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

John Reaves message on my User Talk page

[1]

Also, commenting at an archive is pointless. I'm not sure I understand how you ever became an admin. John Reaves 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Caltrop (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He linked to the AN/I archives: He does have a point in that commenting on archive pages is pointless, as nobody's going to read the comment. Perhaps you should revert your edit there and post it somewhere with an active discussion instead? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While we are here...take a look at that archived discussion. Caltrop is doing it again. Moving his talk page where no one can find and mucking with the history. This is bewildering behavior for an administrator. John Reaves 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Reaves here. Moving the edits to an other page, then deleting the history, effectively making the search for a specific diff tedious is not an acceptable use of admins tools, in my opinion. (I might be missing something, I have no admin rights on this account). This is not a question of good faith or not, you are effectively doing something that you were told was not ok. The policy states that removing comments is ok, not that deleting the page to avoid scrutiny is. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John says he's moving the pages... does that require admin tools? Avruch ^T 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you post this here Caltrop? Am I out of the loop on some history here? Is John Reaves not supposed to be on your talk page? Was his question hurtful? I ask out of ignorance; I don't get it. :\ --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The link you refer to on your talk page states that "warnings may still be viewed in page history." That link is simply referring to removal of comments, not deleting pages entirely so the archives are not visible. Enigma ^msg! 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Would it be appropriate to move his pages around (over redirects or deletions, and then restore the "current" talk page without deleting the redirects) in order to create a proper move history from his talk page? Or perhaps make a null edit naming the current location of his talk page? Anyway, if he doesn't understand that what he did destroys history even if it doesn't destroy any actual information, desysoping seems an appropriate remedy for misuse of delete, even in his own talk-space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Prodego has already fixed this guys screwups once, he knew that what he was doing wrong and against policy. John Reaves 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the history back. Hopefully he'll take a hint this time. John Reaves 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't, I think there would be grounds to consider removing his bit. This suggests he hasn't used his admin tools for anything but disruption at his own talk pages and archives since 27 August 4 October - several of the deletions appear to regard matters which *should* be open for scrutiny. Orderinchaos 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

4 October, actually. -- Naerii 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, you're indeed correct. Orderinchaos 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy has been editing since 2002 and in the absence of of any abuse of admin tools - you know, like blocking innocent people or whatever - I'd be inclined to ignore it and move on. -- Naerii 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Obuibo Mbstpo, yet again

...has returned, in the form of SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs). As yet, he hasn't taken up any of OM's disruptive activities; do we let the sock continue (effectively granting an unblock), or block it has a block-evading sock? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If he's evading a block, he's evading a block. Seems straightforward: block. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - you're right, unfortunately, and I've blocked him. I'm hoping he'll make a compelling case for an unblock, but I guess that's up to him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(A) OM's block is totally illegitimate in the first place, as is continued enforcement of it; (B) You know this is the same individual how, exactly? Don't shoot first and ask questions later. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The case is complex. While it is likely that, on cautious review, the block would be lifted, he has not requested that, and he has also requested that I not "defend" him. Wikipedia is not going to be served by tilting at windmills, and Sarcasticidealist seems to be playing this quite straight. Unless the block is appealed and found not legitimate, acting to block socks is certainly allowed. We could decide to ignore the prior account, WP:IAR and all that, but ... I'm certainly not going to propose that. Believe it or not, I have no disruptive intent at all! As to how the sock was identified, it would not be rocket science, and I'm asking that the precious time of a checkuser not be wasted. If somehow it were to turn out that SpiritWorldWiki is not Mbstpo -- we should be so lucky to have another like him -- then the real user will presumably ask for unblock, and it can be reviewed at that time. If Mbstpo wants unblock, he'll ask for it. (You can tell from the edits that this is an experienced Wikipedian, this is not a noob, so blocks are relatively harmless.) On the other hand, if others decide to move for the unblock of Mbstpo, I would support that. I am not going to move in that direction myself. There is plenty else to do, simply to follow up on all the clues Mbstpo left behind. So this 63-year-old editor is following up on clues left by a 27-year-old writer, because I've found it to be -- always -- worthwhile. If this was music, he'd be Mozart. And, yes, we can't allow Mozart in the living room, the fart jokes, you know. Mozart, we might notice, was quite disruptive and was hated by quite a few people in his time. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer B:

