Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Keegscee - community ban proposal

Administrative note - uninvolved admins reviewing this for closure should examine the community comments above at WP:AN#General discussion - community ban discussion durations, which have somewhat evolved the community ban best practices. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has had a very problematic recent history. User:PCHS-NJROTC recently asked for an Arbcom case to ban them, but was redirected back to the community as a more appropriate venue at this time. I am opening this proposal to seek a community ban of Keegscee at this time.

A previous AN ban proposal was floated, probably somewhat prematurely, on Feb 22nd ( [1] ). This more or less immediately followed his indefinite block by myself ( see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive598#Questionable comment at User:Keegscee.27s userpage ) for his openly self-admitted behavior of using open proxies and sockpuppet accounts to WP:HARASS and WP:HOUND editors he felt were not editing constructively here. Since then he has made threats on his talk page to continue that activity with other accounts, and continued to be abusive using sockpuppets including Cryogenic phil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 68.28.187.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), PhoenixPhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), LHSgolf2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and probably others I have missed.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Obvious_sock_is_obvious, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keegscee/Archive and PCHS-NJROTC's case diffs immediately below.

PCHS-NJROTC's case

(cut and paste of PCHS-NJROTC's arbcom reference links / diffs section - summaries are his description)

• Keegscee was apparently a reformed vandal
• warning about incivility
• first warning about unacceptable humor; he was encouraging people to vandalize another wiki
• IP disputes action on Keegscee's talk page, and raises concerns about bias against religion
• warned again about immaturity unacceptable humor (encouraging people to vandalize another wiki)
• third warning about encouraging vandalism on other wikis
• uncivil reply to one of Keegscee's unacceptable warnings; looks like Keegscee was assuming bad faith and it got heated
• fourth warning about Keegscee's encouragement of vandalism
• AN/I about Keegscee's prolonged encourgement of vandalism at another wiki, an attempt to get along with Keegscee
• barnstar left by me, despite previous disputes, for getting along with a member of the wiki that he has demonstrated hate for
• AN/I about comment on Keegscee's userpage, ended in his indef block
• AN/I thread: Keegscee sockpuppet is blocked
• Keegscee's SPI
• community ban proposal at AN
• discussion took place on his talk page
• He is ulitmately blocked from editing his talk page and emailing users due to abuses of these privledges.

Current situation and ban proposal

We have persistent sockpuppetry, ongoing abuse of other editors, an explicitly stated opinion that using abuse to push other editors out of the Wikipedia project is a good thing. He has explicitly and openly adopted an abusive vigilante attitude towards others here and worked actively to pursue it, to the great detriment of the community and many individual users.

I believe that, though it will not put another physical barrier between this person and further abuse here, a community ban is appropriate and desirable at this time. I propose that he be indefinitely banned from editing, subject to the usual appeals process should he reform himself and desire to return. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support community ban, obviously. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia, nor does he demonstrate even a minimum level of maturity required to contribute here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support I maintain, per my suggestion on reforming AN and ANI currently on the AN talkpage, that Georgewilliamherbert should have attempted to contact Keegscee to allow him to submit a defense concurrently with the accusations so that this starts off on the right foot. My suggestions also include a requirement to disclose prior involvement. PCHS-NJROTC has a long history and was involved in collecting the evidence on both the sockpuppet investigations (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keegscee/Archive). All of the evidence is from PCHS-NJROTC and much of it focuses on sockpuppetry. For the first SPI no CU was done because apparently little initial evidence was presented; the second found connection to the IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.28.187.112; however, the SPI report says Keegscee admitted to editing from his phone prior to the SPI investigation, and I don't think that's really sockpuppetry. That IP does have an odd edit, though. There's a statement at the end of the second CU that a list of editors (LittleTommyC, PhoenixPhan, Cryogenic phil, LHSgolf2009) are confirmed to be the same editor, but the CU Alison says "I'm not seeing any link to the previous accounts above". It's not entirely clear whether all these are, in addition to being connected to each other, also connected to Keegscee since Alison does not say that? Further confusing the issue is that the category Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PhoenixPhan does not include Keegscee, only the 3 confirmed sockpuppets. This should not be changed without a clear clarification from Alison. The ANI thread by Crossmr (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Obvious_sock_is_obvious) references a diff of someone immaturely teasing Crossmr but that's not evidence of sockpuppetry. One of the diffs which was not highlighted, but which I think should have been, is Keegscee's statement that he uses proxies to harass "not good faith editors", although he later implied that he might have been joking and questioned whether he should be banned for making a silly statement. I guess the question is whether he was joking or not, and the main way to answer that is to look for evidence that he has been harassing people under proxies. Which I guess is what the SPI investigations are about? Anyway, I'm leaning towards supporting the ban, but I wish it had been set up in a way that made it easy to understand. <underline>Looking back at the contributions, even though the SPI case and userpages don't clearly connect them to Keegscee, it seems clear that they are from Keegscee based on the contributions. I maintain that all ban discussions should attempt to start with both an accusing case and a defense if possible.</underline>II | (t - c) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC was listed as a source of the Arbcom case and is clearly involved in the various AN / ANI prior discussions; I'm not sure how much more explicitly that should be disclosed?

