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

Another instance of a hatchet job by "insiders" on the unsuspecting

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

---

Comments on the above

You have pretty much been the only commentator. I gave up trying to follow along your long-winded soapboxing pieces, where you have deliberately kept the thread alive for far longer than it needs to be, so that it's not archived. Perhaps if you can condense your posts and get to the point, others would have voiced in their opinions eons ago. seicer | talk | contribs 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact there were, to date, over twenty (20) commentators, most of them making multiple postings, and mainly to protest, with indignation, your actions, which were a clear abuse of administrator's privileges. You were well advised to disappear, as you did, for some time, but ill-advised to return to the discussion if you were incapable of learning something from the comments made, and incapable of making more pertinent or intelligent remarks than these. I understand that you have difficulties understanding the arguments and the issues raised, but perhaps if you try carefully to read through the main points, you may eventually be able to understand better. You might start by reconsidering your own abusive action, and apologizing for it. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")

Well Seicer, you could simply have offered your regrets for escalating the situation with a bad block. But, you chose to offer that gratuituous parting tweak instead. I can see that quite a few people have voiced their opinions, and not one has endorsed your lousy judgement or cowboy actions. R Physicist is not the problem here; no one is forced to read this thread archived or not. However, there is a problem around here — admins making bad blocks (just recently mongo, giano, r physicist) and then getting defensive and snarky instead of gracefully admitting their own error. That said, r physicist should just let it go. I learned long ago that Wikipedia is not a place that values or respects expert contributions, so experts should simply steer clear of their subjects or expect incredible aggravation. User:Raymond arritt/Hobbyist has it about right, and this farce is yet another perfect example of the wikipedia worship of form over actual substance. Jpmonroe (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:NPoV, WP:N, WP:COI, WP:CIVIL, WP:SMITE. Only kidding. There are notions here we might heed and think about. Thanks for sharing your thoughts so straightforwardly. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

These are the constructive contributions to the AfD that I oh-so-tyrranically collapsed in a collapse box. God forbid these essays get hidden so that someone could try to read an AfD without getting 7/8 of the page covered in essays about the elite administrators lording over the Wiki with their Dark Age ideals. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of how bonkers/tendentious RP has let things get. That or his newest gigantic essay above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Will you stop already? You're making yourself look more foolish than someone who has posted a long rant on this page. Imagine how much effort that takes.

As for the rant itself, I find it both amusing and interesting, and may put it up on my userpage on days when I am inundated by the ignorant adding nationalist sources published in 1922 to support some absurd irredentist claim. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm on my way out of the Wiki, I might as well just be frank. Shut up. Just shut up. This is obviously something you don't care enough to actually consider, and you've clearly already got your agenda about this one decided. You're perfectly happy to chime in and criticise, but you know what, if you came across an AfD as fucked as that one, you probably don't have the brains or courtesy to try to clean it up. I'm sure it makes you really good to advocate for science and experts and all of that, and I'm glad you found such deep philosophical meaning in RP's rants, but ANTI-WIKIPEDIA RANTS DO NOT HAVE AND NEVER HAD ANY PLACE ON AN AFD. WP:SOAP isn't vague - ranting about elite Wikipedia administrators using Dark-Age reasoning to dismiss one's expert opinion and destroy science is absolutely not appriate. Fucking up an AfD repeatedly, when people step in and try to fix it, accusing them of being a part of some vast conspiracy to undermine your good name... that's how we work on a collaborative, community-built encyclopedia? I'm glad you've found your bandwagon, but none of that changes the fact that this is simply a SPA, expert or not, who's using the AfD process (and now the ANI) as a forum for unchecked anti-Wikipedia rants, and an opportunity to lash out at people that he imagines are attacking his character or destroying science. I will also point out that, for the record, several of the people chiming in on this ANI have had previous undisclosed disputes with me, one of whom (Colonel Warden) actually suggested that I should have done exactly what I did (collapsing RP's long rants to make the AfD manageable), instead of some other horrible thing he has fabricated that I might have done. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I look at that AfD, and I don't start seeing the rants until after random accusations of CoI and collapsing of discussion...

Anyway, how hard is it anyway to say "sure, perhaps I over-reacted"? Presumably harder than to type that last little -er- rant. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has said I over-reacted. No, I have been accused of destroying science, besmirching someone's reputation, driving away experts, etc. The moment you downgrade your baseless do-nothing accusations against the only person with the presence of mind to try to salvage that AfD to "over-reaction" and I will be happy to apologize and let RP go be an expert in his fancy physics research, while the rest of you can get back to collaborative, cooperative Wikipedia-building, without interruption by ranting anti-Wikipedia "experts" with persecution complexes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you over-reacted, you posted a longer piece of senseless drivel than R Physicist, including a large amount of foaming in the mouth swearing, and still stayed on your high horse... /shrug I only see one person losing face here and desperatly, oh so desperatly trying to save it. Its easy to slight someone, its VERY hard to say "Sorry" 195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Etc.

It's amazing how R Physicist can accuse me of taking his stand-alone rants out of context, but snipping things out of conversations/exchanges is perfectly fine. I called Proscience rude when he threw WP:SKILL out the window. Taking a cheap-shot at someone for speaking English well, but apparently not well enough (in an already tendentious AfD) is not appropriate. I told Proscience and Ngn to stop bickering when it got to the point that Proscience was threatening to expose "this situation" (the AfD) to "the media" - a threat to "expose" Ngn (IRL) as some sort of bad scientist. That's not appropriate either. I won't comment on the rest of RP's above, except to say that the SSP case was right and my suspicions were confirmed, and only then did the two come forward and mention that they're married (SPAs in an AfD who are married? classic meatpuppetry) and in addition to the SPA status, they both seemed to expect that their opinions be counted twice and with special weight because they are "experts." --Everyone's favorite scapegoat, Cheeser1 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that you've run into some of the odder -harder to use- bits of wikipedia so quickly. Although people bold comments an Article for Deletion discussions they are not voting. The tally of votes shouldn't really sway the closing admineditor's mind - just the numbers of people making reference to WP policy. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm not an admin, never claimed to be one... and I recall that I was pretty even-handed in my appeal to this noticeboard in not singling anyone out (or rather, singling out several and not saying anyone was to blame). SamBC(talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing I will say now, with hindsight and looking back on things with calm consideration, is that the nominator seemed unsatisfied with the idea that the article be considered in terms of wikipedia's established criteria (such as notability and verifiability), but the criteria that the nominator felt we ought to be using. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with such a suggested change in criteria; there may or may not be, I've not considered them deeply. It's just if we've got our ways of determining what merits an article, we shouldn't bait-and-switch just because an expert says so. SamBC(talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One may be an expert in one's field, but not an expert in collaborative, volunteer development of an open encyclopedia using wiki software. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we should not bite newcomers, as was done so dramatically here. No one starts as an expert in wikiminutiae. Jpmonroe (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's see what I told R physicist, shall we? [2] [3]. The response to this was a section "Desist from vandalism and bullying" even though I explicitly and deliberately made it clear to him that I was making every effort to AGF while keeping the comments that don't belong in the AfD off the AfD. For this, he launched into numerous tirades (including this ANI thread) because he has decided that I am a usurper, a vandal, an evil upstart bent on destroying his scientific credibility and besmirching his name. So who did what? WP:BITE? I think not. More like WP:AGF on a non-BITE. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I'm not talking about you. The big issue here is not a quarrel over an AFD, whatever the merits of the specific case. The big issue is the apalling way administrators here chose to respond to criticism, with the banhammer. AFD disputes come and go, but if we cannot make constructive use of criticism, if we habitually drive away knowledgeable people so pointlessly (3 established physicists in this case alone), then this pretence to be an 'encyclopedia' instead of a tome on pop culture is pointless. You're just some random editor; you can't do much harm. Admins can, and in this case have. Jpmonroe (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

this whole mess has shades of the drama of ScienceApologist to it, only this time, years of effort were pre-empted and we went right to the ban of someone whose skill and expert knowledge ina subject frightened some editors into killing that which they didn't understand right away. I'm sorry, but R Physicist should be unbanned post-haste, and this stupid self-promotional article resubmitted to AfD. I know how I'll vote. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This comment is not helpful at all. R_physicist can be excused for making mistakes like this, where shortly after being unblocked by Jehochman he accuses him of having blocked him. That's exactly the kind of confrontational behaviour based on mere conjectures that caused the original situation in the first place. (I am not trying to say that the other side was any better.) But someone with your Wikipedia experienced should know better than to confuse a very ill-considered and undiscussed block by a single admin, already undone by Jehochman based on consensus, with a ban.

As to the article. Normally I would have voted for deletion. I didn't vote at all, because R_physicist, with some help by Cheeser1 and me, had ensured that the AfD was a complete mess. One of the reasons it was such a mess was excessive repetition of personalised arguments such as the article being "self-promotional" (note I am not saying it isn't). In such a situation there are always strong non-personal arguments that you can use instead. And if it's a particularly egregious case, normally you won't be shot for a single sentence in which you make it clear how much you have constrained yourself. The same holds for expert authority. If you demonstrate it by showing insight into the matters that nobody else has, then you will be taken seriously. It's a bit less efficient to say "as a physicist working in the field it is my professional opinion that", but that would still work. But trying to win the discussion by shouting louder than all the others and repeating your opinion each time someone else has expressed the opposite view will never work; if it did, the Pokemon crowd would have taken over the science articles by now. This strategy won't work for R_physicist, and it won't work for Cheeser1, either. It's counterproductive. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The preceding remarks are the views of a person who ought to have better judgment, but who is incapable of distinguishing between the actions of a bully and manipulator and those of the ones trying to defend themselves against such attacks. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")

In an online community it is much more important than in real life to take cognitive biases into account, because some of the correctives that we have in real life are missing. If we don't do this, and don't follow some of the other correctives that have been established here instead, then we cause a lot of unnecessary drama: Two people who can't stop "defending" themselves against each other. Do you think that when Cheeser1 goes to bed he thinks: "Today was a successful day. I have defended a worthless article against a distinguished physicist, and I have shown him his place."? Nobody thinks of themselves in such terms, but everybody is ready to act as if others did. This is called actor-observer bias, and it's a universal fact about human nature.

As far as I can tell Cheeser1 saw that you were messing up an AfD, against your own interest, and he tried to help. When he saw your reaction he attributed it to your character more than to the specific circumstances under which you acted. That made him behave as he did. It became a problem when it was clear the strategy wasn't going to work and he continued anyway. He did not continue because he liked doing it, but because he felt that someone had to do it.

It was the symmetrical situation for you. You saw Cheeser1's actions, and you attributed them to his character rather than to the fact that he found himself in a very unusual situation. I guess that normally your word carries a lot of authority in interactions not only with other scientists, but also with ordinary people. At least that's how you come across here. The problem with this kind of authority is that it does not carry over to Wikipedia because once it is filtered through the wiki it is not sufficiently distinguishable from the behaviour of those half-educated bullies who we don't want to give control of the wiki. So you get the treatment that is intended for them. You are writing long rants about how Wikipedia has to change in order to solve the bully problem. What you don't understand is that Wikipedia already has rather good strategies to deal with the problem and that that is exactly what you have tripped over.

If better judgement means not seeing both sides of the coin, then I don't want it. Of course I could have shown better judgement by being quiet altogether. All I seem to have achieved is that both you and Cheeser1 are angry at me. But I am used to this kind of situation. In my experience here, when one side of a conflict thinks I am right it's a good indication that I am wrong. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since my actions are being discussed on a public forum, I find it necessary to clarify a few points. This is a singular contribution to Wikipedia, as I have no intention to reverse my decision to inactivate my account. I am making these comments ``sine ira et studio", for the sake of accuracy.

First, on the issue of (what I consider to be a very offensive terminology) ``meatpuppetry": as mentioned above, my spouse and I are both scientists, with established credentials and a common interest in promoting scientific truth. We share the same opinion on some issues, and disagree on others ... for instance, she does not approve of my returning to this discussion. From what I have seen on this board, people in our situation are automatically suspected of collusion and dishonesty when casting a vote. It was said above that we ``did not come forward" to disclose the fact that we share the same IP but after we were ``discovered". What is the point of this statement? Each of us could have used a different IP from work (as I do now, mind my full disclosure of this fact). It is precisely because we saw no issue at all with expressing our views from the same IP, that we did not bother to broadcast a warning! If you are innocent, you take no steps to ``defend" yourself pre-emptively. At any rate, based on the reaction of User:Cheeser1, we would have been suspected regardless of such actions. As a novice contributor, leaving in the real world, I have to say that this point of policy is extremely offensive: there is no presumption of innocence - which makes you feel that Wikipedia is (in that sense) like a typical oppressive society.

Second, on the issue of my ``exchange" with the author of the article nominated for deletion, which led to the intervention by User:Cheeser1. For those who participated to this debate and are not trained scientists (it is clear that several of the contributors fall under this description), I will make the following analogy: experienced Wikipedia editors are proud to follow policy and rules which apparently rule this enterprise. They criticize, rebuke, and collaborate with other editors in accordance with said policy, and reject ``other rules" from outside Wikipedia, in case of a conflict. We, scientists, have a similar code of rules that we adhere to, which takes precedence over any alternative. For example, we are supposed to use only proven facts, invoke scientific methods, use logic, reasoning, and make arguments within clear boundaries. Without these rules, there can be no consensus and no progress. Moreover, it is a duty for any scientist to ensure that she knows what she is talking about before arguing - or else indicate her ignorance and ask for instruction. I pointed out to User:Ngn, assuming her to be a fellow scientist, that her argument was illogical, and that is much more relevant than her less-than-perfect command of written English. In fact, I never considered her lack of linguistic abilities a negative factor throughout these debates: her knowledge of English is completely irrelevant at this stage. Her lack of logic when responding to my argument, her attempt to present to the general public those equations as part of established scientific literature, her claim that criticism aroused by the article is due to a conspiracy with specific national overtones, these are important issues, and - as a scientist - she should be held accountable for it following the established rules of communicating science. Just as you, editors experienced in points of Wikipedia policy, criticize and hold accountable other editors for violating policy. However, rules of science take precedence over rules of Wikipedia at this point, because (however far-reaching and wonderful the influence of Wikipedia over the general public), the importance of scientific truth is much more fundamental for all of us. Billions of dollars in grants, millions of jobs, entire industries and military entities, all rely of scientific truth. Of all people, we scientists have a duty to point out fallacies, inadvertences, fraud and self-promotion - wherever they might occur. This is the point of my exchange with User:Ngn. If she is (as I assumed with no prejudice) a scientist, she will respond to my constructive criticism (lack of logic is something any scientist should very worried about, and thankful for being warned about). If she is not a scientist, then she should, by all means, write about any notable subject, in Wikipedia, or any other non-scientific (i.e. not peer-reviewed) medium. However, at that point I (and others) have a duty to warn my fellow scientists about such claims. It is not personal. I care not about what User:Ngn stands to lose or gain from this. What I care about is setting the scientific record straight. Every month, I am invited to peer-review 3-4 articles submitted to scientific journals, I do it (sine ira et studio), to set the record straight. In that sense, the debate has never belonged exclusively to Wikipedia, and my warning of ``exposing" incorrect practices to the scientific community was not a threat, not an attempt to intimidation, just a fact. As you must surely realize from the caliber of other scientists involved in this history (myself not included), the scientific morality aspect of the discussion has already crossed into the academic world.

(Retired user Proscience). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.96.184 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination). The purpose of the restrictions is that the fact that we allow an unspecified degree of threaded discussion, repeated comments, etc, on an AFD normally has led to strife in this instance because of people disagreeing on where the line is drawn. This is not an attempt to suppress discussion, it can still carry on without interference on the talk page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I must question the imposition of a gag rule in the project page of this AFD which says "absolutely no comments other than a single delete or keep [with reasoning explained] (or a comment from a user who has made neither) will be permitted below - anything else will be moved to the talk page." When someone makes a misstatement of fact (such as claiming references exist which do not) or a misstatement of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or make a "Keep" or "Delete" argument based on reason not generally valued ("I like it," "Seems notable enough," "Lots of other crappy articles exist" etc), the place for a comment in response is immediately following the offending "Keep" or "Delete" argument, not segregated on a talk page where they cannot be related readily to the offending argument. Only clear soapboxing rants or other comments violating established policies or guidelines should ever be removed, collapsed or banned from being placed as comments. The gag rule, as stated, is inappropriate and unjustified. Allowing an arbitrary gag rule to be imposed on this one AFD sets up a precedent for arbitrary gag rules to be imposed on any other AFD, wherein inappropriate "Keep" or "Delete" arguments could stand with their shortcomings unexposed. It is too reminiscent of the recent establishment of "Free speech zones" in the U.S., which place political opponents of a President in a fenced enclosure out of site and hearing of the locus where he is to speak or to appear in a parade. Just as all of a country should be a "free speech zone," all of an AFD should be a suitable zone for any comments which properly address the issues at hand. It may be inconvenient to have the tallying of "Keep" and "Delete" arguments slowed by the interspersed comments, but this inconvenience is counterbalanced by the need to allow response to ill-formed Keep/Delete arguments immediately following their appearance, even if the commentor has already !voted. Edison (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already common practice to move comments to the talk page when they are excessive in some unspecified way - this is simply an effect to apply a consistent rule rather than a case-by-case judgement, since that's led to disagreement, hurt feelings, etc, in the 2nd AFD. Why can't you respond to those ill-formed arguments on the talk page? --Random832 (contribs) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the AfD is going smoothly this time. I don't see it as a "gag rule" at all. On the project page, editors are sharing their thoughts and discussion on the talk page is helpful and ongoing. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, responses on the talk page are not readily associated with the !vote they refer to. Also the "one comment" rule could leave a comment shining on the main page which deserves a response which would be buried on the talk page. Exile of comments to the talk page is only appropriate for comments which do not belong on the main page. I dispute the right of a nominator (or other editor) to set his own policy which prevents other editors from placing apropriate comments on the main page of an AFD. The identificatioin of single purpose accounts should certainly be done where the !votes appear on the main page of the AFD, as has been done in thousands of prior AFDs. Was there a consensus somewhere that the gag rule should be imposed on this AFD? Here or at Arbcom or at deletion review? Edison (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Right to Vanish?

m:Right to vanish is supposed to be a system that provides editors an "escape" from their previous history. It allows them a fresh start, so as to edit Wikipedia without the baggage of their prior edits or comments.

By coming here after invoking RtV, then openly self-identifying, has R Physicist abused this right? If so, what should the community response be? -- Kesh (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. R Physicist doesn't even know what "Right to vanish" is. He hasn't invoked it. He hasn't claimed any of its privileges. All he has done is abandon his account, abandoned any intention of editing articles, but retained involvement in this dispute via his IP. Hesperian 03:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Although your track record for doing so is.. poor, you could at least try to get the facts straight. RP had, for example, his userpage/talkpage deleted as a part of RtV. He was not blocked or otherwise censured for his inappropriate anti-Wikipedia soapboxing because he was exercising his RtV. His vanishing is what lead to a huge amount of criticism lumped on people (mostly me) for "driving away experts" and yet here he is, still doing the only thing he's ever done - lashing out at constructive, long-term Wikipedians and Wikipedia itself. Secier correctly assessed the situation, and while a block was perhaps not necessary (that is debatable), he un-vanished for the sole purpose of creating a long-after-the-fact ANI report about me and this ludicrous situation for which he is squarely and unequivocally responsible. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in your insular Wikipedia-centric universe, everyone is intimately familiar with every convention in this place, and anyone who has their user page deleted can be assumed to be implicitly invoking the benefits and obligations of RTV. But in reality, some people are new around here, and wouldn't know RTV from a bar of soap, and have no idea that having your page deleted implies to some of us an invocation of RTV, and have no idea that RTV is a contract that places certain obligations upon the invoker.