• the account was created just after OM scrambled his password;
• the account is run by a rabid inclusionist;
• the account has devoted all of its time to OM's areas of interest: sweeping policy proposals with no chance of acceptance (not that there's anything wrong with that), Wikiproject Parliamentary Procedure, and Ayn Rand;
• when I asked the account if it was OM, it declined to answer me and continued editing;
• Quack

If any admin thinks that my evidence for this block was anything short of overwhelming, she/he has my cheerful permission to unblock without further consulting me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I followed the case a bit. This editor created a hoax article, among other things. Editors who would knowingly make the encyclopedia worse rather than better should not be welcome here. Hoaxes make the encyclopedia worse. So the solution seems obvious to me. (Not to mention that this previously banned editor had already been given lots of "one last chance"s.) Why would we want to keep an editor around who fabricates sources? Friday (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't, at all. The trouble is that that hoax (and his ensuing increasing disbelievable denial) was the only apparent bad-faith action he'd taken his whole time here. In the meantime, he'd done some very good mainspace work. With the new account, he did the very good mainspace work without the hoaxing. I would very much love to see him admit responsibility for the hoaxing and repent, that he might get on with his useful mainspace work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He's admitted it (the hoax) to me, but he is essentially burned out by the toxic atmosphere regarding reform on Wikipedia. He really should take a break. Meanwhile, I'm trying to do something to lessen the amount of smoke emitted, it burns the eyes. I do see, not only what Wikipedia needs, but how to get there, and it will take time. He's young and impatient, and when he runs into the totally expectable obstacles, he gets frustrated and, yes, angry. Change must come to Wikipedia or it will die. But it must also come step by step, with each step enjoying consensus. It takes time to build that, usually. Neither he nor I have a crystal ball, we don't know how much time we have. But probably more than a year and less than perhaps five, I'd guess. I don't think people realize how rapidly a project like this could implode. Parts of it are largely invulnerable, but this site ... not necessarily. Depends. And the real question is, what parts of it will survive? --Abd (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him (by email) not to evade the block. (I asked him before, and now again, after I saw the above mentioned edits.... sore thumb, it was.) He has also requested that I not "defend" him, so I am not taking any action to overturn the block. Obviously, if he is evading a block, new accounts no matter how "nice" can be blocked. When Mbstpo (as Absidy) was blocked, he did post under a series of accounts, similarly, none of it disruptive -- except that block evasion is disruptive in itself, because it creates a fuss.) Sigh. By the way, he apologized profusely to me for the hoax article. I told him that it was actually hilarious -- but don't do it again! My opinion: we need to lighten up, laugh more and block less, at least when it comes to actual contributors, which he was, for a long time. No blocks, and I didn't see any warnings, back to 2005, nothing until this year, 2008. Heavy contributions. Between the creation of the Mbstpo account on March 3, and the block on March , Mbstpo made about 1600 edits. What I will say, not in his defense but for Wikipedia, we might at some point look at what so seriously disturbed such an established Wikipedian that he committed wikisuicide, not once, but twice. It's easy to blow it off as "his problem," and that is partially true, but it is actually our problem, and it is happening all the time, simply in less spectacular ways. He started a project, in fact, to look at this, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform and, in particular, the subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform/Attrition/Study. Maybe I should add his name.--Abd (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. His talk page isn't locked, and I would very much like to hear him explain why a generally good contributor decided to go and create a hoax (I disagree with you about the merits of hoaxes, though, especially those that editors fabricate sources to defend). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem in the mood to talk usefully about any of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what! Put a note on his talk page asking him why he did it. I do not want to encourage him to evade the block, and that account was spiked. If he wants, he could answer there with an IP edit from a library. Better, he could send an answer to me, because I can verify it's him with no difficulty. If I am requested to do so, I will pass it on, as long as I consider it not disruptive, this would be an exception to the rule against proxying for a blocked user-- but note, I won't make that exception unless an admin asks me to! In any case, I do know enough to answer, but .... better it come from him. Meanwhile, I mentioned above the project which was set up to study this very question. Mbstpo is certainly not the first! By the way, I don't think I argued the "merits" of hoaxes, but I would like to keep them in perspective. The only damage caused by this hoax was the fuss over it (and that is real damage, I'm not minimizing it). And, absolutely, creating hoax articles is a violation of policy. So the question is the response. What has happened is that alleged disruption in WP space -- which is the real issue for most complaining about Mbstpo -- gets mixed up with the joke in the marriage article (damage: a vandal patroller had to go, Click! normally no block would ensue) -- and the hoax article (complicated -- why did he lie -- after he was already blocked -- about the source book sitting in his lap?) get all mixed up. The WP "disruption" was quite defensible, but not the japes. Again, I could explain his lying on his Talk page without defending it -- and I roasted him pretty well by email over it -- but the energy would be better put into the generic project about Attrition. The issue is not Mbstpo or, for that matter, me, but the welfare of the community on which this project depends. We have a lot of work to do.--Abd (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To hell with the rules. If he's not actually doing anything wrong, then just because the "rules" say you can block doesn't mean you should. I always thought the best interests of the encyclopedia were more important than bureaucratic masturbation. Furthermore, when I last checked OM claimed to have a source for the alleged "hoax" article he created, although there may have been further developments on that front since then. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked, he can ask for an unblock under his original account. I still cannot understand why his enablers are still banging on about his hoax being real, since the fictional figure he tried to create an article about was "killed" in some mountains that don't exist. It was a hoax, he needs to own up. --Fredrick day 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above, except that he's apparently scrambled the password to his original account, so any unblock request will have to be from his new one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Original" being used loosely here, of course. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's an original, all right. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist. I'm sorry about Weber's comments, but perhaps after he reads what I've been writing, he'll stop beating the dead horse. Hint: it was a hoax. Or, to put it another way, as the editor in question did, Mbstpo exists in a "parallel universe." I.e., Mbstpo is real. Real fiction. Lives in the world of his imagination. In my encyclopedia, the Mbstpo article would be tagged as Fiction or Myth, or, at first, as Unverified. With that, it's an excellent article! ("My encyclopedia" is the sum of all human knowledge. All. Human. Knowledge. It is a work in progress.) By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! But I won't, beyond this very diffuse hint. It would actually violate a number of basic principles if I did. As to Weber, I understand his frustration as well. It's a loss, that Mbstpo is no longer with us -- though he's reading much of what we write. The poor editor who dropped a moderately nasty, mild by comparison, note on my Talk page right after I found out ... poor guy! I was pissed! Kim Bruning, the soul of courtesy, wrote "Fool!" when Mbstpo wrote that he had scrambled his password. But ... it is actually all for the best. I'll try to convince Weber of that.... off to tilt at windmills for the rest of the afternoon. Gotta keep busy, use it or lose it, etc., etc.--Abd (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not particularly hard to work out what the username means. --Reuben (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Any editor who would lift a single finger to defend a hoaxer is not worthy of consideration. Go write fiction somewhere else; here, we're an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, he revealed to me the secret of the name.... and he said he'd have to excommunicate me if I revealed it. Ah, how it itches! does it look like anyone here really cares what stupid game it's part of? Please stick to the point in future, how clever a hoaxer thinks he is being is frankly not something that should concern us. --Fredrick day 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