Keegscee was notified [2] promptly after initiating the discussion. I'm going to add to that notification an email link to the Arbcom ban appeals subcommittee, as I now see on rechecking that his account is currently blocked from posting to its talk page or sending emails; if BASC gets any comments he wants posted to the discussion they can forward them here.

The sockpuppet category was created some weeks after Keegscee was banned; his being credited with being the root account is not terribly controversial but could be incorrect.

Keegscee went back and forth a bit claiming he was joking, but seemed to settle on a stance that he had not been joking but that we could not "prove it" therefore he should be let off without sanctions. We don't have perfect proof tying this all together; IMHO this meets our usual standards for evidence to make a reasonable conclusion and act on it, but that's up for discussion.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion involves not only notification, but also waiting a basic amount of time to see if the accused editor wants to submit a response concurrently. By the time Keegscee notices the notification and submits a defense, there could be 10 supports. It's entirely likely and I don't think it makes sense for that to happen. As far as PCHS-NJROTC's involvement, yes, it is clear that's he's involved but I would prefer not to look at involvement as a binary yes/no, in the same way we don't look at AfD as Keep/Delete. That's a first step, but I would prefer that PCHS-NJROTC offer a brief summary of the issues leading up to the dispute and if possible the length of time they've been interacting. If PCHS-NJROTC thinks this is too much information or invades his privacy, then he should also say that to make it abundantly clear to everyone that he's not giving the full story. There's a narrative here which isn't being told - it appears that PCHS-NJROTC is angry at Keegscee partly because of PCHS-NJROTC has a close relationship to Conservapedia and Keegscee doesn't like it or something. Getting this information out is relevant in the long-term because banning can be used as a wikilawyering tactic to avoid NPOV when a content editor has a position that the initiating editor does not agree with, and it also allows aids in mediating the dispute if there is no consensus for the ban. II | (t - c) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Support community ban. User has commented that he is only here to disrupt. As per other comments, subject to the usual appeals process should he reform himself and desire to return. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy break