Apparently it isn't enough that we bit this newbie for not knowing our AfD norms; no, we also have to punish him for not knowing how to leave properly. Give him a good kick up the arse on his way out the door, huh? Pathetic. Hesperian 05:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And oh the irony! You want to censure this guy even further, for hanging around after claiming he has quit, but lo and behold! you yourself have had a "retired" template on your user page for four days! And you're still here stirring the pot. RickK said it best: "Pot. Kettle. Black.". Hesperian 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, mister smartiepants. I haven't exercised my right to vanish, I've simply retired, and I'm only at this ANI to defend myself from ignorant fools like you who'd rather let a self-important, disruptive "expert" chase off good contributors (in the name of WP:BITE no less). Why don't you pull yourself out from under the irony bus before pointing any fingers at me, huh? I've spent years contributing to the Wiki, and it's idiots like you who step in and throw me under the bus for trying to salvage the mess RP made of that AfD that have lost Wikipedia an actual contributor. And ignorance of policy is not an excuse for heeding it once you are told. If a policy is here to prevent disruption, one cannot be deliberately and single-purposely disruptive (returning from RtV to simply disrupt some more) and then plead ignorance. --24.59.252.11 (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Although your track record for doing so is.. poor, you could at least try to get the facts straight. RP had, for example, his userpage/talkpage deleted as a part of RtV. Where does it say that? He tagged his talk page with {{retired}}, he never requested deletion or used the word "vanish". As for his user page, (diff) 20:07, 25 March 2008 . . R physicist (Talk | contribs | block) (29 bytes) (moved User:R physicist to User:Lost cause: Change of emphasis) - that could just as easily be an attempt to change username as to delete. --Random832 (contribs) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Put simply, no evidence has been provided that R physicist ever attempted to invoke meatball:RightToVanish. --Random832 (contribs) 14:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, what's the point in editing from an IP rather than his (still active) account? -- Kesh (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

His user talk page was deleted per RtV. Once again, let's all try not to talk about things we don't know about. How utterly crass and foolish. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if you check, he even asked here that his user talk page be salted. Not only did he request RtV, he requested more than what would ever be allowed under RtV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

holy crap, are people not allowed to change their mind? Calling it "abuse" and blocking the IP address was the worst possible response. --Random832 (contribs) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But anyway, it's still not clear that he understood what "right to vanish" meant (it was suggested to him by another user), and it was never explained to him that it was poor form to return. And in any case, he's not banned and trying to misconstrue "right to vanish" as including an obligation not to return is flatly ridiculous. --Random832 (contribs) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the right to vanish can be "abused" at all, such abuse would be in using it repeatedly to cover your tracks, not in using it once, then after some time to cool down deciding to come back and see if just maybe his bad experience was a fluke. And, don't forget, he had been accused of being part of a russian conspiracy - you weren't the one making those accusations and he never said you were, so I don't know WHERE you get off saying he came back to make an ANI report against you. --Random832 (contribs) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you continue to comment on things of which you have no understanding? The admin who RtV'd RP clearly and repeatedly explained to him what RtV is, and it is clearly and unequivocally a measure one may invoke when leaving the project permanently. There is no ambiguity here, and to return to continue to make a fuss is hardly something we should consider a good-faith return to the community in spite of the clarity of RtV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this end now?

What about this conflict still requires the attention of administrators on AN/I? Is there an admin action remaining to be done (or undone) or is this thread basically rehashing the same issue over and over at this point? Reading the above, I'm not even sure exactly what the current status is. Who is blocked/unblocked/banned/vanished? Avruch ^T 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Igorberger harrassment

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

---

Resolved

 – Igorberger blocked indefinitely as per community consensus - with provisions made for Barneca to mentor and if Igorberger reaches a point where he appears to be ready to re-join the community - Barneca to put in a suggestion of his unblocking at a new ANI thread

--VS ^talk 01:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger is harrassing me.

Most of his dislike for me stems from disputes in Talk:Anti-Americanism. The problem is that recently he has taken his "battle" to other articles. He is obviously checking my contribs and following me around to get involved with whatever I do.

At the Village Pump, I proposed a general policy that anti-[nation] articles follow the naming convention (identity), e.g. only self-identified anti-Americans should be called anti-American. [4] He made no contribution there, but announced (dishonestly) in anti-Americanism Talk page that I wanted to delete all these articles [5].

Then he took the issue to the Talk page of an article I've never read, edited, or discussed, and used the same technique to rabble-rouse against me. He told editors there, none of whom I know, to watch out for me. Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#All_anti-country_articles_are_POV. Again, he misrepresents (can I say "lies about"?) what I said (I haven't said anything should be deleted).

I recently made a small edit to the article on Phillip K. Dick. Within hours Igor showed up, and started editing that article, including reverting my edits. [6]

He filed a sockpuppetry case on me, in which he compares me to Hitler, with a The Final Solution reference (it is hard to follow): [7]

In the anti-Americanism article itself, his comments toward me are always dismissive and often personal. I would ignore them, but when he follows me around to other articles, it becomes impossible to ignore.

Here he says he can't assume good faith because I am "trying to influence and change Wikipedia policy." [8] He also doesn't refer to me by name but by as "the SSP & SPA" I don't even know what SSP means (I'm sure it's not good) but I think SPA is single-purpose account.

Here he continues belittling me: [9]

Here he belittles my attempt to explain my position: [10]

More dismissive comments: [11]

There is more, but I won't go on. The main problem is that I cannot ignore him, because he has decided to follow me around Wikipedia. Life.temp (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, back when Life.temp started the Village Pump discussion, Igor advised people to consider Life.temp's status as an "SPA" before considering his suggestions [12]. I had reverted that comment on the grounds that it was harassment [13], to which Igor responded by leaving me this [14] on my talk page. I then responded on his talk page [15]. I've had my own long-term problems with Igor and short of blocking him for being a general nuisance, we should at least make sure he doesn't engage in blatant harassment. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:29, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor has just posted a Wikiquette Alert for Life.temp: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Life.temp. This was done after he was notified of this ANI. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:03, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor has always been a "problem" editor, and he's got into bother before but this is too far, following someone around harrrasing them is wikistalking--Phoenix-wiki 13:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and he was been warned far too many times. Tiptoety ^talk 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs to wait until the RFCU is processed. Life.temp is certainly displaying a lot of well known sockpuppet tendencies. Jtrainor (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(From my entirely civil interactions with) User:Igorberger, they can be difficult to understand at times. From other observations I have made (concerning previous posts to this page), this can be a problem. And Igor also may be inclined to state suppositions as if they were already proved. If Igor can refrain from such inflation of language which can easily be percieved as incivility in the heat of the moment, then Igor's concerns may be able to be addressed. The other user should not be the subject of incivility from Igor. There seems to be a need for further processes to proceed however. And hopefully Igor can come to understand how to engage in discussion with a user if possible, rather than rushing to judgement. That is my understanding, I just happened to have found this thread, though I have not been involved. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• His last comment directed at me: "Sorry the current version looks like shit. Definiton this definiton that, la, la , la, blah, blah , blah! Get it together and make an article, not a dictionary definion as it looks now that it have become!" [16]. It's not that any one comment is extreme. He's not abusive. It just disrupts the consensus process by never stopping, and there's a red flag when he takes it to other articles.
• I requested informal mediation for the anti-Americanism article, but I'm not optimistic. Right now, people are trying to en masse revert every edit that's been made in the last week.
• The acronyms are confusing. Using the Help Page search told me what SSP means, but returned no results for RFCU. Life.temp (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor Berger, Igor the Troll...

• Igor apparently trolls as a hobby. He has a Web site and a blog dedicated to blogging about his well-spent time in troll-dom: http://www.igorthetroll.com/
• The "About Me" link identifies him as Igor Berger: http://www.igorthetroll.com/i-am-igor-the-troll.php
• The"My Company" link contains the same profile as his Talk page, and includes Wikipedia as a "project.": http://www.ivbsolutions.net/

Ban please. Life.temp (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently, this and an editor named John Gohde are hot topics in the blogosphere....
• http://naturalhealthperspective.net/2008/01/26/gohdes-apprentice/
• Somebody put this guy on a gerbil treadmill and use the energy for something useful. He's probably User talk:ArthurMongli too.

Life.temp (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say he describes himself pretty accurately on his website: "a really nice troll". Well, nice as long as you tolerate his trolling. If you express any discontentment, he bites. He seems to talk incessantly regardless of whether he knows what he's saying or even has anything to say. This is probably the one individual at Wikipedia who can influence what I do here, in that I've come to avoid anything he's involved in. He's just that difficult. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should all be allowed to give him the inattention he deserves. Ban. One more then I quit wasting time with trolls...

In his profile at another site, he lists his contributions to Wikipedia under the heading "Internet Troll.":

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger

Life.temp (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaks for itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of Life.temp sockpuppeting needs to be dealt with at the same time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd). He appeared on Anti-Americanism just after the last sock was shown the door and has shown much the same tendencies. Marskell (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of us have reason to believe that 'Life.temp' is yet another incarnation of the banned user Bsarvy, aka 'Rachel', aka 'Bshanvy'. After Bsharvy was banned he vowed on the Anti-Americanism page to come back to edit the page using different identities and so far he has been as good as his word. About every week at Anti-Americanism we get a brand new user editor who homes straight onto that page and who despite being new always displays an in depth knowledge of wikipedia procedures, and is especially adept at launching complaints procedures against anybody who opposes his edits - like what we see here. Bsharvy edits from Seoul, Korea and I have no doubt that 'Life temp' is from the same exactly the same place. Ask him. Colin4C (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"A lot of us" who have the suspicion strangely seem to consist only of those who've been in disagreement with him at Talk:Anti-Americanism.

For the record though, I have the same suspicions, I just doubt the existence of any actual evidence, or the need to devote any energy to the pursuit of this suspicion. Life.temp hasn't actually done anything wrong yet, aside from disagree with Marskell, which as you can see from Talk:Anti-Americanism is not a good idea. Life.temp revert-warred with Igor a bit, but that seems to have been a one-time thing. This seems to have more to do with him being in disagreement with the majority there, than with the compulsion to be ever-vigilante in prosecuting sockpuppets of blocked users. He hasn't actually done anything wrong yet. He's not even being disruptive, unless being in vocal disagreement with the majority counts, and it doesn't.

Anyway, whether Life.temp is a sockpuppet or not, the fact remains that this is a circumstantial suspicion, and Igor should be keeping the suspected sockpuppet discussion to the suspected sockpuppet page, not following the user around reminding people of the suspicion at every turn. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:12, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break

Igor mainatins a hitlist of Wikipedia editors at the londonfetishscene.com site I mentioned earlier:

BuzzKill

1. DogMeat WikiPedia:User:Gohdeilocks
   
2. RoadKill momojp
   
3. Marked for Tribunal for the crimes
   

   of: insighting discontent and instigating a mutiny WikiPedia:User:Equazcion
   

   As the court appointed counslor for the Queen, Country, and God, I recommend WikiPedia:WP:CSD pardoned

4. Marked for Assassination for being a Spam Malware to the Kabal

   WikiPedia:User:Mr.Z-man decreed by Grand Pupa. pardoned

5. WikiPedia:User:WilyD subversive and destructive to WikiPedia. WikiPedia:WP:COI
6. WikiPedia:User:VirtualSteve sleeper.

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger#BuzzKill

I wonder what the admins are doing... The only admin I can see is User:Marskell, and he seems to think this page is for sniping at me over a SSP Igor (who else?) filed against me. It's a case without a single diff, and barely any claim that I disrupted anything. User:Marskell has made no comment there, where such comment belongs. I'd like to know policy about a user who brags about trolling and who calls User:Mr.Z-man "marked for assasination." That's what this discussion is for. Life.temp (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would be curious to know why I'm on this guy's shit list. He links to the Wipipedia page on his userpage here, so they would seem to be the same guy ... WilyD 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That page looks like a joke to me. I shall ask him to add me to it. Jtrainor (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is a joke. If you mean he probably hasn't actually hired Jason Bourne to kill User:Mr.Z-man, I agree. The point is that he comes to troll, and says so. (Additional comment: some editors will feel intimidated if they find themselves on that list.) Life.temp (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I see today that I am also on this list - this is because I have often questioned Igorberger's edits and I have had the audacity to block him for his foul play previously. Interestingly - for those that feel the need to assume good faith under any circumstance - actually checking through all of Igorberger's editing history will reveal that he has been questioned, warned and blocked by many, many other editors for his consistent trolling, his tenacious editing style, his blatant refactoring, his conflict of interest edits, his attempts to use the wikipedia name to further his personal businesses and his intimidation of other editors. His edits have been taken to task many times at ANI, MFD, and of course on his talk page. Igorberger uses the same methods for this always - simply substituting the name of his latest out of favour editor or administrator into his usual nonsensical diatribe. He then curries favour with other editors who through lack of time, interest or vanity support him because he called them his "brother" or "a good man" etc on their talk page. For those that feel the need to support - that is a matter for you to deal with, however trolling at this level is not a joke whether it is on wikipedia or off it. That said Igorberger knows that I am never intimidated by him and that I will as necessary block him again - and for considerable length of time if he steps over the line in the future - and I am not involved in that matter. For this matter - another administrator should act appropriately and quickly to again rein in this very poor representative of the wikipedia community who feels the need to belittle and user name/shame his fellow contributors.--VS ^talk 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not to ban

I was || this close this blocking this guy indefinitely. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of long-term trolling has no place on our 'pedia. But I want to make sure it has consensus, so, what are your thoughts? Grandmasterka 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not neutral on this, as he and I chat on my talk page. I've seen him do disruptive things, but don't follow him around, so I evidently don't know the worst of it, but he's always seemed basically OK to me. He appears to contribute at least semi-productively at, for example, State terrorism and the United States (I don't follow that article much, so I can't quantify it more than that, but he seems to be working with other editors there).

If I was to talk with him about his future here, as someone he seems to respect, what would you like me to say beyond:

1. removing lists of WP users from his off-wiki page,
2. letting the SSP run its course without following life.temp around,
3. perhaps some kind of mentorship (if he's open to it, which I suspect, but don't know, he might be open to).

Again, I haven't followed his every move, but from what I know of him, the descriptions above seem a little too harsh, and (again acknowledging my COI here), indef blocking seems like too much. --barneca (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, Igor and I have gotten along in our interactions but I had grown rather wary, since although we tended to agree more or less on edits, I never seemed to agree with the unencyclopedic reasons he gave for agreeing with me (so I began thinking it might only be luck). Igor's behaviour as outlined above, about which I became aware only lately, is utterly blockable. However, the other day, he seemed to take my thoughts on his uncivil comments about others to heart. Hence, I strongly hope Igor at least shares his thoughts about his own behaviour before someone drops an indef block upon him. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Barneca & Gwen - not to throw water on your (and indeed our) general AGF principles but Barneca, Igor has been through this process of requesting he listen to someone he respects before. He has a history of jumping from one person he respects to another. See here for example his last ANI thread Gwen his "point taken" comment (like the one you diff) are exactly what he does every time he gets into hot water like this - for example this one where he apologises for being dickish after appearing to post an incorrect signature, or this one where another editor provides a very detailed summary as to why his editing is problematic and Igor thanks him for the evaluation but then continues to edit in the same style. Given that I have been watching his history for some months I hope you will understand why I support absolutely an indefinite block ... and if I was not attempting to remain non-proprietary at this time because he has slightly involved me in this issue by including my name in a rather cowardly off-wiki attack - I would do it myself.--VS ^talk 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, at least I understand why I'd gotten wary. I see strong support here that Igor knows he's using this account for something other than building an encyclopeda. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with VS's take on this. Igor tends to act as if he respects someone and is taking in their advice, but when it comes to practice he ignores it. Then, if pressed, he bites back. Just like everyone thinks when they first encounter him I used to believe that Igor genuinely wanted to be mentored, but I no longer hold that belief. I think he's going to keep on doing what he does despite what anyone tells him. He's not interested in changing -- but he will act like he is, just to get on people's good sides. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:07, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent summary of my experience with this editor. Jehochman ^Talk 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just do it. We don't need to subject good-faith contributors to this nonsense any longer. Some people are here to write, others notso much. --Haemo (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone done an Rfc then, (on Igor)? Wouldn't that be a reasonable procedure, and require two (2) users to endorse it, that they had tried and failed to resolve particular issues. (Not for or against, if there is evidence of particular transgressions that other editors wish to pursue.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? Why in heavens name would be doing a request for comment? This is the appropriate procedure for transgressions to be considered and dealt with by Administrators--VS ^talk 10:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor said something yesterday that implied he wasn't going to participate in "life.temp's thread". If true, he may not know an indef block is being considered; I've notified him that he might want to say something here. How he handles that response will strongly affect my own opinion on whether this is the correct thing to do. Like I said, I haven't been following his every move, so it's possible the "mild" disruption I've seen myself has actually been significantly more. But based on my interaction with him, I'm just surprised. --barneca (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe it's just me, but I'm just seeing someone frustrated, who wants to call a spade a spade but feels he is prevented from doing so by the bureaucracy here (don't deny it...we all know it is overwhelming for newcomers). I would like to see an RFC, with specific issues raised (and hopefully dealt with, if he can be convinced to participate in good faith) before the banhammer is applied. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy nicknamed himself "Igor the Troll." He registered igorthetroll.com. He keeps a list of articles he's edited titled "Internet Trolling." And here we are trying to figure out if he is a troll. I mean...gee. Life.temp (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wants to call a spade a spade? What does he want to say that he's been prevented from saying? Igor's behavior hasn't exactly struck me as reserved. From what I've seen he's been rather open, and overly so.

• You're missing the point. This user has been given constructive criticism before. It's no longer a matter of identifying the problematic behavior and communicating it to him. That's been tried many times, by many different people, many of whom Igor thanked and came back to with further questions and praise. But all the while he never actually took any of the advice he was given. If you started an RFC for Igor, he'd say he's sorry a few times and tell everyone how much he appreciates their help, and then keep on doing what he does. More dispute resolution would just delay the inevitable. Igor has been the subject of extensive community discussion before, and he's been given advice, warnings, and finally ultimatums as a result. It's all been done. There's no reason reason to go through it all over again expecting different results.