seems to be back again, this time as David Janssen (geddit "the fugitive"), I've asked him to pop across here and ask for his block to be lifted. His article edits are excellent and I'd like nothing more for him to stop this stupid block evading and get back to article editing. --Fredrick day 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Where was he banned? Mr.Z-man 22:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Start at the top and work your way down. --Fredrick day 22:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't banned, just blocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Before you attack me for "defending a hoaxer", calm down. As I mentioned before, he had said that he had a source, and I saw no reason to disbelieve him--and in fact I did not until I read Fredrick Day's post and re-read the blocking thread. Fine. It was a hoax. Although I am still defending him, altogether--and I fail to see how that's a problem--if not the deed itself. The two need to be considered separately. An indef block, without warning or prior discussion, was still totally uncalled for.

Perhaps I'm being a bit Quixotic here--perhaps you're right that there's no practical gain to be had by defending him. So what? There's a principle involved nonetheless. A user should not have to request an unblock (a process that often requires much supplication and self-abasement if it is to be successful) to put an end to a block that should never have been made in the first place; the community should lift it on its own initiative. That he does not wish to request an unblock does not mean he does not want it--perhaps he is just unwilling to risk having to kowtow in order to do it. I don't blame him. Unblock the account, offer to fix his password (if possible) or at least agree to not instantly re-block any new accounts he may create, and then it will truly be left up to him. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I defended the guy when people were complaining about his far-fetched policy proposals. I even defended his blanket keep votes (or at least rejected any suggestion that he be sanctioned for them), in the same way as I've done for your blanket opposition to self-noms (although I confess to some gratitude for the fact that my RFA passed unanimously during a week in which you evidently had better things to do). Once the block came down, my immediate reaction was to ask for what evidence there was that this article was speedy-able as a hoax. But when the request evidence was forthcoming, I became a supporter of an indefinite (as distinct from infinite) block. A user who creates hoaxes - especially hoaxes that aren't immediately apparent as such, and especially hoaxes that use fabricated offline sources to support themselves - is a serious, serious menace to this project. Such an editor becomes a greater menace to the project when his hoaxes are surrounded by good edits, because it makes the hoax even harder to detect. Indefinitely removing such a user from the project is not a disproportionate response. I would like to have this user's edits on parliamentary procedure back. I wouldn't mind having his edits on policy back, either. But unless/until he explicitly agrees to stop the behaviour for which he was blocked, I can't support an unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Brace yourselves; I'm going to agree with Kurt. There is a good content-creation side to this editor; IF he can promise to concentrate on that without the hoaxes, vandalism, silliness or any of the other drama that got him blocked last time, then no problem with unblocking. But seriously, we said "last chance" the previous time - at the first sign of anything that's pointlessly going to waste other editor's time, out comes the block - for keeps. Fair? Black Kite 23:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Kurt Weber's position here, in part, because this editor is likely to continue to draft some of our missing parliamentary law and procedure articles that we very much need. Having said that, I was one of the first endorsers of the original block (of Absidy) at the time of the "delegable proxy" mess, so it's fair to say I have mixed feelings. I would like to see this editor work out, but suggestions that he limit himself to mainspace have not been well-received. Sigh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Part of the problem with that is that the most serious damage he's done to the project - the creation of a hoax article backed by a fabricated source - has occurred in the mainspace. In any event, though, his most recent incarnation's talk page seems to suggest little interest in reform. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the good faith of Black Kite, this editor actually does not have a history justifying such serious "last chance" warnings. I know it looks that way, but the situation is complicated by many editors having complained vigorously about legitimate actions of this user. I agree that the hoax article raises some serious issues; however, for example, that article is not a serious as a single fabricated source in a normal article. Nobody is coming here searching for information on Obuibo Mbstpo. By all means, he has properly been reprimanded and, this time, a block was clearly within reason, it was much more complicated the time before (Newyorkbrad, in my opinion, improperly involved himself the last time, confirming a block that was actually quite against policy and ArbComm precedent ... but one might note that no complaint has been filed over it.) I essentially raked the user over the coals for lying about the hoax after it had been challenged. But we have a system of escalating responses, and this guy went from 0 to 60 mph in a very, very short time, and he was, I'd say, sorely tried. Frankly, I think he should stay away for a time, he needs a break, in my opinion. He needs to do other things, details like making a living, and I suspect that part of what is happening is a desire to get kicked out permanently so that he can't be tempted to keep editing. However, he knows too much, he knows that he can edit anyway. If he's going to do it, might as well allow the edits to stick. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Now seems to be operating under yet another sockpuppet Larry E. Jordan - he was offered a chance to go straight, this seems to be his answer. As with any other abusive sock, I suggest we revert on sight - yes his edits are good but we cannot reward sock-evaders with "oh well!". --Fredrick day 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Any "shoot-on-sight" reversions of legitimate content, I will un-revert. The "revert on sight" clause is so we don't have to go through a whole big formal todo with reverting obvious bad-faith edits; it's not there to declare the individual an "un-person". If it's a problem, remove it. If it's a good contribution, there is absolutely no valid or legitimate reason to revert it, regardless of who put it there. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. Is it time for a community ban now? Wizardman 01:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some good edits in mainspace - and then stuff like [2]. Sigh. How many accounts is that now? 12? Black Kite 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