• Already de facto banned, why are we doing this? Is it just me, or are there more and more ban discussions lately about people who are already indef blocked for socking, vandalism, harassment, etc.? These discussions seem to me to be a waste of perfectly good electrons; per another discussion somewhere around here, now we have to talk about this for a "bare minimum" of 24 hours. For someone who is already indef blocked. I hope people will consider limiting these discussions only to cases where it will do more than negligible good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There is some slight difference in how we handle socks of indef blocked sockpuppeteers versus banned ones. Also, the message sent is potentially of useful import - that this was not just some administrator doing it, but a community consensus. Some indefinitely blocked users have weaseled around claiming a particular admin was out to get them and that there was no reasonable review. This goes on record against that. It also reduces the chance that some lone admin without enough history awareness or checks may mistakenly unblock them at some point in the future. I understand not wanting to community ban everyone we have indef blocked; I think we're acknowledging and making use of a shift in community expectations and standards. Figuring out where that settles out is worthwhile. Perhaps this is a step too far, but it's not obviously wrong to consider IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The difference in how we handle socks is, indeed, fairly slight, and I'm pretty sure when someone gets to this level of disruption, they could not care less whether the're indef blocked or banned. Or, if anything, they might feel freer to hold nothing back now. If some lone admin unblocks in future, then we can have the ban discussion; if not, then we've saved a discussion and all the bureaucracy it entails. I'm not saying ban discussions are always a waste of time; I'm saying a ban discussion of a currently indef blocked abusive sockpuppeteer probably is. The only real benefit I can see is the feeling of camaraderie we create in saying bad things about a "community enemy", like a Two Minutes Hate, but that doesn't seem like a good thing to foster. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. Would it be useful to expand on this in the general discussion above about ban discussions? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• As an ordinary editor dealing with sock puppetry, a community ban is easier. A community ban gives editors a clear mandate to revert on sight. An indef block means we need to worry about being seen as edit-warring. Your 1984-point is well made; they may well care less, we should care more, but editors - we should care about them/us too. TFOWR^propaganda 23:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse He's all but announced the rules don't apply to him. Sorry, they do. Blueboy96 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• I do not support the ban. There was a discussion of a ban months ago and it was dismissed. What has changed? Checkuser has not confirmed any socks and it seems like we're just wasting our time here. If Keegscee is watching this, he is probably delighted at the attention he is getting. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangmike (talk • contribs)
  • The above is NOT Orangemike. The edit was made from this account and needs to be blocked immediately. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Struck the impersonation account of Orangemike's comments (who has been blocked) as they shouldn't be allowed. Anyone who disagrees, please feel to revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I've discussed this with a Checkuser and he tells me that Orangmike = a PCHS-NJROTC impersonator. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Wonder who is next....the plot thickens, kinda like one of them old timey radio shows. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - From what I'm seeing and from what I'm hearing from User:J.delanoy in private, Orangmike and PHCS-NJROTC are both Keegscee socks. Enough is enough. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - After dealing with the Orangmike sock and then reading through the proposal, I definitely support banhammering this Keegscee guy. Could someone ask J.delanoy if a range block on Keegscee's range can be done to lessen these socks for awhile? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No-go on the rangeblock. Quoth he, Sprint "doesn't have anything smaller than a /13". —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Damn. Cell phones, tricky. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I hate to so quickly jump in here abut abuse reporting, but if he makes IP hopping a habit, then an alternative to a range block could be WP:ABUSE. The other volunteers there could handle it if and when it meets the minimum criteria for an abuse report. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that is a good idea. Can't stop it on our own, go to the source. We shouldn't hold our breathe as some providers just don't care what goes on on their networks, but some do (it is rare). I say put in a WP:ABUSE report and link it here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
          • • They would care if they heard that a rangeblock had been considered. Most don't care on the first complaint; it's when they get at least three that they start caring, so I wouldn't say it's *rare* for them to care, especially since we're talking about Sprint, which is what Embarq used to be part of. PCHS-NJROTC^(Messages) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Ok, this thread has gotten out of control. First of all, User:Jéské Couriano, your super secret discussions with a checkuser have no place here. Until an actual checkuser verifies what you have said, it is pure speculation and should have no bearing in a ban discussion. I happen to know for a fact that there is absolutely NO IP link between Keegscee and the Orangemike impersonator (because I am Keegscee, obviously). Unless someone hacked into my secured network and created an account (which did not happen), then there is no IP link and a checkuser can and should confirm this. And with regards to the Sprint abuse report, go for it. Not even I'm stupid enough to make disruptive edits from my phone. In fact, I've only made about 10 edits total from my phone since it caps me at 300 characters. Plus, my contract is up on June 22 and if I don't decide to get the HTC EVO 4G, I'll be switching to Verizon!