• Besides which, an RFC, being a "request for comment", would be redundant with this discussion. We've got all the comments we need right here. Whether this discussion were carried out at ANI or RFC makes no difference, and this one is already started, so there's no point in beginning anew. If you have thoughts about Igor that you would have expressed at RfC, please feel free to state them here. It's all pretty much the same. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:41, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly stated - Equazcion - Of course one of the problems is that only those editors that have spent time over many months trying to understand and assist Igor actually have the background to know what damage he is doing to the project. To see that damage extending to off-wiki sites compounds the evidence. Quite frankly drive by comments from editors that have not experienced this editor's real reason for being here or who have not checked through all or at least a large quantity of his edits are not of any assistance because this is the very game that Igor hopes the community will play on his behalf.--VS ^talk 11:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, comments from "outsiders" is pretty much the point of WP:ANI. Otherwise it's just a big self-reinforcing echo chamber. --barneca (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, it was not my suggestion to not allow "outsider" comments Barneca - it was my suggestion to editors not to comment unless that editor had made him/herself very familiar with Igor's editing history. I think you actually were the first above to suggest similarly that such a lack of familiarity makes any comment less than complete?--VS ^talk 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from outsiders are appreciated, but educated comments based on an examination of the editor's past contributions and exchanges is what would truly be helpful. There are some cases at ANI that are glaringly obvious to "outsiders" and therefore might not require such an in-depth look. This unfortunately isn't one of them. The fact that this user acts so outwardly-agreeable is part of the point here. Drive-by commenters who don't look any deeper than that and come to the obvious conclusion that this is a misunderstood soul looking to reach out to someone are just perpetuating the very problem we're attempting to address. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:08, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor's been up on AN/I before, and I've commented on him before. Equazcion has it about right. Igor plays games. I'm one in the 'supports a community ban' column. ThuranX (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stay away from this mess at ANI, because I do not think it is the right place to address all these issues, but I was requested to comment here. A lot of these has been started because the article anti-Americanism, but some of it goes back even before this article. Who is right and who is worng and why who did what is not a simple thing to address. I really feel ANI, fuels drama, and no good to Wikipedia project and all its editors. I feel all the conserns need to be addressed in proper venues of dispute resolution. Igor Berger (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, none of this has anything to do with content dispute resolution and it seems to have been going on for much longer than since you began editing anti-Americanism. Either way, I don't understand why you're not responding to all these things being said about you. Have you given this any thought? Is there anything you can do to skirt stirring up these kinds of complaints about your behaviour from now on? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I think ANI is the wrong place to address these conserns. Why has this escalated to this wikidrama in the first place? Could it be that dispute resolutions raised by me about editors and editors conserned with me were not addressed in proper dispute resolution venues? But yes, with regards to your consern, I will do my best not to flame the situation and be extremly civil in talking to other editors to address any problems that I or they may have. Igor Berger (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say talking about it here is wikidrama? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it flames things up, instead of addressing editors' conserns! There are times when ANI works but it really needs to be NPOV, or it gets derailed to a point where editors are playing football with one editor, using him as a ball. Then the audiance just jumps on the bandwagon, and more wikidrama. It is not healthy psychologically for anyone, and does not fix problems, but just brushes things under the rug. Also right now there are no WP:DIFFs but just accusations. I prefer to address all accusations in a more humane - stable - not flamed - atmosphere like RFC/U Igor Berger (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There many diffs to your edits in this thread. Why did you say there aren't any? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Ok, not to rehash every thing from scratch and go into a circular debate, what in particular would you like me to address? Igor Berger (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you refering to the 3 points that admin Barneca raised, I agree to all 3 of them. Igor Berger (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about the diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel the case for harassment of User:Life.temp has not been made. I filled an SSP report on him and Wiki-Etiquettes report. Because I found his behavior on article anti-Americanism problematic. I even came to you to ask for help because I could not get anyone to addres the issue accept of the editors involved in editing the article anti-Americanism. But those editor were having the same problem with the editor. We have all tried to talk to the editor about AA but he is taking it all as personal. If he feels that I have harassed him in anyway, I would like to apoligize to him for that. We are not here, to push anyone off the project. Like it says, "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" Igor Berger (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, I've asked you twice why you said "right now there are no WP:DIFFs" in this thread when in truth there are many. Twice you haven't answered me. Instead, you've made non specific agreements and apologies with no reasoning or acknowledgement behind them to show you have any understanding of others' worries or a wish to follow up on them by swaying your behaviour. This is spot on the kind of thing these editors have been unhappy about with you. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, this is my POV that the diffs to Lifi.temp harassment acquisitions have not been provided. But everyone has there own POV. Were the diffs supporting my behavior which is disapproved by some editor provided? I do not know, I was not referring to that. Igor Berger (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Shall I take these answers as an acknowledgement that you didn't bother to read this thread before replying to it? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the first part, dealing with acquisitions of harassment, the other part I did not read in full. It is a bit hard to read this long thread. That is why I proposed to address in RFC/U. Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Anyway, I like to apologize to any editor who thinks my behavior is not appropreate.I do not wish the community to see me in bad light. Igor Berger (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you apologizing for? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If some editors feel my behavior is not appropriate I need to respect what they saying and not beat the dead horse trying to prove them wrong. If editors have consern about another editor's behavior that editor needs to think why they have consern and try to fix that. Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment My take is that Igor would like to get along with what he's been doing (and hopes any other editors will "think why they have consern [sic] and try to fix that"). I think one "fix" might be a preventative block until Igor is more willing or able to articulate what he's apologizing for. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It remains the case that I'm interested to know why/how I'm in a conflict with this user (as he seems to think). WilyD 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wily, my apology to you for ever putting you on that list. We never had any contact between each other. I am trully sorry for atracting any negative attention to you. Igor Berger (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor why did you put him on an off-wiki hate-list when you'd never even had contact with him? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was because of a comment I read. The whole list is childish and stupid on my part. It is a disgrace to me and to Wikipedia. I created this list when I first started editing regularly Wikipedia and since then I have learned a lot about Wikipedia. And have had myself put on sily lists. I apologize to all editors who I have put on the list. I think any list talking about Wikipedians are bad taste and immature. Igor Berger (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Why is it still up? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) It's on a wiki, right? You could just delete it right now if you wanted to, right? That would be an excellent move; not to escape consequences, but because having that list is wrong, and not wise. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not want it to look like I am trying to hide something and refactor to make myself look good! I did a bad thing and I will remove it right now. Igor Berger (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed everyone from the list. Igor Berger (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Igor, but I'm starting to think that Gwen's "take" on this a little up the page might make sense. An indef block, not the "infinite" kind but the "until you're unblocked" kind, might make sense, where "out of the spotlight" (to use Igor's phrase), on his talk page, we can clarify what concerns really have to be addressed before unblocking. "willing or able to articulate what he's apologizing for", as it were. This solution, I would grudgingly support. A "ban", no. To me, a ban implies someone isn't welcome. I think Igor is welcome if he alters his behavior.

But in any case I think at this stage an RfC is going to turn into a mirror of this thread, and I don't think it's the solution. let's deal with it here and now. --barneca (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I am not trying to shrug my responsibility or say my behavior is good. But when someone comes and say your behavior is bad, it is hard to understand what is bad, unless you say. Igor this is bad, please correct it. Then I know what I need to fix. Like when I was asked not to post at ANI for 30 days, even after the 30 days I have not posted unless it is conserns me. So I do not close my ears, and think I know it all. I listen to my peers when they advise me and talk to me, instead of saying, "bad Igor" Igor Berger (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not, part deux

This kind of exchange is part of the problem. It doesn't get anywhere, because Igor isn't giving any actual answers. Take this sample from above:

Why do you say talking about it here is wikidrama? Gwen Gale

Because it flames things up, instead of addressing editors' conserns! There are times when ANI works but it really needs to be NPOV, or it gets derailed to a point where editors are playing football with one editor, using him as a ball. Then the audiance just jumps on the bandwagon, and more wikidrama. It is not healthy psychologically for anyone, and does not fix problems, but just brushes things under the rug." Igor berger

When you ask Igor to address something, he responds (if these can be called responses) by throwing around common phrases, big words, and most of all, policy abbreviations, most of which don't even apply to the current situation. "Neutral point of view" is about writing articles, and has nothing to do with discussions. On the contrary, everyone is encouraged to express their POVs during a discussion. That would be true no matter where it took place. ANI is just a venue. It doesn't cause any more drama than any other place. Talk here, Igor, because this is where the discussion began. It would be the same discussion, inducing the same level of "psychological health" and equally "addressing editors' concerns" no matter where it took place. A discussion likewise does not "sweep things under the rug" -- it of course does the opposite of that, airing things out in the open -- and again, the venue in which it takes place does not determine its level of under-rug sweepage. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:06, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am welcome to a discussion no matter where it takes place. I am glad you want to discuss thing with me. And have always welcomed it at my talk page. Please tell me one point at a time what is it about my behavior as a Wikipedia editor that conserns you. Igor Berger (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, looking at your edit history I often get a feeling you've looked over many talk and project pages, memorized some Wikipediaish jargony stuff and other catch phrases, then jumbled it all up, to later use as a kind of easy shorthand when replying to other editors, in the hope this would make you seem knowledgeable and experienced. The pith is, since this method doesn't even begin to help you talk with other editors in any meaningful or helpful way, they take it as game playing or disruption. What do you think about that? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please answer completely separately from Gwen's question: Igor, are you willing to accept a mentor assigned by the community - yes or no? Franamax (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did try to keep this separate, guys, and in deference to Gwen's question. Since both have been artfully-replied-to, I'll ask mine again: community appoints mentor, Igor accepts, one more chance; community declines or Igor declines or mentorship fails, Igor faces a ban. Has this actually been tried? Can the previous mentor please comment? This is the last step before a ban and should have one spin around the block. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally rather hear an answer to Gwen's question. Igor has always been outwardly willing to accept mentorship from the community -- he's had an adoption userbox posted on his userpage for as long as I can remember -- but mentoring has been tried and has never solved anything, as has been described repeatedly and at length above. Gwen is steering this in the right direction. Her question addresses the issue head-on. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:00, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that the mentorship issue has been addressed by Igor before who has been asking to be both an adopter and adoptee for many months (he considered himself a senior editor from very early in his wiki involvement), but when a well meaning senior editor tried to assist by pointing out the illogical nature of this Igor attacked him for trolling.--VS ^talk 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to accept mentor, and I was hoping to get one long time ago. I have a user box saying user looking to be atopted. I think I found an experience admin editor who might be interested in mentoring me. I would need to talk to him about this. Now the hard part, Gwen's question. Yes I agree with Gwen, just reading policy and then spiting it out, is problemtatic. At the end of the day, it is plain English, not policy that constitute communication. Igor Berger (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, getting you to agree with Gwen was not the point of her question. You need to address this, as it is at the center of the issue. How do you think her assessment applies to your past behavior? If you agree that shes accurately described what you've been doing, how do you explain that? And what will you do differently in the future? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:21, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think working with a mentor will help me figure out what I am doing that is wrong. As you are aware, I came to you asking for advice on anti-Americanism but you really never talked to me. So I just kep adding what I though were problems to that section on your talk page but never got a definitive recommendation. Pretty much I had to read your mind, and guess as to what to do based on your actions on anti-Americanism article. Igor Berger (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Igor, why do you also then have a user box that indicates your belief that you are also a senior editor?--VS ^talk

This user has been given constructive criticism before. -- actually have the background to know what damage he is doing -- very familiar with Igor's editing history. -- Educated comments based on an examination of the editor's past contributions and exchanges is what would truly be helpful.

How about some [[DIFFs] (of Igor's bad contribbs. to articles, etc. in this discussion, before blocking/banning is enacted, please. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• [EC]Have a look at the diffs that are provided already Newbyguesses - from the most recent that I just gave through to his last ANI and then the one above where I linked to where another editor provides a very detailed summary as to why his editing is problematic and Igor thanks him for the evaluation but then continues to edit in the same style. That will give you a start.--VS ^talk 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for instance, this edit as of 13:40, 22 November 2007 to Igor's User page was not good, [17], (added experienced wikipedian), and this Diff [18] was problematical also, (in user:space). --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding both user boxes of looking to be adopted and wanting to adopt was and is, that I need help, but no one came to adopt me; Why I want to adopt other users, is because I do know something and maybe able to help other users. Igor Berger (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not, part trois

Okay - now that we are back on track Igor - can you please give a detailed answer to Gwen's question?--VS ^talk 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Igor you have just added to Equazcion that Well, I think working with a mentor will help me figure out what I am doing that is wrong. however when editor MKoltnow provided you with a very very detailed explanation of exactly what you were doing wrong - you did not seem to adjust your editing style in anyway. How do you explain that?--VS ^talk 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  Well it was a good evaluation and I thanked the editor. But he did not come around to help me work with the problems. If he would have gave me one point at a time a discuss that point with me, maybe I could have fixed the problem. But he brought me a full plate and it was hard to digest. Igor Berger (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier you had said you found this thread hard to read. Now you're saying that you can't take in more than one thing at a time. Do you think building an encyclopedia from reliable sources on a skeinish, open, highly threaded website like Wikipedia is something you can handle? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• To respond to the anti-americanism comment, Igor, I didn't respond to you because I along with EL_C had previously asked that you not go around like a messenger, delivering news to people on what's going on at articles -- which you seemed to agree to stop doing at the time, but then you continued. So I wasn't going to encourage that practice by responding. I did attempt to help out with the dispute at the anti-Americanism article though -- and all the while you kept on posting news about it on my talk page. Please don't dwell on this though -- answer VS's concerns now. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:07, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

An individual named "Igor the Troll" started a Google Groups thread called WikiPedia has undercover FBI and CIA agents as editors because he was blocked for 31 hours. This was right after VirtualSteve blocked Igor for 31 hours. Text of message: I was recently attacked and blocked from editing for 31 hours because I added a video link about Prescott Bush the gradfather of George W. Bush being pro Hitler and anti FDR. Does this seem like a thread started by someone interested being mentored? Life.temp (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got enough evidence of off-wiki attacks as a result of blocks. Thanks Life.temp, but dwelling on these is not constructive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:10, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation - I brought up the question of community-appointed mentorship, it's yes or no and needs no comment. VS' original question is now being obscured:

"Okay - now that we are back on track Igor - can you please give a detailed answer to Gwen's question?" Franamax (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

community-appointed mentorship yes Gwen question, I thought I answered it. Can you guide me a bit what I missed. Igor Berger (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did answer:

Yes I agree with Gwen, just reading policy and then spiting it out, is problemtatic. At the end of the day, it is plain English, not policy that constitute communication. Igor Berger (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I said:

Igor, getting you to agree with Gwen was not the point of her question. You need to address this, as it is at the center of the issue. How do you think her assessment applies to your past behavior? If you agree that shes accurately described what you've been doing, how do you explain that? And what will you do differently in the future?

So let's start from there. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:22, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

To restate it for convenience: Igor, looking at your edit history I often get a feeling you've looked over many talk and project pages, memorized some Wikipediaish jargony stuff and other catch phrases, then jumbled it all up, to later use as a kind of easy shorthand when replying to other editors, in the hope this would make you seem knowledgeable and experienced. The pith is, since this method doesn't even begin to help you talk with other editors in any meaningful or helpful way, they take it as game playing or disruption. What do you think about that? Gwen Gale Equazcion •✗/C • 23:18, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• and this relates to Gwen's second question as above Earlier you had said you found this thread hard to read. Now you're saying that you can't take in more than one thing at a time. Do you think building an encyclopedia from reliable sources on a skeinish, open, highly threaded website like Wikipedia is something you can handle? --VS ^talk 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Makes sence with refernces to WP:Social engineering Internet essay that I wrote. Yes it makes me look foolish. Igor Berger (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We need a detailed answer to this whole question Igor! Can I ask that everyone sits back now to wait for a few minutes for Igor's answer before adding any more questions or comments, please--VS ^talk 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(VS)(ec) Yes I can. When dealing with direct question, I can answer them. But if you just put 10 questions to me and do not come back to talk about them, how I suppose to respond to you? Igor Berger (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(VS)Can you in your own words ask me the question? Because I thought I answered it to Gwen. Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Igor. Y'all, don't you see what's happening here? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I do Gwen and I have seen it countless times before - do we really need any more discussion - I have much better things to do on Wiki?--VS ^talk 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah I'm getting that deja-vu-all-over-again feeling too. No, we don't need any more discussion. I believe the time has come to act. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:47, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Ban, the shitlist is the straw that convinces me he's not here to be constructive. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Having followed this since early January, this is a very intelligent guy who either doesn't get it; adapts slowly; or has a very clear and amusing plan. Either last-chance mentorship by someone who won't tolerate obfuscation, or ban. Franamax (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• So that my opinion is clear - and also as having been following the progress of this editor for months - Ban.--VS ^talk 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I regretfully believe it's time for an indef block for disruptive behavior, with the continuing possiblity of discussion on their talk page. A "ban", implying not even being able to edit their own talk page and being, in a sense, persona non grata, is something I continue to strongly oppose. --barneca (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that an indef-block would likely only be lifted with an agreement to mentorship, are you willing to assume that role? Franamax (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting a giant "I told you so" from many people here doen the line, yes. If Igor is blocked, as long as he is not also unreasonably prevented from editing his own talk page, I'll try to mentor him there. If I feel we've reached a point where returning to Wikipedia editing would be productive, I'll bring it up at WP:ANI. If I ever reach a point where I don't think my time is being spent productively, then I'll quit, and unless he can find someone else, he'll be effectively banned. Igor has accepted the idea of a mentorship arrangement on my talk page: [19]. --barneca (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Barneca's willing to try, I support his suggestion of mentoring Igor on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any progress in this user since the first similar ANI thread. Instead I see the same behavior repeated over and over again. Mentorship and further discussion would be a mistake, in my opinion, as it would just give this user a further forum to do what he does -- drag out painful and dramatic discussions until everyone loses interest. I'm quite certain my opinion is already clear, but I haven't actually said the word yet, so ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:24, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• BanBlock indef for disruption, with mentoring on talk page. This user's edit history and his answers in the above thread give me no hint a mentor would be of any help. However, Barneca has said he is willing to try. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:Equazcion's attitude is plain, and obviously reasonable, since Equazcion has previously spent considerable effort in attempting to solve the problem there is with Igor, and their communications. 10 Apr 2008 (UTC). If User:Igorberger is "blocked", that is not a "ban". I haven't been on Igor's talkpage, though Igor has messaged to user talk:newbyguesses, about wikipedia:essays, not articles. I do not know the extent (it was mentioned) or background nor a lot of the details of Igor's accusations about the other user, subject to the original wikiquette alert by Igor which started off this AN/I thread. I think Igor can contribute productively, maybe a shortish "block", with continued clue-ing on the talk-page, is the best option at this time, though (I am not an admin) I wouldn't do it, apologies to those Users whose opinions differ. --NewbyG (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay I can see the merit of an indefinite block and some considerable question and answer tutelage under Barneca's guidance where Igor can only edit his talk page until Barneca is as absolutely certain as he can be that Igor is going to edit appropriately. Also because Barneca will in effect be the only one to unblock - I am willing to block indefinitely now (because this will be a consensus decision and thus there should be no concern over COI by my doing so. If I get a couple of agreements I will act now - thoughts please?--VS ^talk 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Normally COI would be an issue, but consensus here is nearly unanimous, seems silly to wait patiently for some other admin to come along. --barneca (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been endorsing a ban for a while here. Someone just do it already. --Haemo (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I think we're talking now about the anonymous editor above offering to indef-block and Barneca is the soft-hearted potential sucker on the line? Agree to that. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do it now, I don't think anyone will make much of a fuss so long as he's blocked and Barneca's watching his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• And now done folks - a big thanks to Barneca for putting his time and energy on the line, and a big hope that Igor will actually use this opportunity.--VS ^talk 01:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gulp. --barneca (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Barneca, I'm impressed that someone went for my last-ditch argument. Read the history carefully and watch out, but all power to you, save a good one for the team if you can! :) Franamax (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Giano II

Moved to subpage at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Signed w/o timestamp to prevent archiving. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)}

Adambro vs. Crimsone

Adambro (talk · contribs) vs. Crimsone (talk · contribs)

• I want an apology. This is not acceptable, and should be acknowledged as such

The first encounter ( [[20]] ) I have had with an admin named Adambro has resulted in repeated incivility. Adambro, rather than commenting on my contributions, decided to comment on me personally in a negative sense regarding my memory of an obvious and unforgettable wikipedia principle (namely, the whole "be bold" thing). I find this to be unacceptable on it's own but would usually let it pass. However, Adambro opted to do this in the third person while replying to the comment I had just made, before once more referring to me directly - " Crimsone seems to forget this is a wiki where users are encouraged to be bold whilst of course remembering our key polices and guidelines."

This left me inclined, in my reply to Adambro, to point out the incivility inherent in that remark, which one would assume is likely to leave anybody with the realisation that it did not amuse me, and I infact found it offensive - apparently it was intended for the discussion as a whole, though at that point there were only the two of us discussing it. However, rather than apologising for any unintentional offence, or even just plain ignoring it, what I got in reply involved yet more incivility through a complete failure to assume good faith...

"You're welcome to stand up for a "better way" but perhaps consider avoiding suggesting other editors are not being civil whilst you do so. Certainly annoying other editors who you happen to disagree with is not going to make the Wiki any better, better for you perhaps but not better for the readers."

... whereas all I'd done was to argue a point without getting anymore personal than to point out that to negatively and without very good sound cause, refer personally to an editor who's comment you are responding to in the third person is incivil, and certainly should be done merely because you disagree with someone. It should be fairly clear that making personall suppossitions about people publically is not ok. I did my best to make it clear, but apparently, I am out for me and my own ego rather than the good of the encylopedia - lets not forget here that if Adambro has seen my other contributions, he'll have realised that I've been a member here since 2005, am a rollback user (granted to me by complete suprise by the way... I didn't ask, but was one of the first to get it seems) have contributied significantly to, and nominated an FA which was accepted... blah, blah, - and if he hadn't seen my other contributions, he had no business making such remarks, having no good grounds on which to make them.