he did a whole series of those amongst his other edits - I guess he plans to mix those in with his good edits and see if he can change policy/guidelines that way... --Fredrick day 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, etymologically speaking, he's quite correct. For whatever that's worth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For anybody who's interested, User:Larry E. Jordan has actually requested unblock. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see. How many do we know about now? Oh, wait, I know! I'll list them -- and then the community can consider whether this is a legitimate use of multiple accounts.
  1. Larry E. Jordan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  2. David Janssen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  3. SpiritWorldWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  4. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  5. Thespian Seagull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  6. Absidy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  7. Ron Duvall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  8. Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  9. Zxczxczxc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  10. ReplyToSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• and probably others. If the community wants to allow this person to edit at all, perhaps it might wish to consider strengthening the sockpuppet policy; me, I'm partial to one person, one account, other than in quite exceptional circumstances. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was pretty simple, socks = not good except for a specific purpose, and a sock to evade a block always = a blocked sock. Is there some kind of uncertainty here? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:56, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Large-scale abusive sockpuppetry has long been a fast ticket out the door. If a person is really interested in returning from a block to contribute productively, and avoids the old haunts and dramatics associated with the original block(s), it seems pretty unlikely to me they're ever going to be caught -- a corollary here is that a user repeatedly caught and blocked for socking is probably returning over and over to the same articles, the same disputes, the same problematic behaviors. A wrongly blocked user might create a sock or two, I suppose, but why so many at once? Why the socks which seem to have been active before OM's block, as linked by Jpg above? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat unusual, in that the socks are being detected and blocked for engaging in exactly the same productive behaviours as the puppeteer, without apparently engaging in the unproductive ones. As for the socks created before OM's block, I believe that OM itself was originally a block-evading sock, but that the community opted to allow it (i.e. basically the equivalent of agreeing to unblock the puppeteer). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tricky. As much as a good number of those edits are helpful, I'm a bit dubious of anybody that feels a need to keep an ongoing and secret collection of active accounts. I have a few spares, such as User:Lunaccount-l or User:Lunasock, but none are regularly active and all are very clearly linked to me. As has been pointed out, OM's alternate accounts make good, helpful edits but tend to have some problems with escalating issues too aggressively. Why the switch from Ron Duvall (talk · contribs) and Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs) to Absidy (talk · contribs)? I can see an argument that blocks on Absidy and Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) might be a bit hasty, and I'm encouraged by their good edits and the fact that people are standing up to speak on their behalf, but I still find myself uncomfortable with intentional disruption and blatant sockpuppetry. If this user is to be unblocked, I'd prefer we keep them on a short leash. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no controversy: the use of new accounts to evade a block is not legitimate.