              • Also, as some people have echoed above, I'm not sure what good a ban would do. How would it stop me from editing? Who enforces it? What are the consequences? I'm not posing these questions to mock a seemingly unenforceable policy; I'm actually interested in knowing the answers.
              • Finally, I noticed that at AN/I, User:GeorgeWilliamHerbert took unilateral action and indefinitely blocked User:Angie Y. The reason I bring this up is that this is the same "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that he used with me. Instead of politely asking me to explain my user page (which was the reason for my block), he decided to block me indefinitely and then make me appeal my case. Being that I was a user in good standing with over 2000 edits, I believe I should have been offered that consideration. By imposing the harshest penalty from the beginning, he is both making it more difficult for users (because a lot of admins don't have the backbone to overturn another admin's blocks) and, even if the block is removed, it will most likely sour the user to Wikipedia. There is much less collateral damage when you assume good faith and are wrong than when you assume bad faith and are wrong. End vent. Amusedchap (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                • DUCK alert. Sock has been reported to AIV. Let's get that rangeblock set. Sprint can deal with the fallout. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • Haha. I admitted to being Keegscee! No need to claim DUCK here. I just needed to vent and since I'm not banned yet and I'm not being disruptive, I thought it was okay. Amusedchap (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                    • No, it wasn't disruptive, just really really stupid. You walked into the hornet's nest again (after doing so time and time before) and for what? To get blocked again? To tell us you might go to Verizon? Thanks for the clues and where to look. You get indef blocked (again), another autoblock and a potential range block....yeah, keep digging that hole for yourself. Wow, trolls are dumb. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                      • It's just so easy when you keep feeding me! Om nom nom. But seriously, you can range block the IP I'm editing from. I don't care. It's a proxy. If anything, I'm doing WP a favor so that real troublemakers can't use it. :) Amusedchap (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                        • This is the IP that I am editing from. So now you know. :) I'm not trying to keep any secrets, NeutralHomer. 209.236.112.224 (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                          • Funny troll is funny. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                            • Just FYI: this is indeed his IP and I have blocked 209.236.112.0/20 as an Open Proxy as a result. -- Luk ^talk 10:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
                              • Thanks kindly, Luk. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I've taken a look and came to my own conclusion that this user is repeatedly engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry. (Checkuser is not an exclusive means of picking up socking. I don't think the imperfectly informed concerns about process wonkery, substantive issues or previous statements are helping. That said, J.delanoy seems to have resolved some of those concerns.) When an user exhausts the community's patience with this sort of behavior, it seems logical that the community deal with it per this usual route. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• We already know that a one-sided story doesn't work in articlespace. That's why we have WP:NPOV. I don't see why it is controversial to insist upon a similar stance in this case, or why we should make it easy for the accusers stand as the judge and jury. And it's not like I don't think we should clean house either. I'm fine with supporting bans if they're presented fairly and I think the fair process doesn't involve much more work but rather just a slightly different approach. If there's a fair process it makes it more difficult to appeal and avoids future drama. In fact, I would probably support a 1-year ban on an above voter, Neutralhomer (talk · contribs), for continued rampant edit-warring, bad faith, marking non-vandalism as vandalism, and a refusal to admit the issues (see User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed#Re:_My_.22Unreasonableness.22 for further details). II | (t - c) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• II, this isn't about me, move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think this sock is based on me. I've been called "Keegsie" on IRC many times, and it is known that I use Sprint Mobile Broadband. Whoever owns this account, if I know you, email me please. I'm not exactly pissed off, but this is just immature. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Can someone share here -- in summary or detail -- what is this material J.delanoy has furnished to at least two people in this discussion? Two different people have alluded to her/his findings, & those of us who aren't "in the loop" deserve to see this information. (I'd like to add my vote as an uninvolved & hopefully objective party, but knowing that I haven't heard the entire story makes me reluctant to do so.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not comment on this earlier. I was not aware that this was being discussed with regard to banning someone.