This is where I demanded an apology. The emphatic answer came back "No", the reasoning roughly being that he's an administrator, and so has substantial experience thus clearly knows better than I do about all these things, and I am the one that's wrong for being offended. You know... up untill that second insult, I could almost have ignored it had it not come from an administrator, but administrators aren't supposed to be administrators unless they are inclined to follow the rules and guidelines as best as possible and set an example. I somehow doubt that WP:IAR really aplies to me getting an apology... yet it was all but implied, in that I was categorically told that he would discuss it no further because it was all getting in the way of making the encylopedia better, and simply wasn't going to apologise. Apparently, debating the issue of him offering an apology for his incivility is a "waste of time". In the process of which, I get my command of my mother tongue (English) insulted - where, I do believe, I have a userbox clearly on my userpage, quite clearly stating I am a native speaker - not to mention that I've used it pretty well, and the only possibly cause he had to assume my english to be anything but a first language is that he couldn't apparently see (after I'd explained it) why I should make note of his original incivility. Fact is, I'm sick of the incivility on her, and I'm sick of being personally slurred by implications and suppositions, and patronised as though I only arived todat when I mention something wrong with an article on a talk page... I'm not about to let it go unchecked from an admin, because if an admin is free to do it, then what's to stop anybody else?

So... after explaining again why it was incivil, and that I want an apology for the lack of good faith and the incivility, and the insult over my command of my mother tongue... And in fact I demand that apology (and in the process agreeing that the venue for the continuing conversation was wrong, and pointing out that thus without an apology to end it, I would bring the issue here)... and finally making the point "one further thing... what makes you think it's in the slightest way OK to get personal with me at all, let alone in the third person to the rest of the discussion as you say? Whatever happened to "discuss the contribution, not the contributor?", I get...

"Well considering that English is your first language then it surprises me even more that simply referring to to you in the third person was enough to start upsetting you to merit you mentioning it. I will once again inform you that I will not be apologising for what you perceive I may have done wrong and your threats of raising this at ANI will not prompt me to. Good night.!"

...in reply. Apart from the obvious dissatisfaction with that response, and apart from the obvious fact that what I "percieve" is in fact what is there... namely, ...

• A third person supposition of my inability to remember and recall key Wikipedia principles
• An assertion that I'm damaging the encyclopedia through being out for myself rather than the encyclopedia
• An insulting comment suggesting poor command of my mother tongue to the point it would be suprising if it were my first language
• An assertion that I am being unreasonable in being offended at the original third person supposition
• An assertion that all of this incivility is in my mind, and that I don't know what's incivil as well as he does, as he lorded his administratorship as though that meant I couldn't possibly surpass his experience (whatever happened to administratorship not being a big deal?)
• A failure to assume good faith

... I finally get ...

• An accusation that my mention of ANI was some kind of threat, thus suggesting a lack of integrity n my part, a sense of untouchability on his, and once more demonstrating a lack of good faith

...when in reality it was merely a run of the mill fact, and here I am, on AN/I, taking to discussion to a more appropriate venue (which is the reason I'm here with it now and not there - and the only reason). All I want, and all I wanted after the second round of incivility, was an apology for it. And that's still all I want now... and administrator or not, after that behaviour, I rather feel I deserve one. In fact, after that lot, I'd demand an apology of any editor. It's not, in my view, something that is excusable in someone who cites their administrator status as evidence of some manner of superiority in understanding of wiki's basic rules in the least though. I want a simple apology, that's all - is it really so much to ask? I do believe it's even mentioned as a recommended course of action by the relevant policy. Crimsone (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like both of you are being petulant and combative. He should stop being a prat and accept that you want an apology; you should stop being a prat and accept that he doesn't feel like apologizing. Failure to assume good faith is not a fault of one party, here, but both. Sometimes civility means being the bigger person and moving on. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No... I'm just demanding an apology for invivility. Originally, I merely noted the uncivil comment. If was th proceeding, worse, instance of incivility with it's inherant lack of good faith that's got me demanding an apology, and his insistance that he's done no wrong and that I'm being unreasonable in being offended that's got me entrenched in said position. All I want is all I asked for - a simple apology for failure to AGF. That there has been a gfailure to AGF is evident, and that there has been incivility is evident. I have not failed to abserve AGF, but rather, no sooner did I mention that I considered the original comment incivil, no good faith has been shown. Quite simply, all I've got is a string of further incivility and insults, when a simple apology would have sufficed (and indeed, had there not been that second instance of incivility, not even an apology would have been required. I see little unreasonable in that. Whether he meant to be or not, he was uncivil, and on seeing it pouinted out, the next course of action is ignorance (ie, moving on) or apology - not further incivility and insults. I was prepared for the moving on option.) Crimsone (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking an off-the-cuff remark as a "slur," demanding an apology for it, demanding further apologies when your counterpart doesn't suddenly reverse their position or stroke your ego at the expense of their own, implying several times that the other user is a terrible Wikipedian and a stain on the community, repeatedly inferring nefarious motives, compiling a growing list of your counterpart's offenses even as you lecture them for failing to assume good faith... yeah, obviously you are a paragon of AGF, here. :p 76.114.18.153 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello IP 76.114.18.153. If you read what I wrote here (and indeed, perhaps if you read the original discussion), you will find that that off the cuff remark (which was indeed incivil, though I did not call it a slur, but good call - it was a slur of sorts, intentional or not) was merely noted with the same half-serious off the cuff tone that the remark was given in... a sort of "touche" at the very worst. It was only after the second round aimed my way that I demanded an apology. At NO point did I call Adambro a terrible wikipedian, or a stain on the community. I didn't imply any nafarious motives (and if I felt they were particularly there in an admin, I'd be suggesting more than a demand of an apology), nor did I compile a growing list. That was indeed the list as I compiled it for this post, at this point in time, as a summary of incivility recieved to this point in time(ie, the basis for complaint). The thing is, Assume Good Faith doesn't mean that after somebody insulted you and was generally incivil to you repeatedly, then says "good night, I'm not apologising.", clearly assuming the worst of you by suggesting you are threatening AN/I (the implication of threat being of hostile intent in the hope of sanctions of some sort)... Well, AGF doesn't mean that you assume it as all because he was trying to be nice to you. It might suggest that perhaps originally the offence was not intended (which doesn't mean the comment wasn't incivil - it was), but it doesn't mean that that event and all that follows it should go unnoted. Crimsone (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Compiling a list of offenses is what anyone does, and is supposed to do, when filing a grievance. That's not an AGF violation. And I'm glad this user is merely demanding an apology rather than suggesting a de-sysop, as many users often do when their conflicts involve admins. I think an apology would be reasonable in this situation. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:44, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Oh gawd no! The whole "off with his/her head!!!" de-sysop thing is infuriating - and in some ways worse than that which I'm seeking an apology for. I don't really know why it happens, but I do know it's kind of beyond a joke at times - mostly when it's beyond all reasn. I think people tend play the de-sysop card either for politics or revenge (save for occasions where it's actually justified of course, but they are comparatively few) Crimsone (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"If you read what I wrote here" So the only reason someone might disagree with you is poor reading skills? :)

"I did not call it a slur" "some manner of slur"

"It was only after the second round..." Fair enough, that's a point in your favor.

"At NO point did I call Adambro a terrible wikipedian" Never said you did. Wonderful word, "imply."

"I didn't imply any nafarious motives" Except that you've repeatedly and apparently willfully taken the worst possible interpretation of Adam's actions. You were offended by his post, he replied (tersely) that no offense was intended and expressed confusion, and you took more offense at his unintended offense in a wonderful sort of chain reaction.

"The thing is, Assume Good Faith doesn't mean that after somebody insulted you" That's missing plenty of chances to AGF, though. Adam's already stated no insult was intended, and didn't understand why you took offense. Confused people say stupid things from time to time. It can be important to know when you're speaking with a non-fluent counterpart (granted, he could have asked more gently, if he needed to ask at all, and that sort of question is more likely to cause offense if the speaker is fluent). Likewise, we could AGF and wait to see if he continues this sort of behavior in the future, or if he learns from it.

For what it's worth, I do think he might as well just apologize to you, but I don't see the productive end in getting too caught up in it, either. 76.114.18.153 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. IP, sarcasm is what got us here, so saying things like "Wonderful word, 'imply'" and "...poor reading skills", well, let's just say "I don't see the productive end" in that. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:36, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a rant here. It was huge. then I decided not to post it. And now I'm deciding not to post. No apology, no more contribution. I'd like to say it was nice being here, but, sadly, as you can tell, for the most part, including this incident now, it wasn't. A few of you have been great - thanks. The rest of you, I have no words for. Quite soimply, I've had enough, and I will not accept that it' OK for admins to behave like this, clearly have caused opffence, whether intentional or not, and fail to apologise for it.

By the way Mr. IP, clearly your knowledge of Wikipedia is great, which isn't bad for an ip whose only 2 contributions are in fact to this discussion, over the course of a good many hours (making it very unlikely that the IP is dynamic). How about you sign in, eh? Crimsone (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've had plenty of my own encounters with editors who like to use the "seems to forget" phrasing. That seems to have been where this started. It's not exactly uncivil, but it is snide and sarcastic. About 90% of the times it's used, the person saying it doesn't actually think anyone "forgot" anything. There's simply a disagreement, and the person saying it wants to get their shots in, rather than simply voicing their disagreement.

The comment about English possibly not being your first language was harsh and completely uncalled for.

I'm not sure if an enforceable apology is in order though. I'd say probably not. I understand you're peeved, Crimsone, but you really need to develop a thicker skin. Unfortunately, people do resort to sarcasm often here, even though it's really, really unhelpful. This isn't the first time you'll encounter situations like that on Wikipedia (or anywhere), and it might be wiser to try and come up with ways of dealing with it on your own, because running to ANI each time will become tiresome (WP:WQA is a possibility, though).

That having been said, I think Adambro might do well to decide to offer an apology of his own accord, in the interest of settling this, even if offense wasn't intended and this was a misunderstanding. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:52, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I had a thick skin once, but when it got to the point where I had to walk away from just about any article I edited owing to this sort of behaviour, it caused me to leave... shortly after that FA I mentioned was promoted actually. It got to me, so I left... I tried again, (and see the result of that on my talk page! accused of comparing rape to politics of all things!!! and other stuff!) I know a thinck skin would be the easier answer, but one of the reason I'm being firm on this, is because it's this sort of behaviour that drove me away in the first place, and drives other editors away. It's not on, and even for the lighter remarks, it's about time wikipedia got back at the very least to a policy of commenting on the contribution, not the contributor. Especially for admins, who are looked up to, and are the ones that tend to be responsible for any actions dealing with such behaviour - what kind of example and hypocrisy does that set up if admins are free to partake f such behaviour themselves without apology? Crimsone (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adambro was short with you but it sounds to me as though you're dealing with some wider worries (which is ok). You might want to keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia and you weren't discussing something which had to be sorted out straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

76.114.18.153 makes some good points. As I've already said elsewhere, I will not be apologising. Adambro (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you just say you're sorry and not mean it? I do it all the time. It would be very adminly of you to give an apology in the interest of peace even if you don't think you did anything wrong. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:24, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The IP makes no good points, because the points the IP makes up are all invented... they claim I said things I didn't (another thing I'm sick of)... and you will note that I answered them. Crimsone (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Demanding an apology from an administrator who is under no obligation to do so, and has stated he will not do, is only fueling more hysteria in your case. seicer | talk | contribs 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think lots of unhappiness with Wikipedia has been funneled into this wish for an apology, which seems to be sought for a lot more than the brush with Adambro. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

← It appears the user has retired over this. That is a shame. This could've been resolved with a simple apology, regardless of where the fault lay. Pride got in the way of resolving this, and now a user who's been editing for about 2 and a half years has left. Again this is independent of the specifics of the conflict. If you're an admin and a simple apology would resolve a dispute, you don't say "but I wasn't wrong". You just do it. You've failed an important test here in my mind, Adam. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:50, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly dispute any suggestion that this user leaving Wikipedia is directly related to this incident. Just days ago, before I began discussions with this user, they stated that they were effectively retiring from the project.

Whilst it is of course disappointing when editors leave the project, I'm not convinced that attempting to retain this user by apologising to them where I feel no need is the right way of going about things. It isn't a precedent that I want to be setting, that by threatening to leave the project people suddenly bow down to whatever demands you make. Adambro (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the comments I made which prompted this discussion, I remain happy that my comments were appropriate and feel that Crimsone's reaction to me referring to her in the third person couldn't reasonably have been expected and her reaction and subsequent raising of the issue here was disproportionate and unnecessary. Adambro (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"...whatever demands you make" -- No, I'm not suggesting that. I am, however, suggesting that an apology is a reasonable thing to offer, even when you don't feel you did anything wrong. When you're an admin people will hold you to a slightly higher standard of willingness to both resolve issues, and to sacrifice argumentative luxuries such as the last word. And rightfully so. Regardless of the background or even of the outcome, it would've been great had you just swallowed your pride and offered your apology. I suspect everyone would only have respected you more for it. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:32, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I am, however, suggesting that an apology is a reasonable thing to offer, even when you don't feel you did anything wrong. (Wikipedia:Civility#Suggest apologising) Thank you--NewbyG (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think admins need some customer service experience before picking up the mop and bucket. The first step in CS to disarm a conflict is, "I'm sorry this hasn't been a good experience for you. What can I do to help?" It's not even a formal apology, but it acknowledges that the other party feels there is a problem and you're willing to extend a hand to help. Even if you honestly feel the real problem is with the user/customer/editor, it's a good thing to defuse and then take steps to resolve. Only when it becomes clear that the other side has no intention of defusing do you dig in.

… as a side note, it looks like that article needs some work. Hrm. -- Kesh (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bstone vs IZAK

On 23 Feb 08, User Bstone (talk · contribs) opened a RfC against me, User IZAK (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 based on his dislike of comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 20#Deletion of synagogue articles on Feb 15, after he (Bstone) had nominated a number of synagogue articles/stubs for deletion, but which were saved after User:IZAK improved them enough. Neither the improvement of the articles he had nominated for deletion nor waiting for the motions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2, where the vast majority of editors including a number of admins support me, that he had started and had not been brought to closure (it's still open), on 1 April Bstone proceeded to complain at ANI but was rejected there as well. Still not satisfied he then went on to launch a RfA on 2 April which was rejected by the ArbCom. Ignoring my request on 10 April [21] that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 be brought to closure first, on 14 April Bstone stone applied for a RfM which was also rejected and being unable to accept that either, he proceeds to question [22] the admin involved. As of April 15, he has stated he intends to head to the MedCab [23] not taking "no" or "stop" for an answer. At this time, seeing that Bstone (1) refuses to accept the decisions of the ArbCom and (2) the rejection of the Mediation Committee (3) has no regard for discussions and advice at ANI and (4) ignores the motions and function of RfA, (failed actions 1 to 4 all initiated by Bstone himself) and (5) he refuses to respond to my requests to talk to me directly in a meaningful way [24] [25] [26], one can only conclude that User:Bstone is violating WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER and WP:HARASS, aka WP:STALK and a number of other policies that he cites against others, such as WP:AGF and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and that he should be warned to stop his pattern of unrelenting calculated attacks against IZAK and/or blocked for his violations of these policies, for his unbecoming stubborn and rude conduct, and for his unwillingness to accept the decisions of the ArbCom, ANI, the rejection by the Mediation Committee of his trumped up cases against IZAK, and for his ignoring of the still open RfC. Thank you for your help in this regard. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a mis-description here. Bstone is not the only editor to have found your behaviour troubling at times - see the RfCs for details. Even your supporters have asked you to reflect on the criticism. Plus the person who instigates an RfC is not permitted to close it (even if they wanted to) - that happens when the discussion is deemed by the community to be exhausted. Probably it could now be closed, but I suspect attempts to close it in the initial days, when discussion was still ongoing, and concerns still being expressed, have probably backfired here in making any attempt to close it look inappropriate.--Doc^g 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: Two wrongs do not make a right and I will gladly discuss anything about myslef with anyone, but that does not mean Bstone has a "right" to pursue a vendetta (what else is it?) against me or anyone if he sees that his calls are being rejected by the ArbCom, by the Mediation Committe and right here at ANI. I was not asking Bstone to close the RfC, but he just skipped over it even claiming he "forgot" about it. Let a neutral uninvolved admin decide, and let people take their time. Whatever was being discusssed and negotiated at the RfC should have remained there, and we were arriving at concrete agreements at the time, something that Bstone also overlooked in his failed quest to attack me at ArbCom, mediation Committe and here at ANI. My main point is that I was expecting movement and discussion at the RfC, or ideally direct discussions on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM, when instead Bstone went on to instigate other failed actions against me, and it is for that misbehavior of his that I call for sanctions against him. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking for mediation between parties is hardly against a party, indeed it shows a willingness to find a resolution. No?--Doc^g 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: I agree, I was all for it, but I asked that he pause for the RfC to be brought to closure finally because that too was a major piece of mediation and negotiation involving quite a few interested parties, but he skipped over that, as he skipped over many things in his quest to attack me. I was not the one that closed the RfM, I was not even involved in setting it up, and if it had been accepted I would do my good share, but if an admin and member of the mediation committee rejects Bstone's request, then Bstone must accept that decision, rather than go fighting it. He evidently has trouble with rejection and unless he gets his own way he seems to feel that he must continue to attack me in yet another forum. So how long will that go on and how many times must Bstone be rejected before he stops disrupting the community with his frivolous actions? Even "civil" disruption is disruption! Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My criticism of you in the past is that you see everything as a battle and then accuse people of "attacking you". Looking at the RfM, the Medcom did not suggest that Bstone drop it, indeed they suggested he pursued other avenues of dispute resolution including arbitration. Isn't that what he did? I really can't see what you want admins to do now, block him?--Doc^g 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: I didn't know you knew every detail of my "past" on Wikipedia, almost five and a half years of it, that you were so expert to judge my reactions. I admit to having an acerbic pen, but it is no more than that, not everyone can speak in one tone 24/7, sometimes we write more and sometimes less, my output is ten thousand times more than Bstone on Wikipedia. Anyhow, looking at one or two points in isolation seems perhaps like nothing, but Bstone has now tried to attack me DIRECTLY at least FOUR times: Via a RfC, at ANI, a RfA and now RfM and EACH time he loses his bid and is told that he has no case at the present time. Now taken together what would YOU call that if not a series of calculated and unrelenting attacks, all in reponse to discussions at articles Bstone nominates for deletion. The man cannot take even a minor disagreement and feels that everything I say in regard to "him" is a "violation" of "WP:CIVIL" or "WP:AGF" when people at ANI thought he was actually joking, take a look at what they said: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#IZAK not assuming good faith and the ArbCom told him "Bye Bye" see [27] and he still goes on and on, and then you turn around and say that I am wrong to feel "attacked" -- really now? I may be tough, but I have feelings too. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the arbcom quite dismissed him as "bye bye", it looks like they hoped that arbitration and sanctions would prove unnecessary at this point - and that some other resolution might be found to the complaints Bstone brought. I think the hope was that further sanctions against you might prove unnecessary. I think that was the hope of the RfC too: that you'd listen to the critics, modify your tone accordingly, and that would hopefully be all that was necessary. I'm afraid I didn't follow events to see if that happened on not.--Doc^g 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is completely mindboggling. I was specifically told by ArbCom that the case was premature and we had not exhausted attempts at mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite told me if I filed a request with the Mediation Committee to assist IZAK and I with the issues we have been having it would be speedily accepted. Since when is asking for mediation in order to help two editors work out their differences grounds for a complaints on ANI? I was told by administrators and arbitors to ask for mediation and I did. My head is spinning and I am really wondering how I can continue being part of the project when IZAK continues his unending attacks. Bstone (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Ryan offered to mediate informally rather than through the mediation comittee. Try contacting him directly. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan specifically stated that it would be speedily accepted by the Mediation Committee. Yet they have rejected it. It seems Ryan is on vacation right now so might not respond to this issue. So, what's next? Can this thread please be closed and archived? Bstone (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the MedCom or for Ryan, but the case that was rejected seems like a perfectly normal rejection. A bare list of user conduct issues is not an acceptable foundation for mediation of any sort. MedCab, MedCom and other forms of mediation are not a stick with which to beat an opponent. They are groups and individuals that offer outside assistance in reaching an agreement. "User X violated Y&Z policies and they need to be told they're wrong," is not going to be helpful in mediation, and cannot be the basis of a mediation. A user demanding to be proven right, even when content issues are involved, is often a point of note and concern for a mediator. When it's a simple list of accusations lacking context and missing any real description of the dispute, it's almost a textbook example of a case to be rejected. A mediation request with any hope of being fruitful must at the very least describe the dispute. Being a neutral as possible in the description and providing some context are also extremely helpful. Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Understand, I filed the Mediation case because Ryan told me to, said it would be speedily accepted, ArbCom was pointing me to Mediation Committee, etc. As such I had no idea it would be rejected. Furthermore, since when it asking for mediation between two parties grounds for a complaint? IZAK should instead be working with me in finding a mediator to assist in helping us work out our professional and personal conflicts. I seriously want to resolve this dispute. Does he? Bstone (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Ryan encouraged you to file a case, but I doubt it was a blank check. If you truly wish to seek mediation and settle the dispute, simply asserting the other party is wrong with a list of policy violation accusations is most certainly not the way to go. You've been around and active long enough to know better. I don't condone that way IZAK has approached things, but your approach is not helpful or productive either. You both need to start addressing the issues in dispute and avoid making broad accusations towards each other. Vassyana (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel inclined to comment here, as the Committee member who rejected the RfM. There was virtually zero material in the way of prior attempts at constructive discussion and dispute resolution, short of some very heated discussion that wasn't heading anywhere fast. Most importantly, I felt, the filing party had not considered filing for informal mediation with the MedCab, which indicated to me that formal mediation was not warranted at such an early stage in the dispute's life-cycle. Whilst I will not make any comment with regards to the questions of incivility on the part of certain parties, I will say that this dispute's resolution seems to have been hampered by some bad blood between the parties in question, and that begs the question of whether or not administrator intervention is necessary, both to prevent further disruption as a direct result of this "bad blood"'s manifestation, and to aid the resolution of this dispute, by eliminating a major sticking point of it (the ill-feelings). Anthøny 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony and Vassyana: Notice how unrelenting Bstone is in his attacks against me and how he totally does not register what you are saying and how he disregards what does not suit him and only wishes that things go his way, even after all the measures he has tried have failed and admin after admin and editor after editor do not agree with his opinions. He needs a much stronger wake up call to pay attention to the professional opinions of other serious editors and admins. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best if these editors avoided each other, and avoided commenting about each other. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Jayjg: That is easier said than done because this entire trail of discussions goes back to early February when Bstone started to work towards deletion of synagogue and Jewish school articles articles/stubs, and even after I improved and saved them from deletion, he does not acknowledge that good work but only seeks ways, all in the name of "WP:CIVIL" and "WP:AGF" to launch new attacks and criticism of my efforts to counter his misguided nominations of Judaic articles for deletion. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the editor. I couldn't agree more. Bstone (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Bstone, if that were true, you would have long ago given up your quest to attack me with all you failed efforts against me at ANI, the ArbCom, Mediation Committee, and the unclosed RfC. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Jayjg's suggestion. Wikipedia is a big place and there's plenty of room for IZAK and Bstone to work without "bumping into" one another. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think some admin should archive this thread as soon as possible. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yahel Guhan: I understand your well-meaning words, but Bstone is now into his third month of a vendetta to undermine and derail me on Wikipedia, and in the process he has violated many policies such as WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND (and more) by ignoring rulings of the ArbCom, the Mediation Committee, advice at ANI and leaving a RfC that he started in limbo because it has not gone his way, and each time he has approached admins asking them to explain and justify their actions wasting everyone's time in the process, and he needs to be blocked or warned to stop his wasted and wasteful elongated WP:EDITWAR as he attempts to nominate articles about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] (with the last one cited here Bstone even went to Deletion Review to get an article re-deleted after it was kept but he was turned down, and naturally he cannot stand being rejected so he proceeds to the next battleground, and the next, and the next...) but I saved most of those articles. So that is what it is -- a huge drawn out edit war with Bstone resorting to all these outside appeals like RfCs, RfAs, RfMs and appeals at ANI and now he plans to waste the MedCab's time [35] when he disagrees with my opposing comments at AfDs, since in recent times he has nominated quite a few articles/stubs about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion, something that I opposed him on very strongly and which caused him to rage at me until now albeit in a "civil" way ("civil" rage is still rage) and he has also troubled many editors associated with WP:JUDAISM and not just me. Thanks for caring, but cutting the discussion short will not solve anything. I have called for Bstone to talk to me directly in a meaningful way on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM but he refuses to do so, and on the contrary he maintains his own "watchlist" of me listing my past "transgressions" at User:Bstone/rfcuizak (is that legal?) as he pays no attention to his own multiple violations of Wikipedia's policies as they pile up. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note:This issue has been accepted by the Mediation Committee[36] for formal mediation per my request. Waiting on IZAK to accept formal mediation, however hopefully that will happen shortly. I kindly request this thread by archived so the mediation can proceed. Bstone (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Response to the "Note": I would be happy to start at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal but I cannot see the justice of an "on again, off again, on again" case at RfM at this time when the older, very thorough and comprehensive RfC was simply shut down, and it had a lot of work and views put into it and it was just trashed, without any consultation with the many editors and admins and those who had worked hard to come up with a working solution for both Bstone and myself, and the other editors who get left out in the cold by calculation it seems. At this point it has become something of a flying circus with Bstone running from pillar to post, opening a RfC case, "forgetting" about it, and then presto in one instant, after almost two months, it's shut, he went to the ArbCom and they refused to take on the case, they never gave anyone a "mandate to mediate" on their behalf least of all an excuse to somehow claim that the ArbCom case is pending, which it is not, they can speak for themselves if need be, then Bstone opened a RfM that was rejected and after he went to this admin and that it was re-opened again, which makes no sense, when in any case Bstone had already agreed to go to MedCab which is the basic thing he should have done from the get-go. Please see User talk:IZAK#Request for mediation not accepted for the full comments. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am at a loss as how to proceed. Right now the only thing preventing IZAK and I from formally working toward a resolution to our differences is his refusal to accept formal mediation. This is very disheartening. Suggestions? Please help. Bstone (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat by User:SeattleJoe