Most of the accounts listed above are just that, created while blocked. Mixing that up with a user dropping one account name to take up another, being open about it, which happened several times, is exaggerating the situation. I do know that this user, way back, told me that it was legitimate to drop an account and begin with another, that this was not sock puppetry if not intended to deceive and the first account was abandoned, not used again. Whether that was accurate or not, he told me that before there was any trouble at all. And I did read language in WP:SOCK that was readable that way. One of the problems is that this community has adopted a term to use, and uses it in a way at variance with standard usage. Sock puppetry refers to the creation of additional identities for a user which are then used to create an impression of wider support for some idea, by multiple voting -- one of the original applications -- or by holding fake conversations. This user has never done that. However, during the WP:PRX affair, he changed his account, creating a minor impression of wider support, though it was really irrelevant and had no bearing on the proposal. (The result and the controversy would have been the same without the account change, and the only real difference was that the accusation was then made that the proposal was supported by sock puppets.) Then, as a result of an SSP report and checkuser (which merely confirmed the obvious, what was already admitted -- except that I was cleared of charges that I was a sock of the same master as part of that), the SSP report deleted for privacy reasons, he changed his user name again, to Absidy. The block of Absidy had *nothing* to do with account name changes, Absidy was blocked, when we look at it closely, for being rude to an administrator. Prior to that there was action arguably worthy of warning (it was also arguable that it was legitimate, but it certainly irritated some users -- he dropped a notice advertising the startup of the proxy system on the Talk page of every administrator), for which he was, in fact warned. He had stopped, and stated no intention to continue, nor did he continue, but he was rude. And he was blocked, obviously, for that. Leading then, to all the new account changes, until Obuibo Mbstpo was opened as a method of coming back, an unblock having been negotiated. Now there are more accounts, again resulting from a continued block. The offense here, normally, would have resulted in a 24 hour block at the most. This user has absolutely no block history before the rudeness one, no history of warnings for vandalism. This would be Kurt Weber's point: if the block is not legitimate, then all the problems with socks should not be considered an additional offense. I'm not sure I agree, but it is also certainly arguable, and there seems to be some level of precedent for it. Mbstpo is, by the way, not thrilled that I'm defending him, he's really asked me to stop. But I'm not defending him, I'm proposing that we follow policy and consider the welfare of the project. Is it better to continue to block him -- based on what? -- or to allow him to contribute. What harm will be done by one, and what harm by the other? I'm not proposing one over the other at this point, I can see both sides. What I don't like is that the situation is exaggerated by some, confusing the issues. Don't consider what's good for Mbstpo, that's his job. Consider what's good for the project.--Abd (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock?

Per this diff, I would favour a trial unblocking. I believe that he is sincere in his desire to help the encyclopaedia, and the hoax article and marriage proposal edit stand out as isolated incidents against a backdrop of policy debate and parliamentary procedure articles. I have no objection to his return to policy pages (as long as he continues to be a significant mainspace contributor), but he seems to be indicating that he doesn't even plan on doing this. I find his handling of this situation as regrettable as most of you likely do, but blocks are preventative and I no longer see what damage this one is preventing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to follow the lead of users more familiar with this user (if I've run across or dealt with them, previously, I don't recall it). As mentioned above, there are some points in their favor, and others that give me pause. I'm not happy keeping him blocked forever, given the helpful contributions balanced against what I hope is a mere indiscretion, and could probably support a "short leash" unblock (or block reduction) on that basis. Just so long as we keep a close eye on this. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to the unblock. This user is obviously easy to spot, which self-limits the damage they can cause, when they act up. Since he's making decent content contribs and others (myself included) are monitoring it, I'd say its worth another shot. Just whoever unblocks, please please leave a big link to WP:SOCK on the unblock message. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get why an editor who fabricates a source should be welcome here ever again. But as long as people are following him around, reverting anything cannot personally verify, maybe it's OK. Still, it seems like a lot of work just to accommodate one problem editor. Can we at least keep him to one account, and put a note on it saying "Attention all editors, this is a known hoaxer. If you see something suspicious, revert it until it's verified independently". Friday (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out that -- with a very short period of exception, where he -- with little apparent reason -- made one account change, then made one more under some pressure, again without any necessity that we could see, but people do have their own reasons, he has only created new accounts (1) after spiking the password on the old account, apparently in all cases, so creating a new account requires the least administrative hassle, and (2) during periods when he has been blocked. If he edited IP during that period (has done a very few edits that way), he'd be making more work, and, since he often edits from a library, uninvolved users could be blocked. So he registers an new account for various purposes, and he hasn't been disruptive with these, beyond the disruption from the simple fact of block evasion (which includes accounts created for totally legitimate purposes, such as commenting on his prior Talk page, which were blocked anyway when identified). I would at this point ask him to pick an account name that he will keep and be permanently satisfied with. Alternatively, he can "disappear," and he knows how to do that, and come back after the necessary pause. That might be technically block evasion, except that WP:SOCK almost goes as far as to recommend it. This might be moot if he has actively chosen the new name mentioned above. We only go after those new accounts if they attract attention for disruption, and even then it can be difficult to connect them. In any case, I don't see any actual opposition to blocking, but only some minor level of puzzlement, which is to be expected in a case like this. I haven't see the material referenced above yet, I'll look at it and comment there. I hoping this resolves the wikifuss, and I'll do what I can to keep this user on track. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no actual objections - although plenty of reluctance - above, I've unblocked. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna be keeping an eye on this user then, because I'm uncomfortable with the unblock myself. Wizardman 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell this humble non-administrator (i.e. me) whether it is now ok to restore edits that were made by the editor in question while he was blocked? Regardless of which name he was using at the time? I'd like a clear, definitive, unanimous answer, otherwise I will just leave it alone -- which would be unfortunate, especially with regard to Template:Cite parl, which got broken in the midst of all of this. Or, one of you admins can fix it, and restore the other constructive edits that were reverted. Neutron (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually okay to do so whether or not the user is unblocked, as long as you're doing so edit by edit (i.e. "I'm re-doing this edit because it was a good one") and not wholesale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was a little confused about that, given the unresolved exchange between two admins here. Neutron (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it okay to restore them, but it was absolutely not okay to have reverted them in the first place (I know you're not the one who did this--Frederick Day was, and he has totally ignored me every time I've pointed this out to him). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this guy's apology and fessing up, but this seems to be encouraging sockpuppets. This guy has 10 known socks, many of which are blocked indefinitely. Rather than saying "yeah it's okay to fly off the handle, get blocked and create another sock", I think this latest sock should be blocked and we should email this guy the password to the OM account. AND, no matter what's done, this user's ability to edit should be on the provision that he not create ANY more socks in the future. From now on, should he be blocked again, he can use the unblock processes just like everyone does. This guy is really testing the limits of our little system here and it shouldn't be condoned to the degree it has been. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

