the revert, but as of late, I am taking my time more and more to discuss these things with the community. I posted here to discuss the obvious sock account, not the MfD, as that was the evidence. If you would like to talk about the MfD, I invite you and anyone else to my talk page. Regards — _Maggot^Syn 07:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did check your editor review, and your AfDs after I re-opened the MfD. I would agree that problematic WP:SNOW closes are thinner on the ground than they used to be, but "first in almost a month", whilst better than it used to be is still not good.

WP:SNOW is designed to be used where the outcome is beyond doubt, and where there is not going to be any dissent about it. That means that it is a policy to be used cautiously. There should never be a rush to WP:SNOW, it should be something that is used when it becomes clear that we are simply going through the motions, and I simply don't believe that an hour and 4 responses is even approaching sufficient evidence of that.

Allowing the MfD to run a few hours longer doesn't cause any harm, so there was no need to rush to close. Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Consist, edits in Cladistics and other articles

Consist (talk · contribs) who also edit as 83.254.23.159 (talk · contribs) is still editing the same way (inserting his own research in the article contrary to consensus and posting long texts on talk pages but not on how to improve the articles). See the earlier threads Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive439#User:Consist and the Cladistics article and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive445#User:Consist and I: one of us here needs some advice. He has been warned several times, but it is obvious that he has decided to enforce his own point of view, I will "work together with editors" in any media as long as they accept facts. If they don't, I will enforce facts anyway. FYI the same user is permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia.Sjö (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account for violating (and commenting that they will continue to do so) WP:SOAP and WP:OR. Other editors have also detailed other policy violations at the user talkpage, all relating to the same matter. I suggest that an eye be kept out for sockpuppets, since this appears to be someone whose mission absolves themself of any regard to considering other peoples concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi protection of The Jew of Linz

There are a few Ip addresses that have been placing blatant original research on that article since July 10th. see this page for examples.... Albion moonlight (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RFP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will do that if the problem persists. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have sprotected for 72 hours. Perhaps a discussion will commence on the article talkpage..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)