SeattleJoe has just posted this and this, targeting myself and ErgoSum88 over edits made to the Incest article.

I think these warnings are wholly unacceptable; threatening to 'call the cops' on editors you disagree with is practically a legal threat. I don't appreciate being compared to a child molester, either. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He states, in a admittedly very melodramatic way "If anyone insists on expressing, or even implying, the "opinion" that sex between adults and children is ever not criminal, that it is not always sexual abuse, in this article, or anywhere else I may become aware of, allow me to hereby notify them to cease and desist. If they do not, I will, literally, call the cops." Well, I trust that the "if anyone description doesn't apply to anyone. Factually, such acts are normally criminal, and abusive. Who'd argue otherwise, that wasn't here to troll or advocate fringe nonsense? Too hypothetical to be a real threat. But he should calm down.--Doc^g 09:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I initially blocked based on the diffs, but reversed myself and am engaging in dialogue. I read it as a threat of police action; I'll watch his reaction. Hopefully this doesn't open a can. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a case of getting a little over-passionate about the topic for one reason or another. It's easy to do, and doesn't really warrent a block, and even if a block was place, it shouldn't be a long one. See if calms down first, and see how he interects before thinking about blocks. A caution wouldn't go amiss though. Lradrama 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A little over-passionate is an understatement. A simple look at this editor's contribution history shows he or she is pushing a POV and does not wish to back down. Not only is SeattleJoe trying to own the Incest article, as seen here and here, but this user has clearly issued a legal threat (in addition to attempting to dictate to others how to edit) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. I'd say a block, or at least a strong censure, is more than warranted. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to report this user myself but see someone beat me to it. SeattleJoe has clearly violated WP policies against making legal threats. He's also openly stated on the talk page at Incest that he will make changes to the article whether anyone likes them or not and pretty much promised that he would edit war if anyone changed it back. He told people to "go fuck themselves", he;s violating WP:SOAP, WP:OWN, etc. WP is not therapy. This person shows no sign of listening to anyone outside of his shrill soapboxing and deserves to be blocked. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on the user's talk page seems to show that the user is convinced (and quite paranoid) that people are trying to "downplay the seriousness of child abuse". I don't know where he got this from but it's ludicrous, absurd, not based in fact and whatever other fancy terms I can come up with that mean WRONG. And he doesn't show any sign of letting go of it. As noted at the top, I also do not appreciate being compared to a child molestor just because of style disagreements. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this thread and I think the user has all the signs of a fixated SPA with who-knows-what in his thoughts. The notion users are trying to "downplay the seriousness of child abuse" is codswallop. The threat to call the police if he sees any text he doesn't like is more or less hollow but will have a chilling effect on any general interest editor's willingness to put up with such disruption in discussions and editing. After some thought, unless he can be reasoned with (which may not be too likely), I would call for a block, for both the legal threat (which could easily turn into some kind of general threat of civil action) and disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That analysis seems dead on, and I too would support a block should the user not readily demonstrate himself to be willing to comport his editing with our conduct policies and practices. Joe 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not every "threat" involving the law is a blockable legal threat.

• "If you post text-X I will sue you" is a clear legal threat, blockable per WP:LEGAL
• "If you threaten violent-act-Y I will report you to the police" is not a blockable legal threat, indeed it is the recommended course of action according to WP:VIOLENCE.
• "If you commit crime-Z I will report you to the police" is not a legal threat at all; it is an affirmation of responsible citizenship.
• "If you post text-X I will report you to the police" is what SeattleJoe actually said. It's somewhere in the middle. If he sees the act of posting the contentious material as being criminal, of course he would feel justified in calling the police. This isn't a matter for blocking, but for discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The worry would be, it seems likely he'll read something worded in a way he doesn't like and go on about it. Reporting a crime (or advocacy of a crime) to the police is a given, there's no need to specifiy it on a talk page, that's disruption. It's like announcing on a talk page, "If any editor here reveals, or attempts to reveal, any identifying personal information about me, I'll call the police, call their ISP, post it to ANI and have them blocked." Un-needed, unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked SeattleJoe for making the same type of post after I had told him in no uncertain terms not to and for promising to war over it if it were removed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; even if it doesn't entail legal problems, even if it isn't intended to produce a chilling effect, it's still tendentious. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He's just posted a long screed on his userpage, announcing that he's reported us all to the FBI and warning us to purge the kiddie porn from our hard drives and then discard them to avoid prosecution. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all of us, he didn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice, might it be time to lock down his page and stop feeding him? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was locked last night [37], and trimmed [38] of troll-bait just a couple of minutes after Orangemike posted his message here. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The page was protected last night for a different reason - see below. I have full-protected it; he's just blown any chance at returning. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Note of personal attack ...

• 10:38, 15 April 2008 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (9,595 bytes) (bad sourcing and more Reddi nonsense

"Reddi nonsense" is substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is a comment not on the content. Thisis not civil. J. D. Redding 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing your edit war and original research to administrator attention. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't know the history (and probably don't want to) but... there are definitely some civility issues with User:ScienceApologist and his recent posts to User:Reddi's talk page and to WP:FTN. I think despite editwaring and original research that the matter of civility is still a valid one. Just my two cents Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not excusing any incivility, but it would seem that if you remove the edit warring and OR, there would be no incivility problems. --Kbdank71 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist pushes his POV through incivility and edit warring. Will there be anything done about this? J. D. Redding 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because it has been rehashed out at literally every public venue at Wikipedia so many times, that any new reports generated have a diminished impact and value, especially when such reports are frivolous. seicer | talk | contribs 16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Put another way, nonsense is more or less another word for codswallop. I don't see a personal attack here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Codswallop? Now I've got use my OED again. Sheesh! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can help you there...

Codswallop. n. the action of being smacked in the face by a wet fish. eg. That was one hell of a codswallop. Orig. Anc. English - it's akin to a troutswallop, but a codswallop is generally more expensive than a troutswallop (and only employed by those who don't care about sustainable fish stocks). _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told that's an older, now mostly deprecated etymology. The word is slang (UK) for nonsense. Erm, but troutswallop's kinda fit too :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The edition I'm working on is so old that I think the definition of codswallop contained therein may have been one of the ones contributed by William Chester Minor. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So Dr Minor stumbled upon his own Wikipedia back in the day then :P Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, yes. Right before he cut off his own penis... _GB^T/C 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Had he gotten a civility block? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that was the punishment for a repeat 3RR offence back in those days - rather than a block of indeterminate length you ended up with a co.....well, I'm sure you get the idea. _GB^T/C 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah JzG blah blah ScienceApologist blah blah thin skin... come back when you're not rehashing this debate again. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I know the true story behind the term "codswallop" (no, I really do!) but have no references or cites and if I were to tell you, you would have to edit yourself out for fear of Original Research... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

J.D., if ScienceApologist is incivil with you, leave a polite notice on his talk page to stop the behavior. Keep doing this every time he is incivil with you if he doesn't stop. Then, if it keeps happening, come here and state briefly what is going on and provide the diffs. If it is repeatedly incivil behavior, an admin may do something about it. If it's just one time, probably not. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try. Thanks Cla68. J. D. Redding 05:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I fear this translates to "please continually badger SA on his talk page in hopes that he will blow up." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamlin Hodgkinson (talk · contribs)

This guy has been doing nothing but making nonsense edits on talk pages. Looks like blog comment spam, but without any links.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Might this be related to the discussion here? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll. Should be blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Death threat?

On this diff User:Camilo Sanchez has stated "Look, you gotta thank god you can hide behind a computer of else I would have provided you with a beautiful Colombian necktie." Personally, I find this slightly disconcerting. Would another admin please warn or block the user concerned. I am far too involved to do anything. Thanks. Woody (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So between us, we've left a chord. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...(no blocks). Thoughts on this? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've indefblocked this user. Death threats are not allowed under any circumstances. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but I doubt the user was serious, and if he retracts/apologies/doesn't do it again, then he should be unblocked. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility on Wikipedia:List of cabals

I have repeatedly removed a "cabal" listing from Wikipedia:List of cabals, but User:Allstarecho continues to add it back, telling me I need to "grow up", and accusing me of stalking. This user has been uncivil about this and refuses to actually discuss, instead, preferring to insults. This stems out of a MfD that resulted in a template of his being deleted as an attack template, him re-writing it, me submitting the re-write for deletion because I wasn't quite comfortable with the re-write and wanting other opinions, which I got and withdrew my nomination. Because of this, he has resorted to declaring that I am stalking him and placing this indirect attack on this page.

I am aware of the big purple box at the top regarding the intended humor of the topic, and that there are bigger things to worry about. However, when one user is the sole subject of the humor, it ceases to be humor and becomes an attack. If I'm wrong in placing this here, that's fine, but this user has a [39] history of incivility and being blocked for it]. I don't want him blocked, I just want this attack against me to stay removed. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This has also been listed at WP:WQA#Incivility on Wikipedia:List of cabals. Grsz11 15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Justinm1978 began adding content to the "Gay Cabal" listing on March 16th. His addition is referring to the debate about the userboxes. The following day, Allstarecho added content to the "Boy Scout Cabal" listing in response. Yes, ASE wrote the Boy Scout Cabal section on March 12th. Nothing he wrote could be considered a personal attack, especially since other people have added the same kind of material to cabal listings. Look at the Christian cabal entry. It's harsh compared to what ASE wrote. I just think people need to drop past issues and work on the encyclopedia. Filing this on ANI is a waste of time. WP:LOC is called a humor page for a reason. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is the presence of other stuff a valid reason to keep/remove something? I would prefer that the administrators determine if this is a waste of time or not (as I stated in my original posting), not someone who constantly interjects themselves into every discussion I have on this subject and has a pre-existing bias against me. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left a reply at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Incivility on Wikipedia:List of cabals. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted here, this user (who accuses me of stalking, when in fact I watch ASE's talk page and that is how I know of these pointless discussions) is ironically being uncivil on the very same page he started a conversation about ASE being uncivil. This user is beating a dead horse. I'm not sure of what Justin wants in this situation, but I hope he's satisfied with the attention he's received on this page and WP:WQA. Now, Justin please go work on an article and drop it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what the point of you putting this here after you | said you were done with this pointless conversation. If it is so pointless, why do you continue to participate? I'm not sure of what Justin wants in this situation I said in the beginning, I want this personal attack to stay deleted. I wouldn't be beating a dead horse if someone wasn't beating the same dead horse just as much. Please leave this to the administrators and maintain some civility as well. Justinm1978 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Justin, if you want to continue this junior-high game of tattle-tell and screaming for attention from an admin (notice, none of them have replied to you here), then do so on my talk page and get it out of your system. Go ahead, please post on my talk page so that this kind of crap will cease on ANI. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, go work on your articles and maintain civility. This is only getting dragged out because you continue to participate. You do not own ANI. Justinm1978 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with user 216.234.60.106 a.k.a. E Pluribus Anthony

I'm not sure if this is the place to report this, but there's this one user that I'm almost 100% sure is the same person as known sockpuppeteer E Pluribus Anthony. Like E Pluribus Anthony, user 216.234.60.106 constantly reverts edits of articles that do not conform to his agenda. He does this with very little justification, and it's always on geography-themed pages. I've currently been attempting to resolve a dispute with him over just what constitutes East Africa, but to no avail. I've done an incredible amount of research on the topic, loaded my edits with references that support my case, and painstakingly explained the rationale behind them on the talk page of the article we're at loggerheads over. However, 216.234.60.106/E Pluribus Anthony has made very little effort in return to support his case. He hasn't tried for some days now to find any new references or to address any of the legitimate concerns I've raised. All he has done is revert, revert, revert, labeling my edits "intransigent" along the way. I've explained to him that that does not qualify as a justification, and I've asked him repeatedly to explain his latest edits and to address my latest comments on the discussion page. He just ignores me and/or gives me evasive, condescending one-liners before getting right back to reverting. It's clear he has no desire whatsoever to present a neutral point of view. Please have a look at the article and talk page in question. Please read my dialogue with him and our arguments, and then read the discussion on the same page between the user Aris Katsaris and E Pluribus Anthony. I'm positive that's the same guy. They're both incredibly flippant and condescending, they both are accused of the exact same thing and present the same sort of responses in return, and they both use the same archaic and stodgy expressions like "apropos". I just checked E Pluribus Anthony's sockpuppet profile, and it describes user 216.234.60.106 perfectly. 70.48.96.91 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Such a report should be made here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Apropos" is "archaic and stodgy"? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thay may have been thinking of porridge, an easy mistake to make - too little water from the instructions of an obselete cookbook? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of Snookerhorn

I bring most blocks I make here for review even when I think they're probably no big deal. In accordance with that custom, I've blocked Snookerhorn (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) for 24 hours for disruption. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive138#Complex_talk_page_instructions for more information/context. Snookerhorn was counseled by several admins and others that his talk page instructions were so complex as to be unusable (this diff gives a good view), and that he could not place unworkable demands on how others communicate with him, or edit the words of others except to remove them completely, or categorise their attempts disparagingly. His responses ([40], [41], [42] among others) show that at present he's not here to contribute constructively, but sees this as some sort of nomic. I've only blocked just the one sock for now... but another (almost certain, per a CU I ran) sock tried to require that all messages left on his page be in latin. Funny ha ha, but not very useful. Comments welcome as always. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems in order. I don't find this particularly constructive nor responsible communication. Rudget 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call, and he should be warned that such obstructionism, if continued, canresult in longer blocks, and a ban. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse

Does anybody watch and/or take care of this page? --Rembaoud (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's not as active as some pages, but people definitely maintain it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete me

I want to be deleted, immediately I can not tolerate the hostile attacks against me and the continuing undoing of all i ever edited. This is nonsense. Delete me, NOW. Good bye. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User accounts are not deleted. I can, however, delete your userpage and blank your talk page. `Nakon 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to tolerate the ongoing personal attacks and accusations and the undoing of all my attemps to make wikipedia better. Delete my account, NOW. I fed up with this ultra-agressivity i get whenever i log in. Delete me, please. Good bye. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

userpage deleted. Talkpage courtesy blanked, per precedent and policy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And just letting you know that your account can't be deleted. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On that note, they're not refusing to delete your account just because- it's impossible at the technical level, and due to the licensing Wikipedia is under. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Bombshell

I've just indefinitely blocked Bombshell (talk · contribs), Lafcadio Wluiki (talk · contribs), and Amédée Fleurissoire (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry, with Wen Jiabao (talk · contribs) (Blocked by User:Orangemike for the username policy) also used for the same purpose. Bombshell has been edit warring on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay over the table showing the route for the past couple days - I blocked him yesterday for 12 hours for a clear 3RR violation. Following that block, he logged out and used an IP address to contest the block (see User_talk:Hersfold#User_talk:Bombshell), as well as make accusations against other editors ([43]). The IP address was of course then blocked for 12 hours for block evasion. Today, I was notified by several editors who have been trying to engage Bombshell in discussion on the article's talk page that a number of single-purpose accounts had been created (those listed above). Each went immediately to the article's talk page and had an in-depth knowledge of what was going on in the debate. One went so far as to contact another editor about the situation, with a similar plea to block the other involved editors that had been given to me the day before by the IP address ([44]). Bombshell has a recent history of sockpuppetry, (see block log, although note that the first block appears to have been applied to an IP address) and given the obvious nature of the socks, I felt a block was warranted. Since this had little discussion before hand, I'm bringing the matter here for wider attention. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ariesubg/UrbanBridgez.com

Ariesubg (talk · contribs)—admittedly from the UrbanBridgez.com website (UBG for short)—added content (with UBG as a source) that was removed due to WP:RS concerns. User continually reverts and responded to discussion with incivility and personal attacks ([45], [46], [47], [48], [49]) Promotes website on user page and talk page ([50], [51]). I posted on the RS noticeboard regarding the reliability of the source with no response as yet. Looking for suggestions for additional action, if any. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 12 hours for edit warring and 3RR violations, but it does appear to be a single-purpose spam account - any other opinions? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The attacks aren't helping his case either - see diff in Hello's post above, and original version of his user page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The block has expired and the user is back adding links to the same site ([52], [53]). Shortly before those, an IP located in the same city as UBG was adding similar content ([54], [55]). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

user removing poll results

On the talk page of Afghanistan a poll was opened for whether to include the term Afghani in the demonym list of the info-box or not. The poll is very straight forward and two users already voted. But user: Carl.bunderson keeps crossing out the poll and its results because he does not like the results and is opening a new poll which is very different from this one. His poll also asks for Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.