sorry you are entirely wrong - just keep changing accounts and eventually the community will lube up and say "please warm your hands before you put them on my shoulders". - isn't that what we see here? --87.114.3.85 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're saying, anonymous caller. If it were up to me I'd laugh and exclaim just how ridiculous it is for this person to expect to ever be able to edit again, but short of that, I've made the above suggestions. Here's hoping. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:58, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there isn't anything wrong with socks as long as they're not being used abusively. Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive--so if a user creates a sock to contravene a block on his main account, however legitimate that block may have been, as long as he's not doing anything wrong with the sock what's the actual problem here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand: this does not create a precedent for creating block-evading socks to continue inappropriate and unacceptable behavior. Near as I can tell, the only precedent it creates is "If you're blocked but you want to create a new account, as long as you're not causing problems with your sock go right ahead"--and I don't see anything wrong with that. There's no problem with socks in that situation. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've got that right. A sockpuppet to evade a block is not allowed and should be blocked. Allowing people to evade blocks by creating sockpuppets is basically telling them that a block is no big deal, and they don't need to even participate in the unblock process to address the issues. Who would even post an unblock template, if they knew socks were an accepted way to deal with a block? Plus there's this, from wp:sock:"Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks, bans, and probations." Equazcion •✗/C • 15:59, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Sockpuppets of blocked users get immediately blocked. Blocks are not against usernames; they are against the individuals who have behaved poorly enough to be blocked, regardless of what name they are calling themselves at any given moment. One person, one account is the basic principle; no evading blocks with alternate accounts is just an obvious side effect of that principle. -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You are both missing the point. This is not a bureaucracy; we don't enforce "rules" just for their own sake. If a user evading a block, however legitimate, is editing productively and not causing any problems with his sock, then what possible benefit could there be by blocking his socks as well? A user who creates socks to go on continuing his destructive behavior is one thing; this is quite another. The "rules" be damned--if making the encyclopedia better means letting people get away with breaking the "rules" in certain situations, so be it. To hell with the "rules". Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong Kurt. Sorry. This place is not a democracy, but it's also not anarchy. What you are suggesting is ridiculous, there is no better (or more civil) way to say it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm perfectly correct. In fact, what I explained above is the essence of Wikipedia: when enforcing the rules get in the way of making Wikipedia better, the rules lose. If you want to debate whether or not this is such an instance, that's one thing. But the principle I'm arguing still holds. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, you seem to have missed the first part of my comment, the part before I pointed out the statement in policy. You instead chose to label me a rule-pusher, because that's the easiest the thing for you to argue with. Here's the non-policy part of my argument, again, which was in fact most of my comment: "A sockpuppet to evade a block is not allowed and should be blocked. Allowing people to evade blocks by creating sockpuppets is basically telling them that a block is no big deal, and they don't need to even participate in the unblock process to address the issues. Who would even post an unblock template, if they knew socks were an accepted way to deal with a block?" Equazcion •✗/C • 17:25, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I labeled you a rules-pusher precisely because of what you just repeated: that is very much a rule-based argument. It is my contention that as long as they use them productively, without causing problems, then "allowing people to evade blocks by creating sockpuppets" is in fact no big deal. So what if it means they avoid going through the unblock process? Process for process's sake is ridiculous. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that encourages avoiding the unblock process, which means not dealing with the issue. What makes us allow a sock to edit (if the user is open about being a sock) is the same as what makes us unblock a user. Except in the latter case, we deal with the issue and make a decision, something that needs to be encouraged. If we condone creating socks to evade blocks, we condone not dealing with the issue, and circumventing an action that was taken for a presumably good reason. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:41, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(btw, I hate having to enter all these colons every time) Assuming the initial block was legitimate, if the sock does not engage in the behavior that led to the block of the original account it seems to me that the issue has been dealt with enough. Blocks are preventative; the block was issued to put a stop to the destructive behavior, and the individual in question is no longer engaging in the destructive behavior. What more do you want? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(just copy-and-paste the previous comment's colons, then add one more. that's what i do) You keep repeating that, and I just explained the value in not allowing it. If you have an answer, feel free to post it. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:52, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You claim that the underlying issue hasn't been dealt with if we just let him get by with his socks, correct?