Basically, here's the info:

 Confirmed Orangmike (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

• PHCS-NJROTC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Strumminbanjo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Keegscee2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The thing that likes it up the but (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Those last two were actually created after I talked to Jeremy a few days ago. I went ahead and blocked the IP, and if somepne wants to block the accounts that aren't already, you can, because they are without a doubt being controlled by the same person as the others. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I must have been looking at the wrong whois before, because a rangeblock here would likely be feasible. At this point, though, it's not really necessary. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a checkuser, just filling in a blank. User:Luk, who IS a checkuser has confirmed that User:Amusedchap and the 209.236.112.0/20 range (an open proxy) are Keegscee as well. Also, they are admitted above too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support community ban; persistent socking, an outright ban will clarify, hopefully with little DRAMA. As suggested by Carcharoth, I will "Keep things boringly calm and simple", and say no more.  Chzz  ►  05:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reversion restriction on an article?

The Tony Abbott article was recently fully protected due to edit warring. Per a message left by the protecting admin on his talk page, and a request at WP:RFUP, I've reduced the protection level to semi-protection, backed up by an edit notice.

The question of 3RR has been raised on the talk page in response to this change. I know that we can place editors under revert restrictions, but what about articles?

Subject to consensus, I'd like to place this article under a 1RR/24hours restriction (i.e. a "day" to be defined as 24 hours from the time of reversion, not as between 00:00 and 23:59 that calendar day) applicable to all editors. If this is agreed to, the edit notice can be amended to notify editors of the restriction. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I support putting this article under a 1RR/day restriction. The edit warring appears to have started in early May. Suggest leaving a note about the 1RR on the article talk, so that new editors will be aware of it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ed, what I propose is to extend the edit notice that appears whenever an editor tries to edit the article (try editing the article and you'll see the notice). I'll not add the notice yet, want to give time for more comments. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit of context may help in making a decision. Abbott is the federal Opposition Leader of Australia in a pre-election environment - an election is expected in September or October by most analysts. Abbott's own party is divided almost 50/50 between religious conservatives (including himself) and free-market liberals and the leadership has changed three times since the last election, to the delight of the local media. The media here unfortunately isn't of the highest standard, leading to one dispute after another over content, which then becomes disputes about where the content came from, and such (as some outlets and commentators are pretty biased towards the Opposition, but it's further confused by some Opposition supporters in the media wanting a change of leadership.) As such, if only to prevent silly arguments and get people to discuss stuff on the talk page, I'd be agreeable to a 1RR on this article. Orderinchaos 04:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've imposed the restriction and added to the edit notice. Logged on the article's talk page and at WP:RESTRICT. Admins and above are not subject to the restriction (to allow us the ability to deal with any issues that need attention) and the reversion of clear vandalism is also excepted from the restriction. I envisage the restriction remaining in place until the underlying issue is settled, at which time 3RR can be reapplied. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

1RR for at least a few months looks like a good idea, but I am not sure we should be exempting admins and above from normal editing rules. If a problem arises, I hope that our admin corps knows how to use discretion and seek review if their actions are potentially questionable. Put more simply, any admin acting as an editor at that article is an editor, while anyone acting as an uninvolved administrator should not be making substantive content edits anyway. I am going to tweak the language in the edit notice a little - fix it or talk there if it needs more. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. All editors need to be held to the same editing rules. I would categorically oppose any such exemption. Resolute 16:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that admins and above would have the common sense not to abuse their positions and edit war on the article. The reason I posted that exemption was explicitly to allow an admin to intervene if it proved necessary. The article is only semi-protected until 1 June, after which IPs will be able to edit it. If consensus is that the restriction will apply to all, it could create a problem in future. I've got no personal interest in the article, and am not intending to get too involved in it if I can avoid doing so. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As an admin myself, I'm happy to abide by the restriction and don't see why it shouldn't apply to all involved. Nobody should be above taking things to the talk page to discuss them, and reversion of clear vandalism is a reasonable exception for any editor anyway (it's built into 3RR and other similar guidelines/policies). Orderinchaos 18:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by TheDarkLordSeth

Appealing user

TheDarkLordSeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Tobic ban from the subject of " Armenian Genocide" article. [3]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Tim Song (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

[4]

Statement by TheDarkLordSeth

Please bear with me for a while and read it all.