The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.

I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.

You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the other way also includes a poll on Afghanistani demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.

Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia, I disagree that the old poll was fair; its wording struck me as push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change [56] in favour of his own version. cab (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlink trolls?

I've found two redlink users who appear to be vandals, and I wouldn't normally bring it up, but it seems that this is part of a larger recent problem. User:SvenKistner is a simple vandal, but User:Poppyfurkin deleted material based on a supposed NPOV violation on his first and thus far only edit. It's a bit tedious to RFCU for only a few edits, but as I said, it seems to be part of a larger problem. Is anyone looking into it? MSJapan (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is checkuser problem here. I also note that neither has been given a warning about their conduct and I am not absolutely certain this is vandalism. In any case, neither seems to be active at the moment. JodyB _talk 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know (and the former was warned), but I was referring to the larger problem of there being a large number of these sorts of vandals lately. MSJapan (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

I have attempted to move the Igorburger and East718 thread to their own subpages, and was reverted. This page is 308 kilobytes long. Please if subpages can't be used in these two cases, I don't seem to find another a solution. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The East718 discussion may warrant a subpage, but we're still trying to attract attention at the Igorberger discussion. Please don't move it off the main page. Thank you.Equazcion •✗/C • 22:29, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igorberger certainly needs wide consensus. Leave it on the main page, no opinion on East 718. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• This page is 407 kilobytes long as restored. Please consider placing them on subpages. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome a proposal at WP:VPR to start a practice like this, but just doing it with absolutely no prior discussion is not helpful. People currently don't know to look at subpages. Having a discussion take place here means people will see it more in their watchlists, because everyone has ANI watchlisted and can see that the discussion is very active, so they may decide to chime in on it. The practice in general might be something to explore further, but one person suddenly deciding to move discussions off this page is really not the way to go. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:46, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• And it particularly disrupted the impetus on the conversation that was taking place (not to mention the mess it made with edit conflicts).--VS ^talk 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah I was in the middle of commenting when the move occurred. Anyway I hope it gets back on track now that this mess is over. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:51, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer subpages be used less often. Often, as said above, creating a subpage disrupts the impetus of the discussion or limits the discussion to an unrepresentative portion of the community, if only inadvertently. --Iamunknown 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction was that the move helped (as it was meant to), but then I quickly had second thoughts, much like User:Iamunknown's. It broke the thread and because it came without warning, caused a flurry of edit conflicts. It was a long thread but it was ending: Soon after it was restored the incident was resolved and the thread was archived. If a thread gets so long that it's bogging down this page for some, I suggest discussing any move first. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting Anon Issue

Unfortunately, an issue presented in an earlier incident (and again here) (filed less than 48 hours ago) has re-presented itself. In the earlier complaint, a request for help was sent to address the removal of an IP banner and conversations/complaints from an anon user's UserTalk page by the anon himself. As the admns who responded supported the IP banner's continued placement in the anon's page, the matter seemed resolved efficiently. The last comment on the anon users talk page was the notification of a one-week block by JzG (talk · contribs) for being a "Disruptive and disputatious editor". At that point, the old IP address went silent.
As per new comments in the Fitna, it would appear that the same anon has in fact shed the prior IP address where the IP banner and commentary (and week-long block) were located to continue editing in defiance of both the prior AN/I decision and the block as 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs).
I have since updated the IP banner and discussions from the prior IP address to the current IP shell, but have brought the matter of the usage of the anon IP to duck the block here, while notifying the blocking admin. What should happen now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne makes a false accusation. Arcayne placed the text on my user page. The text contains a time stamp of 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My current IP address has been with me since at least 14:07, 16 April 2008. I have never interacted with this editor, nor been informed of any pending actions against me involving him. I have never been afforded the opportunity to defend myself - nor are we aware of which posts containing the issue were assigned to that IP and if they belong to me. 75.58.39.201 (talk)

With apology, I don't think any false accusation has been made. I think its pretty common practice to watchlist one's own user/usertalk page, even if you are an anon. This means the comment from the blocking admn would be in your watchlist. Additionally, the admin's block appears to be addressing your - and no one else's - edits using that IP address, noting the DIff/Time of the block and your edits. You were blocked, and continued to edit through another IP address that was unknown and unaffected by the admin's block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon logins have no "watchlist" capability. Also, those ip's resolve to different states, why do you assume it's the same user? Jpmonroe (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The anon's posting behavior and style is identical in both IPs in that they both defend the same statements. Both IPs edit in precisely the same articles (1,And they coss-post the same information ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fitna_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=206010498 1. 2) between these same articles. Lastly, where the older IP ends without further edit, the newer IP begins less than an hour later. If these are two different editors, then even other editors are assuming they are the same individual. As a prior RfCU was filed with the initial consideration that this was a sockfarm, the anon admitted that all of the IPs within the range of the request were his. As well, the prior AN/I complaint concerned the removal of an IP banner, as the anon moved from one IP address to another. In that instance, the anon never claimed that the IPs were not his.

Lastly, I moved his IP banner and prior discussions to his new IP, which contained the notice that he had been blocked. However, the anon continued to edit, even after posting here (1, 2, 3). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and deception by Tedickey

Tedickey repeatedly and summarily reverted valid edits on an article, despite cited supporting comments on the Talk page, and marked the changes as minor.

The initial edit that I encountered was a reversion of two edits that I had made: revision history. The user's edit comment for the change, "reservoirs don't have to hold water," underrepresented the extent of the change and belied the reversion. Simply reverting valid edits without making any effort at modification is in itself is poor form, as described at Help:Reverting. In this case, my edit comments also described basis for changes and referred to comments at the talk page, making summary reversion the more remarkable. The user did not address my comments at the Talk page.

What further caught my attention is that the user disguised their reversions as minor edits, and a check of recent contributions indicates this to be a pattern. Such behavior seems a rather blatant flouting of the guidelines that edits be marked as minor only if changes would not disputed be.

The user's edit comment on the second reversion, "suggest you provide some content, rather than contention," seems ironic, at best, and contributed to my conclusion that engaging them was unlikely to be productive. In combination with the pattern of marking reversions as minor, it seemed appropriate to report the issue here in an effort to address the community concern of an overall pattern in tone and behavior. ENeville (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please follow dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad bot chases new good user off site

Resolved

 – Malfunctioning bot has been blocked indefinitely to allow for repairs to be made.

We have a trolling bot who just chased a new user off the site. The new user rightly reverted vandalism] and got revertd by this troll bot [57] who then reverted back to the vandal [58], the good user reverted again [59] only to be reverted by the troll bot a second time [60] and put a troll notice on t eh poor nebie users talk page [61] resulting in the suer declaring they are leaving the project [62]. I dont care how nmany good edits this bot does it should be indef blocked for blatant trolling of a newbie user actring in good faith while the bot continues the insultas towards a sovereign nation. Can some opne please do something cos if this crap continues we won't have any editors, just mad bnots whose owners appear reluctant to control them. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Contact Voice of All (talk · contribs) about it; this looks like a malfunction. Until then, I'm blocking it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First thing I did was contact him and contact the user who was being attacked telling him it wasnt human maliciousness but I fear this user has left the project for good and would question how valuable a bot that chases off good faith new users is, especially as changing the text for Hionduras to a poor place is what is obvious vandalism. perhaps he should switch iot off until it stops malfunctioning but VoA is not online right now. If I were an admin and could I would switch the bot off until the problem is fixed and hope someone will consider doing so as chasing off new good faith users is catastrophic. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, bots don't "blatantly troll", they malfunction from time to time. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about SqueakBox's failure to assume good faith towards VoABotII and its operator, Voice of All (talk · contribs). Read VoA's talkpage, and you'll see what I mean. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

VOABot doesn't specify why it thinks something is vandalism, so it's hard to know what happened. Something that has happened to me before: someone deletes the article. I restore it, but included in the text is a "bad word" or a blacklisted EL. The bot thinks I'm adding profanity or spamming, and reverts. Or, as Jéské says, it might just be having a HAL 9000 moment. In either case, it isn't a "troll bot". Mistakes happen, VOABot's notice admits as much, Squeakbox fixed it on the user's page, and he had stopped there I would have applauded his actions. --barneca (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened is a new good faith user got chased off the site, and Jéské is worried about the bot's feelings! Chasing a new and good faith user off the site is not how we work here, and changing the article on Honduras to "a poor country" is vandalsim23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Again with the failure to assume good faith. VoABotII has done exemplary work in the past; it simply malfunctioned this time. Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to accident. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for blocking the bot, reverting vandalism reverts on Honduras may be acceptable but chasing off new users is not and I hope VoA responds to this concerns himself. One chased off new good fauith user counteraxcctas all the good work the bot does, we simply are not a viable project if we do such things. perhaps Jéské Couriano you would care to rwrite tot he user and reassure them they were not being trolled. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Other issues aside, you need to look up what 'trolling' means. John Reaves 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well VoA clearly is trolliong see here and here and in the meantime a new good faith user has beenn riun off the siter. if you think that isd okay, as VoA appears to, I suggest you review our policies yourself such as do not bite the newbies. This user was doing good and got trashed for it and now some people are supporting this trolling of new faith good faith users, well you appear to be, John, trolling is getting a reaction from someone by being nasty to them and this bot and its owner will not even apologise to a good faith newbie user whom they have run off the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you really need to stop the ad hominem attacks and hyperbole. A bot screwed up. It happens, it was blocked, its being fixed. Nothing is perfect. You are blowing this totally out of proportion and now are accusing people who disagree with you of "supporting trolling." You really need to stop. Mr.Z-man 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you chuck someone's talk page full of unambiguously rude, confrontational, and self-righteous rhetoric, do not be surprised if it gets removed. Jumping on a sword and crying about it is not going to help. Out of thousands of edits, mistakes still happen. I'm always trying to get the rate down. I encourage anyone to report problems, specific or general, and not to hesitate to block in the case of problems. I don't mind if people complain, but please tone down the rhetoric. Voice-of-All 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Even as a patriotic Honduran I dont care about the mistake. My only concern is with the way the new user has been treated. Are you going to fix this so we don't see a repeat. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe your actions here Squeakbox are much worse than the error from the bot, and your continued ranting about a non-issue really speaks volumes regarding your behavior. Your ad-homiem attacks and other nonsense is really nothing more than you taking a situation and forcing it out of proportion. How do you suggest that the issue be resolved? The bot is disabled and is being repaired, and has been dually noted -- which you most likely passed over. Do you want the bot to be permanently disabled? Or do you want to do the grunt work yourself? seicer | talk | contribs 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Squeakbox, you claim this person was a "good newbie editor." On the basis of what? Four mainspace edits that were all reversions, four edits to the user's own talk, and nine edits to the user's own userpage, with an account that was a whopping five hours old as of its last edit? This is ridiculous, and for you to claim what you did implies that you have some sort of bias relating to this person, or you're simply exaggerating to cause a problem. Frankly, a newbie who has a problem shouldn't simply quit, especially when they know next to nothing about the system they're trying to work in. Somebody who's going to jump to conclusions and extreme measures like that after five hours and less than 20 edits on WP I would posit is not going to be a good editor at all. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, it's AGF in Bizarro World! --barneca (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ksuwildcats10's user page

I just blanked almost 15,500 bytes of information at Ksuwildcats10 (talk · contribs)'s user page. He had previously been warned that the amount and type of information he had there was a violation of WP:USER and WP:NOT standards. He was given several weeks to clean it up but never made any attempt to. Because of that, I have parsed it down to one line. The page was a totally unnecessary list of his personal achievements and news about his life (from the death of his cousin to the time he was interviewed as a student with concerns about security).

I post this here for review and thoughts about what is and is not appropriate for this (and other) user pages. Metros (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it defamatory? Did it attack other users? Did it contain BLP violations or copyright infringements? Did it advocate violence or criminal activity? DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary blanking of a benign user page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well per Wikipedia:NOT#BLOG, this appears to be a pretty blatant policy violation. It's a resume with an excessive amount of personal information and it offers, essentially, blog-like accounts of his life. When you're talking about 15,500 bytes of personal information, I'd call that excessive. Metros (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly detailed biographical user page written in the 3rd person with a bit of blogginess and CVishness, maybe overlong with more personal info than one might want to see but I don't see anything untowards about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Ksuwildcats was using the page as an ad hoc way to promote himself, and as his personal resume. I had contact with him when he first registered a profile, it seemed he was trying to create a wikipedia page for himself and his high school band director, in addition he went through numerous warnings about adding information about him self to El Paso, Texas, Great Bend, Kansas, and Great Bend High School. He has also used inappropriate markup on his user page such as Category:Judges, the Judge infobox, and sources his page like a real article from his own person website. I'm not totally supporting Metros actions, but ksuwildcats clearly does not understand WP:NOT and was clearly warned that his blog like page was in violation.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Resume-like"? Yes. "CV-like"? Yes. "Article-like"? Very much so. "Blog-like"? No way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's back:) Merkin's mum 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only say blog-like because every-time something of questionable notability happened to him, he would update his page and create a new section on for instant how he was interviewed for a local television's spot about a new dormitory.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted now. Next time, I'd suggest taking anything remotely controversial to MFD and it'll be gone soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica at It Again

User:Edito*Magica was reported to AN/I back in February because of his continuing editing warring over various episode lists in which he was trying to force the episodes into a bad format that does not follow the consensus of format established by the television project and its many featured episode lists, including removing anything from the lead he feels is "redundant" to the main article (see also Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say.) or to the article itself and using a single color for the individual season headers. It was an ugly mess in which he insulted multiple editors and ignored multiple editors, including an admin, telling him to stop his edit warring and making such changes because they were wrong, and his filing a relitory ANI claimWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive368#User:Collectonian. He seemed to avoid a block by finally backing down and seeming to yield to consensus after the articles were both protected and more editors told him repeatedly that he was wrong.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive369#Edito*Magica

However, yesterday I came across two more episode lists, less watched than the first, in which he was doing the same thing: List of 2point4 children episodes and List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. With the later, he gave lip service to discussing changing the colors at Talk:List of One Foot in the Grave episodes#Colours but changed them quickly after posting his message, allowing no discussion to occur at all. I tagged both article for having multiple issues, including not following established formatting standards, lacking references, needing a better leader, and tagging for expert help from the Television project as I didn't want to deal with him myself again. I posted so to the TV project page, as both have FL potential, and someone from the project has already volunteered to clean up the List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. However Edito*Magica quickly went and reverted the tagging (and the undoing of his changing the colors before discussion occurred, leaving a message on my talk page[63] declaring he will remove the tags because the lists don't need references, and that no one disagreed with him on the color scheme (of course not, he did the changes three MINUTES after posting the message! How could anyone have time to disagree or agree??? I gave him one warning for removing the tags on both articles, but after his last constant attacks and the disagreeable experience of dealing with him, I've decided its better to go ahead and bring this here now before yet another editor war begins.

Edito*Magica has repeatedly shown himself to be unwilling to work in an environment of multiple editors, regularly arguing with anyone who disagrees with his ideas, even though those ideas go against established Wikipedia guidelines and project standards. He has also shown that he will not change his stripes and will continue such inappropriate behavior on any episode list he decides to mess up, and that he will edit war over them until he either gets his way or the page is protected and he moves on to others. I feel stronger action needs to be taken against him at this time to better drive home the message that his way of editing is not appropriate, and that he can not continue to try to push his wrong attempts to "correct" the appearance of episode lists just because HE alone doesn't like them, when consensus says it is the proper format as shown in featured episode lists. Collectonian (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete tags on my user page

User:DHeyward the former Tom Harrison added speedy delete tags to my user page.

He actually is one of the "deletionist bullies" which I have had edit wars with. Recently him and Mongo were calling me a troll and my contributions "crap" on his user page.

Like the majority of self-anoted copyright enforcers on wikipedia, Tom probably doesn't know one bit of copyright law, and it is pretty clear he is attempting to harrass me.

But to difuse this argument, I am going to move my quotes to another wiki.

P.S. He will inevitably bring up my response, in which case I say:

Many admins have said the same thing repeatedly (Mongo and JzG come to mind). Which DHeyward vigourously defended. DHeyward, please call a RfC, which I will ignore and refuse to particapate in just like JzG, and nothing will come of the RfC, as nothing came of JzG's RfC.

I am so tired of the blatant hypcricy and bullying on wikipedia. I feel sick to my stomache that I have to often resort to the same low ball tactics as others here.

Trav (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put a speedy tag on your user page, I put a copyvio tag on your page after you cut and pasted material from a copyrighted source. You responded rather uncivilly for the second time today and after a warning. This warning for this edit (unrelated to me). And then your edit summary directed at me after you fixed your copy vios is here. I brought your civility to Wikiquette here where they can't block you but hopefully a third party might be able to discuss your obvious anger problems with you rationally. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I am not Tom harrison. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it shouldn't have been there but the tags specifically say they shouldn't be used unless there's no good version. Why didn't you just ask him to remove it, or something? --Haemo (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by your response dear Haemo, particularly the first sentence, based on our rich past history, you must obviously be critizing me, not DHeyward.

DHeyward, as I explained on the Wikiquette, I apologize for reacting how I did. Two wrongs (or several dozen "wrongs" in this case) don't make a right. I strongly support wikipolicy on civility, I just wish it would be more evenly enforced.

It maybe noted that the first warning was from another deletionist who wanted to delete the same article which DHeyward wants to delete.

I could contact several supporters here, as DHeyward group has been convincingly accused of before (which I think may have lead to his name change in the first place), to comment on this WP:ANI, but I won't.