I will start from the beginning and explain everything to be thorough. On 6th of April, I made one edit concerning two sections of the article I'm banned from. Both were mostly based on two BBC links. (1st one: [5], 2nd one: [6]) The first part of my edit was about the the notion that the accuracy and factuality of the article being a dispute due to unequivocal opinion of historians. The second part of the edit was to simply fix a what I thought to be a typo which turned out to be a deliberate act of misuse of sources(On the link it writes "Armenia says" but it's used to indicate that "Western scholars say" just because the link is from a Western source here: [7]). I wanted to show the nature of my edit to show that it's not disruptive. This edit was reverted in matter of hours with no discussion. I reverted the revert asking for involvement in the discussion page before reverting. Nonetheless the edit was reverted multiple times with no involvement in the discussion page or simply calling the edit denialist propaganda. I saw this as violation and did not think it falls under the 1RR rule imposed on the article. I stopped after 9 reverts to wait for the outcome as another member who reverted my edits 3 times appealed for sanctions against me. I got warned by PhilKnight after an hour: [8]. As a result of the appeal I and CheesyBiscuit got blocked for 31 hours due to violation of the revert rule. For some reason 4 days after the block decision I got banned from topic indefinitely: [9]. Apparently the reason was that I am showing disruptive behavior continuously even though I hardly edit.

In the meantime a completely uninvolved member who became involved in the current situation posted a discussion on the talk page concerning the possible differences between the same topic in different languages: [10]. I pointed out that due to nationality of the majority of members editing a certain language version the article may differ and that due to the English version being controlled by Armenian members the content and the POV differs from that of the versions from other languages such as Turkish one. My use of my observation concerning the nationalities of the members who are editing and reverting started from there. I got warned for it and stopped making such remarks after this: [11].

I appealed this before([12]) only to be ignored by the same admins that the discussion was already covered before. The 31 hour block was covered but the indefinite ban was not nor any explanation why I was banned. I'm gonna also ignore the fact that I was harassed by one of the deciding admins just to show AGF.

I'm not asking for a second chance. I'm asking for what's right. I was to abandon Wiki for good but the fact that there are way too factual errors spurring from nationalistic agendas of many members in Wiki and an admin change my mind to follow this issue further. Any of you can check my history and see that I rarely edit and none of them are major or disruptive. You can also see that I almost always try to engage in a discussion in the talk pages before making any edits and try to be as civil as possible. I always assume faith but as you can also read from WP:AGF that there is a limit to that. It tells you to assume good faith as long as there is no evidence contrary and that's what I've been doing from the start. I find the topic ban completely baseless and being punished twice for the same violation as absurd. You may not like my ideas or my findings but as long as I back them with impartial sources you at least have to respect them and act neutrally. I can only expect that.

Now, if you think that it's appropriate to ban me from this topic I need you to explain to me how I fit the banning policy: "If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute." [13]. To some it up, I'm being banned from a topic where I only had very few edits with the accusation of continuous disruptive behavior which was reverting a revert when I was already blocked for 31 hours for the violation of the 1RR rule.

I apologize for the long thread. I was directed here by the page descriptions for ban discussions and I was also advised to use the sanction appeal template. I also want to point out that I'm not fishing for admins but thought that I can get more admin opinions here rather than avoiding the old ones. This will be ultimately my last attempt to see this issue solved and will determine my existence in Wiki as an editor. Thank you for your time.

• I would like to warn anyone who reads Marshall's comment below. You can simply check my comments on cases he's referring to and see that he's wrong about his accusations. A simple check would show you that his accusations are unfounded. I don't really need to say more about them. Thank you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tim Song

I don't see anything here that does not duplicate what was already said in the last appeal, which already duplicated what was said in the original AE thread that led to the topic ban. I'm not convinced that the user will be a net positive if the topic ban is lifted, therefore I must decline the appeal insofar it is directed to me, and recommend the community to decline the appeal as well. Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by TheDarkLordSeth

Comment by Marshal Bagramyan

I feel compelled to voice my opposition to lifting TheDarkLordSeth's ban. It is not just the technicality of the revert war that land TheDarkLordSeth in hot war but the entire battleground mentality that he brings with him.

For one, what he has conveniently omitted from his narrative are his comments on the Armenian Genocide talk page prior to the beginning of the edit war. A simple look through its talk page will demonstrate how he did not spare a single opportunity to sow doubt regarding the genocide's veracity and actively and aggressively tried to insert information which was not supported by any reliable sources. Judging by his comments, his interests in the Armenian Genocide-related articles stemmed from no genuine desire to improve upon the sources used or the information present, but to drive home a point of view which is not supported by an serious academics. His edits are, unfortunately, symptomatic of the Republic of Turkey's attempts to quash, obfuscate, or distort any mention of the genocide, a cursory glance through the Denial of the Armenian Genocide demonstrates this adequately.

If his ban were to be lifted, I don't think that he would be any more amenable to changing his views to reflect scholarly consensus but would be comparable to privileging a Holocaust denialist the opportunity to present the Holocaust as something which still remains in doubt. Why else did TheDarkLordSeth revert other established users 9 times in a single day? All because of the fact that he wanted the reader to distinguish Armenian scholars from Western ones? No, as demonstrated in his reverts, he went on to insert the words "claim of" in the lead paragraph to present the Armenian Genocide as nothing but an allegation. He did this 9 times over (e.g., [14], [15], [16], etc.) without so much as any even initiating a discussion on the words' insertion, however untenable they may be.

In addition to the above outlined problems, his behavior has shown little to no signs of improvement. While he has been less inclined to accuse the administrators of supporting this or that side, he still is treating Wikipedia is as a nationalistic battleground. This was best seen during a discussion on his talk page with a fellow editor to delete a POV-related article. The advice he imparted was, once again, aggressive and combative, essentially telling him to game the system, for example, "May I also advise renaming of the "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims" to "Prosecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims" ? It would show a lot of good faith by you and would make all the opposition shut up.", despite the fact that that article had a long range of problems, one which the "opposition" had no trouble in enumerating.

An even more egregious example of this combative mood was seen in his comments during an Arbitration Enforcement complaint filed against me (which was subsequently dismissed as being frivolous; see here for the full case). After an administrator named Stifle dismissed the flimsy case against me, TheDarklordSeth placed his own comments, agitating that some sort of retribution be carried out against me. Observe the wording and how he essentially accuses me of vandalism: "Stifle, I beg you to reconsider your verdict...The reason I'm posting here is not just to defend the article but to point out the non-neutral act by Marshall bordering vandalism...Marshall merged it because it was against his POV and that is vandalism..." After I commented on the rudeness of such agitation and told him that the case had already been dismissed, he stated the following and continued on with the agitation to have me banned or blocked. He was repudiated by other editors for so inserting his views in such a manner but his participation was deemed a non-violation of his topic ban.

After digesting all this information (I do not have the time to go through ever problematic remark he has made thus far), how, one thinks, can a responsible editor be asked to put up with such irresponsible editing? The warfare-like atmosphere is certainly not appropriate for the healthy discussion of how to improve an article and this mentality of negationism, opportunism, and deep-seated enmity against other ethnic groups (Armenians, Greeks, etc.) clearly illustrates how TheDarkLordSeth's promises to improve himself ring hollow. The history of his contributions on the Armenian Genocide article has been one endless crusade rant against the perfidious nature of the Armenians, Greeks and other perceived enemies of Turkey. Would Wikipedia ever indulge a Holocaust denier and accord him the right to vent his views and present them as legitimate positions in the scholarly world? I don't see any benefits in lifting his ban and I fear that were he to be allowed to edit the same articles, the troubles will once more be resurrected. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight

From the appeal, I'd like to compare a couple quotes:

• "I stopped after 9 reverts"
• "Any of you can check my history and see that I rarely edit and none of them are major or disruptive"

Consequently, I think he should remain banned. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by TheDarkLordSeth

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

MediaWiki:Bad image list

Resolved

 – Image is working now. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just added File:Pullcondom2.jpg to en:Portal:Sexuality/Featured picture. Please could this be added to the exceptions on the bad image list. The use is not vandalism. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Garion96 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't seem to be working. The image is there on the subpage, but not on the portal. Maybe it needs to have Portal:Sexuality added as an exception as well? --Simon Speed (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done- and on my end, it appears to have worked. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. It seems to be working now. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Verbal performed

A review of my actions is welcome. I don't want to undermine anyone's actions. Have a look at User talk:Verbal (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have been consensus at the talkpage, as noted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If an admin makes a questionable block and then promptly goes offline for an extended period of time, and is not available to discuss that block, then I don't think it's a problem to overturn it. Consensus seems to support the unblock, as LHvU has noted. MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for upload help

I would like to post a picture of myself on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Idaho,_2010 Is there an administrator that would be willing to post if I were to send them a picture?

Thank you,

Tom Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alipse (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page suggesting Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission given that Mr. Sullivan is a senatorial candidate, this will need verification.Smallman12q (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My User page

I have just relaised it is still protected from years ago, could someone kindly unprotect it as I want to edit it. Thank you.  Giacomo  18:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rodhullandemu 18:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and if any of you want to sign up to my new category - be brave and encourage others to realise it they know the facts others can sorth the spelling and grammar and writing. - Category:Dyslexic editors.  Giacomo  18:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't sign up for it, you barred me. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully editors will nominate only themselves to this new category, and not start listing others based on perceived typographical deficiencies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I'm not dyslexic, this category is a great idea. There have been times in the past, when I've got annoyed with editors, not realizing they had the condition. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Conference: Invitation to Wikipedians

Feel free to attend. User:Suomi_Finland_2009/Wikipedia_Improvement_Conference_2010 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, the conference was scheduled at a bad time. I just found out that this weekend is an American holiday, Memorial Day. Considered the unofficial start of summer, many Americans travel. Others go to see the Indianapolis 500 race. True, the whole world is not the USA but many readers are Americans. Anyway, there are at least four people attending (two making lengthy edits). Happy (or solemn) Memorial Day. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a bank holiday in the UK, as well! I had a quick look earlier; is there any reason you couldn't simply extend the conference - making it a week long would give more people a chance to participate anyway - regardless of Federal and bank holidays.

Also: mentioning the free beer wouldn't hurt to drum up a few more attendees...!

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 16:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There was free sex, too, but someone removed the photo. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Restored. I mean, who doesn't want free sex with their Wikipedia conferences? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

White-balance picture

Resolved

 – no action needed, file has rotated -- Luk ^talk 11:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Could a sysop update File:Jesus College rowing jersey 1840s.jpg with the white-balanced version at the commons? (This is the current picture for today's featured article and is thus protected.) Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That commons image looks botched to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, it is going to rotate off in five minutes, anyway. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC needs closing

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering

• It's been a full 30 days now, and unfortunately the user in question has refused to participate and twice announced his "retirement" only to return and continue to engage in the same type of editing that led to this RFC. Could an uninvolved admin close this up so we can move on? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I planned on closing this in the next couple of days as there's still technically some hours left before a full 30 days has been up, but if it's what you want.... Note also that you can escalate to the next step in dispute resolution while the RfC/U is open if you wish - that's quite normal. For example, if you take it to ArbCom, it would be closed with the summary "proceeded to ArbCom" given the timing (or if you filed a request earlier and the case was accepted, the same summary would have been provided). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)