The alledged copyvios are now offwiki. Inclusionist (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Apology" not accepted. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're confused because I was criticizing DHeyward's placement of the tags, not you. I'm disappointed by your reaction here, since it was an assumption of bad faith over a single disagreement on an ArbCom case. Apparently JzG and MONGO aren't the only people who perceive conspiracies against them around every corner. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The tags say to revert to the last version. I didn't want to remove material from his user page. I put the tags to bring it to his attention and then to an admins if he wasn't there to respond. This what the instructions said to do. Is there a different tag? It wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested you ask him instead. The correct way to "bring it to his attention" is not slapping speedy deletion tags on it. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Travb you've been oversighted before for outing. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, your accusations of a cabal or group is ludicrous. Check the admin who gave you the warning and then check my block log and try to maintain the facade you are trying to project that we are in cahoots to thwart you. The problem is that you don't respect consensus or the process that is used to reach it. You are incivil and as your above strikeouts indicate, often incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Shgdh (Kay Körner again?)

Looking at the patern of work and insults it appears, the multi-blocked user Kay Körner has returned after a few weeks of peace and quiet. Under the new username User:Shgdh he has recreated the deleted article Dynamo-hall of fame which I have now nominated for speedy deletion (see talk page of the article). If anything, he is now more abusive then ever (see here), language like (excuse me) fuck you bastard! and revert vandalism by drug admin should not be part of wikipedia! He is at his pet articles which envolve around Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo again, deleting anything any previous editor wrote and removing all tags and calling other editors liers. A close look at his history makes it pretty clear it is him again, quite the same pattern. For more history, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133 under: SV Dynamo and multi-indef-blocked User:Kay Körner. His usuall two IP addresses at the Sachsen State Library are still blocked until 25 April, he is operating from a new one now, IP 141.30.133.98. Maybe an administrator could have a quick look at the case. Thank you,EA210269 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can vouch for this. I dealt somewhat with the original situation, and this new user and the IPs are using very similar edit summaries ("rv bast. vandalism", etc.). An indefinite block for Shdgh as a SPA is definitely in order. --clpo13_(talk) 02:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The user has been active again, reverting User:Clpo13 edits. I in turn reverted his now. He has recreated the Dynamo-hall of fame article, I put a speedy delition tag on it again. Its a bit like groundhog day, I guess. He is still very abusive, I don't think that you fucking bastard, which is a racist is needet in america was his last comeback on Talk:Dynamo-hall of fame to my speedy deletion tag. If any administrator could look into it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time,EA210269 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Racial slurs by User:90.193.39.251/User:90.193.39.91

This IP has been firing numerous racial slurs (in edit summaries) at User:Til Eulenspiegel and I (as well as vandalising a user page). Not only are the slurs highly offensive, but also, Til Eugenspiel and I have never claimed to be members of the groups he's attacking, groups which have no relevance to the articles it's occuring on (a Mexican-American singer and Ancient Sumer).--Yolgnu (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice has blocked both IPs mentioned (24 and 48 hours, respectively); as there seems to be a chance the user may return on other IP(s), I've semi-protected Sumer, Thalía, and Arab, all for three days. Feel free to report any further problems as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tankred

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

Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP[64]. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:[65]), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes):[66] - the "forum":[67] is a leading national newspaper in Hungary) What else evidence needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, this report has been placed by you at AIV, AN, and now here. This is called forum-shopping, please stop. One report at ANI is sufficient. --Elonka 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous request is totally misleading and its previous version has already been removed from WP:AIV as trolling.[68] The IP has posted it at AIV again few minutes after the first removal and it was removed again by a different admin.[69] So, the IP posted it at WP:AN.[70] This is the fourth time the IP tries their luck. Is it a new kind of a lottery? Tankred (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

user:Tankred Harassment, mass edit warring, using user page as an attack page, using WikiProject to promote harassment, organize edit wars, user is (three times blocked for edit warring see block log[71]) ,

using WikiProject Slovakia to organize edit wars and promote harassment of Hungarian editors,

"Moreover, there is a small, but very active group of Hungarian editors..." "Who wants to deal with them?" ([72])

Asks others to edit war for him, or get involved in specific disputes

“If you want to correct the name feel free” “I do not have energy left after all the recent troubles with some of our Hungarian friends.” ([73])

Thanks others for getting involved in his disputes encourages blind reverts in relation to the same dispute

“Ruziklan and The Dominator, thank you for being good citizens.” “…in the future, please just revert it. It is the matter of few seconds. You do not need to invest your valuable time and energy in communication with an author” “([74])

Uses WikiProject to attack fellow editors, uncivility, “For me, that enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ([75])

Uses his own user page to attack others both with named attacks and general attacks,

“these fanatics trying to degrade non-Hungarian nations in the cyberspace.” “I wish I was more interested in writing about Iceland or any other country that is not part of the imaginary Greater Hungary.” “enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ([76] Includes outright falsehoods to bolster his attack “User:PANONIAN have left for the exact same reasons.” Regarding Kosovo’s declaration of independence this user wrote” ”Serbia finally gained its independence on February 17, there is hope for better future in Serbia now. Anyway, my work in Wikipedia is over, I have other thing to do in life” [77]

Mass removal, crusade against Hungarian names, [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] (just a few examples literally hundreds of examples can be found in his contribs)

Mass edit warring against users on his “hit list”, named enemies on his user page ([84]) (refer to his contribs since 31 March almost every single edit is a revert of a “named” Hungarian editor).

Ignoring administrator warnings/actions. After being warned not to use "misleading statements"[85] by an administrator, posts the same misleading statement to a different admin user DDima, [86] and two different noticeboards after that for a total of four tries. Tankred later removed the administrators warning ([87]) together with warning him about not to use false/deceptive edit summaries calling non-vandal edits vandalism([88]). When an administrator removed parts of his user page that made it “an attack page against specific editors”([ [89]) Tankred simply reposted the attacks with the comment “alll right, no names” [90] using diff links instead to identify his targets. Attacks placed on a user page deny the opportunity for comment and reaction or even pointing out outright falsehoods. Tankred also attacked editors not named on his user page but of Hungarian ethnicity saying for example “But why not to join your co-ethnics in their campaign” ([91]) to a Hungarian editor. Considering all of the above especially the efforts to influence others through using WikiProject Slovakia a collaborative effort to encourage to harass, revert or indeed “deal with” ([92]) Hungarian users and also using his user page in a similar hateful manner I ask the community to consider strong measures to ensure that this can not go on indefinetly. We do not need editors who not only see Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground but actively promote hatred, conflict and encourage others to join in. The negative impact on the project is enormous and is already badly felt. At the very least open encouragement should be dealt with and the situation closely monitored for further campaigning activity. Hobartimus (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you start a WP:RFC/USER, provide the above evidence there and allow others to provide feedback as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This report is misquoting my different statements (some of them withdrawn by myself from my user page) from different periods outside their context and replacing significant parts of my words by "...". Hobartimus has been editwarring against User:MarkBA, User:Tulkolahten, User:Svetovid, User:Markussep, User:Ruziklan, and me for several months. I guess this is his latest move against us. Tankred (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"move against us"? So you list a few users and suddenly you become "us"? I don't see any diffs above from any of these users, this complaint is solely about you and your ehtnic campaigning containing statements about "dealing with" "Hungarian editors". Hobartimus (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above complaints appear to be an overflow of a larger dispute involving multiple Hungarian and Slovakian editors, on a variety of pages. In order to try and centralize discussions (and try a new dispute resolution technique per WP:WORKGROUP), I have started a page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If there are no objections, I will move the above complaints to that page, and this particular complicated thread can be taken off ANI. --Elonka 07:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred says A, and does (and thinks) B. The perfect example is on his userpage:[93]. He writes (states) "all right no names" - and posts multiple personal and general attacks against Hungarian users, with names :). Perfect example. He posted tons of misleading edit summaries wich I reported on WP:ANI, but all he got was a warning. I reported many times his edit warring and his misuse of wikipedia policies, using them as a weapon in disputes. WP:NCGN nowhere states what he tries to make you believe. It even has an example of the very same thing at Gdansk/Danzig how to deal with such things. Tankred as described above, is a notorius edit warrer, blocked multiple times for edit warring, he recruits users for edit warring, and when he runs out of reverts he goes IP. Same summaries, same pages, same reverts, everything is sooooo the same that eventually it quacks so loud that I hardly hear my own thoughts :) If its MarkBA, than they should be investigated, if they are the same person, or could be close friends. I found another IP since:[94], from the very same place, internet provider, etc. "removing chauvinistic vandalism". Tankred's standards of "hate speech" perfectly mets with what he himself wrote on his userpage and was removed by Elonka and multiple other editors in multiple times for some obvious reason. Tankred broke the 3RR there btw, and...see the link for stating A, doing B again:[95].

Tankred also misinterprets edits, and actions of other users[96] (last comments)

Tankred's claims, statements and whatever he writes should and must MUST be treated with high suspicion and distrust. Says A, or he even acts like A, then immediately switches back to B. Also doing WP:DRAMA by "retiring" (for 2 days:) and such. Do not believe him, he is a great manipulator. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Autism

Are there any admins looking to help and mentor an autistic user like me? Is it wrong to edit Wikipedia if you are autistic? I know some of my articles have not been up to parr but I am trying! Plz. respond. JeanLatore (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jean, some say a lot of editors on wikipedia are autistic, whether they've been diagnosed officially or not.:) I don't think you'll be out of place here. Welcome to wikipedia and enjoy your time editing. Merkin's mum 10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Can someone review this threat to see if any action should be taken? Dreadstar † 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Call the local police immediately, and notify the WMF. Give the local police clear instructions on how to find the article on wikipedia, and how to find the edit in the history. Do not call their emergency line. Specific hit lists are probably the second highest level of trouble of this sort we can see... (per BEANS, i say no more.) ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's disturbing. Hopefully this will turn out to be an empty threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. --clpo13_(talk) 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've located a phone number for the closest police station. Has anybody called yet? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the phone. John Reaves 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just getting ready to call the LA County Sheriff's department. You got it John? Dreadstar † 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page, because for some reason the user wasn't blocked on sight. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) edited at 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC), apologies for last comment

Would it be worth locking the original poster's talk page? (Per WP:VIOLENCE, so that nothing gets posted?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been (not by me) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John beat me to it. Any details, John? Taking this seriously and reporting it to the police is in accordance with WP:TOV. John, if they give you a case number, a name of the officer you spoke with or something you may want to post it here just so there is a record of it. I did this when I called the police in the Plano HS case. Thanks, John, for making the call. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently in contact with a detective and we're attempting to work with the ISP. John Reaves 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, John. You have made me proud. You may want to give a brain dump of who you spoke to and such just for history and transparency sake. I did this with Plano HS, just so it could be entered into the log and anyone (including the detective I was working with) would see a visual history. Good work. Bstone (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone must have gotten through to them: [97] Nice work John...RxS (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope plenty of people have bookmarked this entry to point to later when others ask what WP does when this happens. Also, it'd be nice to hear if the police & ISP get anywhere with tracking the threatmaker down. BBC story about UK school boy threatening the president Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban

i would like to request a ban for 220.238.94.203 for continually making unneccessary edits to Westfield Doncaster. he has not put references or proved he knows for sure about stats he put on the page. --Thfrang 06:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs)

Technically - you werent very civilised either. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides. Edit warring isnt really going to help is it? Thats what a Talk Page is for - to discuss things. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving a warning like this isn't being very collaborative either. Talk it out and be civil. Nate • (chatter) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One last thing - fitness first should not be on the page as it is not listed on the official store list. [98] Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 07:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision history of CSWS

Please redirect conversation to correct place if this isn't it. Can an experienced administrator please review the above. I'd appreciated someone placing the strictest appropriate warning on the huge number of vandal editors. Nearly every single edit by an IP was vandalism. Also a couple of them bothered to make accounts so if they could be warned as well. I'm 100% willing to accept a warning on my own talkpage if someone decides it is needed for consistency. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, looking here there has been 1 IP vandal in the last two months, who has received a warning for the edit. There are 21 edits to this article over 5 years only 2 IP's were blatant vandalism. No blocks or further action is necessary. ^Khukri 12:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hangon, it's the redirect that being hit, Oxymoron83 has put semi-prot in place and am looking through the accounts and most have been blocked as single purpose, will put a semi-prot on the main article as well. The IP's most of them have stopped editing or have been blocked so blocks on the rest would be punitive and not to stop disruption, which is not what they are for. Cheers ^Khukri 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Please note I didn't ask for blocks. I asked for the most stringent warning available to be issued by someone who is more experienced (I don't want any accusations against me when I'm trying to help). The history of the page I was speaking of showed it's creation as a redirect and then for some reason the next edit had today's date and the vandalism ensued. Again I wasn't asking for blocks against everyone just for the most appropriate warning to go on the user page so everything could be on record and above board. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Steiner_redlich

This used is making a mess of the Sviatoslav Richter page. In spite of the recent attempts of several users to engage him in discussion on the talk page, he merely deletes cited material and inserts his own opinions. He was previously blocked for two days, then was up to his old tricks after the block was liftedTHD3 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney

Resolved

(IP incivility removed) otherwise the rest of the thread doesn't make sense Black Kite 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...I have to say..he is threatening users. Before I forget [99] The East ender comment [100] The Admin Comment. Summery. Rgoodermote  12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, if he's retired bit pointless to issue blocks really. Just ignore it, any actions taken now would be just adding drama where none was needed. If he comes back or has a cool off period the all the better. ^Khukri 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see any of those as threats, per se. The one about EastEnders fans is definitely rude, but not block-worthy unless directed at a particular editor and he's been warned to lay off previously. In any case, if something has pushed him to retire, I would imagine a bit of strong language is not surprising. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you think is not threatening so be it. But that checkuser comment makes me not want to give him checkuser privileges any time soon or ever and I can't give it to him anyways. Rgoodermote  13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is...is this the first time he has retired? Rgoodermote  13:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Again it doesn't really matter, if he hasn't retired and it's a case of throwing the toys out of the cot then by adding unnecessary blocks or paying it attention we are fueling the wiki-drama. If there are no personal attacks, no disruption to the project then he can have one every Friday at 4:15 pm for all it matters. If he has genuinly retired he's not going to see anything anyway, so again irrelevant. ^Khukri 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, isn't that just marvellous - an IP that comes to hysterically demand blocks and complain about a prolific editor making incivil comments, whilst also being incredibly incivil themselves. I wonder which editor hiding behind an IP this is? I can make some fairly good guesses, though. Black Kite 13:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case... I am User:Rgoodermote 72.224.127.117 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I am going to walk away from this entire thing. Rgoodermote  13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this all about? An editor is blowing off steam, maybe he was rude to the poor fans of eastenders but you cant really blame him for that, and so what if he retires every second day. The IP must be worried about Hackney claiming he will start another checkuser case. Created today with 4 edits two of them here and he knows all about User:Vintagekits. BigDunc (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we be looking here for identity of ip just curious. BigDunc (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as yet another sock of banned User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Black Kite 13:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All I see here is a very angry Hackney saying he might track down sockpuppets and I agree, if he wants to retire once a day, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't blame him, to be honest. There is too long a record of excellent contributors being driven away by tendentious editing and sockwittery at the moment. Edit: and how ironic that the sock names me as a "fellow traveller", given that I have blocked numerous Irish editors in the past, including bringing the first SSP case against Vintagekits - some people eh. Black Kite 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

The ever-problematic Giovanni di Stefano article now features an IP claiming to be the subject's son making a rather dramatic legal threat against User:Avruch. Eyes on it, please, but take care with your actions, as this article has led to trouble in the past. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: as I went to link the diff, I see Fred Bauder has just moved in with a ban under NLT. More people experienced with this sort of thing might want to weigh in to defuse the situation. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation is defused, the IP has been blocked for 1 month per WP:LEGAL. Rgoodermote  13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RTV

An IP has just requested that the Talk page of an account be blanked and fully protected in an apparent RTV request. I'd just deleted the user page of the user in question and declined {{db-g7}} on their Talk page; he claims to have already "made his account inaccessible". As the user page is already gone and the Talk page blanked, I'm not entirely comfortable indefinitely protecting it, though I respect the user's apparent wish to "disappear". Thoughts? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From looking at the times of his edits, I doubt (s)he'll be here tomorrow. No protection needed. Rudget 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I just courtesy blanked and protected the talk page (didn't know this discussion was here) in response to a new {{db}} tag. My rationale is, protection is harmless if they are really gone, and easily noticed and reversed if they come back. Plus, it seems like it will make them happy. The page history is still there for those who want to see it. Open to opposing reasons. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I was looking at the IPs edits who had made the request, in that case, I'd agree to a protection–though, isn't protection upon user request frowned upon? Rudget 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be frowned upon? Now deleting a talk page on user request, that is generally frowned on. In any case, I don't know if protection is frowned upon or not, just trying to do the right thing. :) --barneca (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedians importing disputes

Could people review what is happening with Dutch Wikipedians trying to add and remove content from the English Wikipedia? Those removing content seem to think that consensus at the Dutch Wikipedia can be imported here. What should be done in cases like this. See the following:

• Notability tag Vereniging Basisinkomen
• Prod tag (reason = not notable, removed from Dutch wikipedia as well)
• Prod contested (with unhelpful edit summary saying it was vandalism by a one-purpose account)
• Prod tag re-added
• Removed by Fram who correctly said: "if a Prod is contested (by removing the template), you may not put it back on. Leave it alone, discuss it, or start an WP:AFD"

This dispute seems to be spreading:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Guido den Broeder vs. others
• Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament#Books
• 3RR report
• Archived AN discussion

Guido den Broeder may have a conflict of interest here, but I am concerned about the activities of the Dutch Wikipedians who are following him here. They are reverting him and trying to impose an external consensus here (formed at the Dutch Wikipedia apparently, though I can't confirm that). What should be done about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What should be done is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. There's no policy that allows external consensus to be imported from anywhere-- as far as the English wikipedia is concerned, it's the same thing as posting on an external forum to gain support for something here. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Fram hit the nail on the head, there's no problems with the Dutch guys wishing to chase the COI and spam aspect down. But just because it has been through the channels on nl.wikipedia, doesn't mean it doesn't have to go through it again here. The prods have been contested so they should go through AfD and the case argued there. ^Khukri 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by Gerriet42

Resolved

As per [[101]], User:Gerriet42 was blocked recently for 5 days for sockpuppetry on the Sunscreen article. He has unwisely chosen to register an alt account to evade the block in order to castigate me on my talk page: [[102]]. This account has also been used to continue editing the Sunscreen page: [[103]]

I leave it to you folks to determine what to do about it, of course. Jtrainor (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock blocked indefinitely and master's block reset. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Giovanni di Stefano - banned user legal threats

This talk page needs to be reviewed, and may need to be semi-protected indefinitely. The BLP subject in question, Giovanni di Stefano, is apparently banned as a user. The son of the BLP subject is a banned user. However, for some reason it appears a variety of users have tolerated his IP-based posts, as seen here. This includes such gems such as

• calling users idiots
• calling an user stupid, and to get a life
• calls a user a 'non entity'
• Finally today, issuing a loud legal and outing threat.

My questions are: why is this tolerated when this page is clearly watched by multiple admins? BLP subject or no, they live by the same rules as every other user. This guy needs to go to OTRS, or leave the public website. WP:NLT exists for a reason. My other question is, as the entire anonymous history on the talk page appears to be just this person posting from Italy, why have we not simply semi-protected the talk page? This user appears to have lost, or discarded, his usefulness and right even as a BLP subject to this talk page, and I would wager his services are no longer needed or allowed there. I see an ex-arbiter has worked on this before, as has Jimbo Wales, but there are no exemptions to NLT I am aware of. Will someone be willing to semi-protect the page? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First are you sure that di stefano is banned, thta is news to me. He had an account, can you confirm that account is indef blocked. Second as far as I am aware di Stefano has not posted tot he article or talk page for months, it is his son who has been doing os recentlky and got blocked by Fred Bauder today. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, MSDS is banned then (altered the original post), the individual who claims to be di Stefano's son. However, since this user only posts from random IP addresses in Italy, and no other anonymous users post to the talk page, for the protect of our users from legal threats and disruption we ought to semi-protect the talk page. MSDS, whomever that is, has lost the priviledge of using that page in the way he has. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support semi-protection of the talk page and ideally full protection of the article page but if not semi-protection for that page too. Clearly issuing legal threats on wikipedia is nott he way to resolve anything. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected long enough.Geni 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be against semi-protecting both the talkpage and the article. Even before the threat against me, it was pretty clear to me that the activities of the subject and his son were not terribly helpful to the article or Wikipedia in general. They still have recourse to OTRS. Full protection of the article seems unnecessary at this point. Avruch ^T 14:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about semi-protection of both for 2-4 weeks and a helpful reminder about OTRS? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe that would be controversial at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A month semi-prot wouldn't be bad, but 6 months might make more sense. Avruch ^T 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IPs often do make very helpful edits. I wouldn't want to see them shut out for so long, when this could calm down within a few weeks. The page can always be semi-protected for another month if the IP threats start up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support a 6 month semi on the article but re the talk I think we should not semi lock for more than a month on the basis that we can review in 4 weeks time as to whether the lock should be extended. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way I'd support semi-protection now, of both. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we split the difference and semi the entire mess for 2-3 months? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. If all goes quiet and somebody asks, it can always be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't myself, I'm not an admin. :) Anyone willing to do this? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this item is now posted at WP:RPP but, for whatever reason (hot potato?) no-one has touched it. I'd support one month semi-protection for both article and Talk. There were personal attacks, though but we don't see all the time. The April 17 legal threat is more troubling, and that's why I believe semi-protection is justified. The IPs used by di Stefano's son do occasionally seem to provide relevant information, and the rate of bad editing is low. The article edits he has made are not defamatory, so BLP doesn't obviously apply. But if there are any more legal threats (after 1 month) I'd support indef semi for the Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne

Hi, I've copied back this thread after I received the following message:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by JzG for the following reason(s): Block evasion

This block has been set to expire: 13:18, 17 April 2008.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email. Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

Original Thread:

nowiki {resolved|75.57.196.81 is disruptive and disputatious, blocked.} nowiki

Hi, I'm just trying to get along and do my best here, civilly and with reason.

I posted a question at the Reliable Source Notice Board, "Are a Films credits a reliable source for a Movies InfoBox?"

I received an answer, 'A films credits are a reliable source and are the preferred use for an InfoBox.' I marked the thread as Resolved. Arcayne changed my edit marked it as Unresolved. After a couple of additional comments by Arcayne and no change in the answer to my question, I marked it as Resolved. This is in accordance with the instructions on the Reliable Source Notice Board which state: If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with

Resolved

.

Arcayne then removed my entire comments and marked it as Unresolved while stating the following:

"do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy" Arcayne

• Suffice it to say, I am not comfortable with his obsession with me, and do not feel particularly welcome here, is this just Wikipedia and do I need to toughen up? I'm really not sure what has made me his latest target, I honestly just think he saw me as a soft target of opportunity as I'm just a lowly public editor. Irregardless, he has brought me before more forums, reverted me, followed me and discussed me on more pages than I can possibly count at this point without any evidence that I have done any of the numerous specific

things he has tried to pin on me. Can someone respectfully request that he try to abide by the bare minimum of Wiki standards?75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now been reverted and a second, nearly identical threat has been left for me by Arcayne: "Do not ever alter (1, 2) the content of my posts in a discussion page again. I take significant exception. If it ever occurs again, I will have request to have you blocked so fast that your kids will get whiplash. This is your only warning in regards to this topic, so I would urge you not to test my resolve on this particular subject. Arcayne"

Sorry to use your time on this. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have informed User:Arcayne of this conversation, as we usually try to do here. - Philippe 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed this one that came with the second one - " if you are looking to get blocked, you are going about it in the right way."75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, manipulating my posts to alter my intent is refactoring. We don't do that here. Yet you seem to feel (1, 2) that you are exempt from this behavioral guideline. You don't refactor another user's comments to alter intent or content, though you can fix indenting and the like (and even that is open to debate). However, after wrning you that this is an unacceptable practice, and my offense to it, you did it again. I subsequently warned you that you were well on the path to being blocked for it, as it is a part of a history of harassment on your part.

Additionally, you have a rather long-standing habit of marking as resolved those conversations where discussion is still occurring. If you feel that the moment you get the answer you are looking for marks the end of a multi-user discussion, you are mistaken. This is why you have been counseled (and, unfortunately, warned as well) to await the conclusions of discussions before taking action.

Perhaps if you are not comfortable with having your actions paid attention to, you should consider altering how you interact with your fellow editors within the encyclopedia. As for my so-called "obsession," with you, I think you are forgetting that you have filed (now) three separate AN/I complaints against me, two of which were dismissed with the advice that you seek DR. When approached by myself to pursue DR, you simply ignored it. Subsequent AN/I complaints have indicated that your editing behavior needs somewhat noticeable improvement. If you are concerned with y attention to your personal attacks on me, consider not making htem in the first place. Try leaving my edits be, without altering them. That seems to be an awfully good start improving how your actions are perceived.

And while we are on the subject of your actions, it has been discussed that you might be a former user. Have you ever edited under a formal ID in Wikipedia before (before the dozen anons, I mean). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Arcayne, but I will no longer respond to your empty baseless accusations. I'm here to improve the content of the articles that I edit. That is all. I will not waste my time responding to every McCarthy like thumping of your fist upon the "facts". As was once said so eloquently, "At long last sir ..." 75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that, in keeping with that brand new outlook, that you perhaps stop filing AN/I reports every time your edits get reverted? Or when you are caught trying to conceal your edit history? Or when someone warns you to stop attacking others? Granted, I responded a bit harshly with having my edits altered, but you were the one who altered them. Twice. After I asked you specifically not to. You want to be left alone. Leave others alone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to defend my honest actions and will, as always, abide by the customs and practices here, and I will not stop shining a harsh light upon your actions here when I am your target. I do it not for me, but for the good of the community and in the defense of your future prey.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a civil behavior for a thread where civility's the key. Youv'e been on AN/I before for this sort of combative response to newer editors than you, and the cavalier way you dismiss some aspects of opposition while berating opponents in those backhanded manners grates on others. Those who see the good work you do have spoken to you about this sort of problem before, both on the previous AN/I threads, on the relevant talk pages, and on your talk page. As such, I can't say much more than that if not this time, the very next incidence of such persistent behaviors ought to result in a block, so it doesn't escalate into another drama. ThuranX (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the block came from here, but no one seems to have been aware of this or the reason for it. This action here appeared to conclude with the edit above by ThuranX at 01:57, 16 April. My IP changed and I had confirmed edits from a new IP at 14:07, 16 April. I was apparently blocked at 21:35, 16 April. I am now charged with Block Evasion by Arcayne and he is now engaged in a private effort to have me banned. Arcayne has also informed me that I have been Blocked for 1 Week (this differs from my screen shot: 13:18, 17 April) As I have stated I do abide by the rules here and will continue to do so, I will refrain from edits until this is sorted out and my status is resolved. I am not comfortable with Arcaynes continued relentless obsession with me - especially following ThuranX's comments. I had hoped that this combative and personal assault was over.75.58.44.23 (talk)

• While I always think Arcayne can be more reserved in his responses (I have that critique about myself), from what I read on Talk:Fitna (film), this IP address has been pretty contentious with most editors, declaring consensus when consensus was not obtained, telling Arcayne he is making "false statements" and other behavior that is not optimal. Granted, Arcayne has been around and should respond to a contentious IP editor in less sardonic language; but this IP's behavior is also objectionable, and based upon the Talk:Fitna (film) discussions, was trying most people's patience on that page...that was my reading of it. --David Shankbone 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of fact, Arcayne failed to enlist a single voice in support of his effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[104][105][106][107] [108]different sections on WP:RS, taken before WP:OR, efforts to enlist support were made on numerous user talk pages; it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous distinct editors and then immediately Reverted by Arcayne on Ten Separate Occasions and now he's opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style!WP:MOS[109]

The issue was nothing more than listing a name in the credits without an editorial addition, that was the sole issue. The current discussion is an effort to compromise with Arcayne on how to do it. Please do not equate my defense of Encyclopedic standards with Arcaynes personal efforts to "Win." 75.58.44.23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just because on one proposal does Arcayne have a minority view does not make him disruptive. In fact, most editors on the Talk article seem to be taking issue with you. Arcayne seems to be trying to work out a compromise. Many of your diffs are just his disagreeing with you. You are raising a content dispute at this point. Yes, Arcayne can better phrase himself; the rest of your issue...whether it be consensus changing or Arcayne raising policy and guideline arguments...this is not the place. Continued discussion on the Talk page is the place. --David Shankbone 15:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I have only sought to support my response to your assertions. I have not posted there since yesterday. The last line in the section is this: "Arcayne, as the sole holdout to Proposal 2, can you live with this approach? If not, why not? Blueboar 15:02, 17 April". 75.58.44.23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but if Arcayne is the sole holdout, then it sounds like consensus is against him and the Proposal 2 will be adopted regardless. If he raises another argument against it that had not been considered before, then it merits more discussion. Arcayne is not known for WP:GAME, so I would imagine he is at least giving reasoned and thoughtful arguments. You had a point with the WP:CIVIL argument, but this board is for violations of guideline and policy...please keep the content discussions on the article's talk page. Good luck to you. It *can* be frustrating to argue over minutia; everyone here understands (and does it!) --David Shankbone 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notifybot

Resolved

has run amuck and is tagging images as orphaned when they are clearly not. For example Image:ChanduTheMagician.jpg is clearly still reciprocally linked to Chandu the Magician (radio). can someone please shut it off and fix it? Thank you. Now how do we untag the images? EraserGirl (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the image isn't being used, as evident from the empty "File links" section on the Image description page. There is a problem with the infobox at Chandu the Magician (radio) though, and I can't get the image displayed properly. Once that is fixed, the image will be no longer orphaned, and the deletion tag can be removed. Somebody else will have to look at it though, I can't figure it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was just missing an imagesize (fixed). Might want to look into the template to avoid such mishaps in the future though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the deletion tag from the image. All done here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Murder threat

Andy o'rourke specifically: [problematic text commented out, see page sourse]

do we just ignore this stuff or what? ninety:one 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user who posted it. Someone in Ireland may want to contact the authorities. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TOV for more instructions and suggestions. Bstone (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IP threat

User:172.192.57.37 has left a somewhat threatening message on my talk page, [110] and is engaged in a continous edit war on Mary Baker Eddy using as he/she says an unlimited number of ip addresses, User:172.191.81.28, User:172.191.126.225 etc. All similar numbers beginning with 172 and on a singular track having to do with religion. I'd appreciate some help, thanks Modernist (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IP address blocked 31 hours for WP:3RR breach; article semi-pp for three days. We'll take it from there. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Modernist (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple established users have seemingly left Wikipedia this week

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have noticed an unfortunate trend this week of many established editors (Giano II, Kwsn, MONGO, Pixelface, etc.) having left Wikipedia. Anyway, I thought I might share this news here so that if anyone wants to leave these users a nice message or thank them for their contributions, they might do so. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, User:Maxim has left us too. :( Tiptoety ^talk 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also User talk:One Night In Hackney (who has previous doing this, but appears quite serious about it this time) Black Kite 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this week just off or something? I take Wikipedia seriously and all, but I have way more personal matters to actually get stressed out about than a volunteer project regardless of how interested I am in it. Is it really so difficult for people to cooperate and when they cannot agree to disagree without getting so frustrated? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that IRC i see mentioned in several threads there, maybe the unaccountable nature of that medium has something to do with it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is a severe problem, and it partly has to do with some cultural issues that we need to address on Wikipedia. We need to be a more supportive community with each other, even those we disagree with. What tends to happen is people who give a lot of time, effort and consideration to how they work on Wikipedia are disparaged when they don't handle attacks, stalking (in my case) or perceived underappreciation. Then we have people who give very little content (but a lot of Talk page argumentation) and disparage those editors even further (Case in point: Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas). Often, those who have done or given little, and may even be considered a net negative to the project, resent those whose work has enhanced it (technical, content, artistic, graphic, research, Wikignomes, vandal fighters) and whose voices are listened to more than those who...do very little. It creates a bad environment. There's an attitude that, "We can always find another one of you." That simply isn't the case with many contributors. That doesn't mean they should be given carte blanche, but in some cases, people who are attacked or feeling overwhelmed sometimes need the community to take a look at their situation and provide some help or support. We really need to focus on community more, and less on deriding each other. --David Shankbone 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)So Giano leaves, and the admin who blocked him left. Mongo leaves, and the admin who blocked him might well leave if ArbCom takes a case "scrutinising" his block. ONIH has left - and he can take a lot! - and Pixelface left after being "vandal templated" by Will, who's been nominating random things for deletion as well. Can we all take a step back and recognise that we need to do something to reduce the amount of pile-on frakking drama in this place? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, because I am surely an evil deletionist who doesn't want to improve the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was merely pointing out that that sort of thing encourages too much drama. Look, we're too big and have too many people with entrenched interests now to do crazy bold things like nominate State Terrorism and the US and Mark Foley Scandal or whatever for deletion without a reasonable discussion about whether its a good idea first. Ditto, templating a regular with whom you've just had an ArbCom case. What I was trying to say is that reducing this sort of stressful drama is a priority, and, yes, I was singling you out - I apologise for that - as someone whose recent actions have definitely not helped. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to make discussion is the stupidest thing ever. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Succinct and pretty much what I was thinking. I swear, this place has more drama than the furry fandom, and believe me, that ain't a compliment. A look at the issues above, though, are rather concerning: the Giano situation is unpleasant - from both sides of the coin - and the MONGO deal is certainly upsetting in how it came about and how it was handled. I've no idea what the other situations really are, but all in all this does indicate that we need some sanity to return to the place in a big hurry. My concern is that right now our best routes for handling incidents are discussions here or at RfC that can turn into long, drawn-out bitchfests with more noise than signal, ArbCom, which some folks have declared as ineffectual and bureaucratic (or, in some cases, as corrupt - which is kind of sad in itself), and ... well, that's about it. How do we best deal with drama? Do we enact some other kind of message board for community discussion that's aimed at a positive approach? Will that even work in a collaborative editing environment? Lots of questions, but until we find some answers to them we're probably going to keep seeing this kind of thing happen. Sad, but true. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, that is well-said. I've often thought we should have a counterpart to WP:BITE which held that established contributors are no more worthy of being "bitten" than newbies. On the one hand, they should know a bit better... on the other, they're known quantities, and there really is a process of burnout that happens in dealing with a seemingly endless string of petty incidents of the sort that are so common on Wikipedia. In any case, though, messages of support for users who have left are best delivered by email or off-wiki. At least one of these users, Giano, has apparently asked specifically that people not post to his talk page for now. In general, a long line of "please come back" posts on a departed user's talk page probably plays into the same sort of drama that led them leave in the first place. Give them some space, and send a message of support by email. I'm sure it will still be appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't have an issue with "Please come back" on Talk pages, especially since it alerts people that the person has left. But regardless of your method (on or off Wiki) letting people know they have support when they are under fire is an important aspect of our collaboration here. --David Shankbone 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I sent a message to Mongo a few days ago and he responded fairly quickly, indicating in the message that he was fairly serious about leaving. I do note that WP:MILHIST has a stress hotline. Maybe we could try to institute something similar for wikipedia in general, although it'd probably be a bear trying to make it known or useful. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• As a volunteer project, we will have people leaving on a regular basis. Those who know them well may want to contact these people by private means, but as a general community we should just wish them well and let them go in peace. See also meatball:GoodBye. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a very good view. Rudget 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No it's not, it's a poor view. It says, "If you want to go, go." There are people who work on this project who neither seek nor expect gratitude or thanks. But when they feel under attack, they feel unappreciated. Like it or not, leaving Wikipedia is typically the only way people realize that others, in fact, like them and what they did. Many people leave exactly because of that attitude. --David Shankbone 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that, independent of individual situations, we should look for overall patterns and try to remedy the bad ones. A more functional dispute resolution system would be a great improvement in this regard. But, once someone has taken the step to walk away, rather than trying to get into their head, I think it's more respectful to just say "Your contributions are appreciated, and you're welcome back any time. Thanks for lending a hand." This will reassure those who have left in good faith, without validating any who may have stormed out in a passive aggressive display. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I disagree. People who tell someone to not leave aren't doing it to people they don't know. They say it people who they do know, typically see they are going through a rough time, etc. We aren't detached robots, and Wikipedia is a stressful place to work for just about all of us. So, I disagree wholeheartedly with your approach, but we each deal with people departing from the project differently. But if enough people get fed up and leave, and you suddenly find yourself without people who create bots, take hard-to-get photos, create challenging maps from scratch, research and write interesting articles, etc. you may have found yourself saying, "Wow, I wish I had told those people how much I wish they would stay instead of letting them passively letting them go..." What you articulate, this idea we are all replaceable, is the cultural problem I have talked about. There simply are some people who I see as key to the functioning and pricelessness of this project. There are others who I don't think anyone would miss. It's important differentiate the two, and recognize that sometimes all it takes to retain one is to give them a little heartfelt appreciation. That really isn't a lot to ask of any of us. --David Shankbone 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

sockpupeteer creates yet another sock, please block

short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [111][112] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [113]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

His contributions are here. 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 (talk · contribs)

Per WP:UP#NOT, I would appreciate if Levine2112 would delete User:Levine2112/notes and apologize to me publicly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's using this to gather evidence for an arbitration case against you, I suppose he's within his rights to do so. I wouldn't complain too loudly, either. Forewarned is forearmed.

If, however, he's just using this as a "laundry list" moaning page, it should be deleted/moved off-wiki. Unless the arbitration case materialises within a week, I'll delete the page. Moreschi2 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it's not allowed, as I stated above, and it represents an attack page, I hope another admin will choose to delete it.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is allowed if it's evidence-gathering for ArbCom. Please read the policy you linked to again. Otherwise, yes, it is not. Moreschi2 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See this recent MfD debate - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The undertow/Notebook. Black Kite 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to cool down folks. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Levine2112[114][115] should explain his reasons for creating the note page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

vandalism only account, sock of blocked user

Resolved

 – Indef blocked as vandal-only account --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This user User:Markymark120 is a vandalism-only account (see contributions [116]), and is a sock of the blocked user User:Aimar120, see his sock case. Please block him too. (I didn't log until today, so my user page has been vandalized for 3 days because of him) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's userpage should go three days with that kind of nonsens on it. Sorry you had to be the first to find it after being there for three days. You're on my watchlist now Enric, for what it's worth, to try and catch it sooner if he (or anyone else) returns. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Killah666 should be indefblocked

Killah666 (talk · contribs) is nothing but trouble. Edit history shows little else but petty vandalism [117], creating and then repeatedly recreating inappropriate articles [118], edit warring, spamming [119], blanking pages [120], leaving inappropriate edit summaries containing attacks on fellow editors [121], and then continuing to vandalize his own talk page after being bocked for 31 hours [122]. Should be indef blocked as a persistent troll. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This could go to WP:AIV as he is vandalizing after a block was placed. Also this looks like nothing but a vandal account anyway. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I see here that the user's been blocked indefinitely. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Annotated bibliographies

There's been a number of "Annotated bibliographies" created in the last two days:

1. U.S. Defense Budget Trends over the past 50 Years: An Annotated Bibliography
2. High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography
3. Divorce and Children: An Annotated Bibliography
4. Taxation of Carried Interest: An Annotated Bibliography
5. Environmental Impact on Human Health: An Annotated Bibliography

They have all been created by different authors but follow a similar pattern. These seem an unusual article format and my interest was piqued when I noticed there were at least these five. They are problematic because they fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, and each one has been at least PRODded by various other editors. There's no evidence of anything untoward going on here; it could be a coincidence, or if there is a link it could be a school project. But I though I might flag it up for people to keep an eye on. Ros0709 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Each of the five is currently on AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree these are problematic. I once considered making such a list for mathematical logic texts, but decided against it because the criteria for inclusion are so broad as to violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Any annotation is likely to be original research, unless we have published reviews of the articles to refer to. But I think the WP:NOT issue is more central. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)