But if he stops engaging in the destructive behavior that led to the initial block, what more needs to be "dealt with"? That's what I don't understand. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If he stops. That's uncertain. So, is it smart to encourage such behavior? Should we send the message that it's okay to sockpuppet in order to evade a block, just because one person has promised he won't engage in malice using it? Or would it be smarter to not allow socks in evasion of blocks at all, and force people to use the unblock process? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:05, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Kurt is exaclty right here. What matters most is the encyclopedia. If he creates another account and edits productively, there's no reason to block simply for bypassing the "unblock process." We certainly should encourage people to reform and contribute content, otherwise, why the hell are we here? The fact is that we judge each instance on its merits, not based on precedent. Mr.Z-man 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the encyclopedia would benefit more from a discouragement of circumventing community actions. But that's just me. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:12, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Sometimes I undent. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Then the colons start over. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

unblock 2

All this meta-discussion about the nature of rules is silly and pointless here. There's one single biggest factor to consider here: This editor knowingly, intentionally, made a hoax article and continued to defend it after it was noticed, including fabricating a source. This, by itself, is clearly enough to determine that he's not an editor we want here. Can any reasonable person honestly see it otherwise? Friday (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it was a one-time issue. People fuck up. Get over it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One time, yes, but not a mistake. It was an intentional act. I would never willingly collaborate with someone who did this.. and this is a collaborative project. So where does that leave us? The obvious answer would be to show people the door once they've demonstrated that they're working against, rather than for, the goals of the project. Yes, even one time. Mistakes are allowed. Intentional sabotage is not something I'm willing to tolerate. Should anyone tolerate it? I can't see why. Friday (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of issues on the above: first, all block-evading socks were blocked on sight. One was eventually unblocked after discussion here, which is more or less the normal process for unblocking the indefinitely blocked. I don't think we've established any precedent here at all, frankly. Second, OM undoubtedly committed deliberate sabotage - that was when I joined the "block him" chorus. But he's since admitted it and committed to not doing so again, and is currently at work improving the encyclopaedia. We often block vandals (who commit acts of deliberate sabotage) less than indefinitely, which is basically adoption of the principle that deliberate sabotage does not necessarily lead to an indefinite block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're grossly overreacting. Creating a hoax article with a title that no one in a million years will ever use as a search term hardly has a significant damaging effect: no one actually looking for legitimate information ever going to find it, and all it does is create a bit of annoyance. OM's a smart guy; if he had actually intended to "sabotage" the encyclopedia, he would have linked to it from legitimate articles, working it into the prose, so unsuspecting visitors would be tricked into reading it (or something else that would achieve the same effect). He did no such thing. At the worst, it's a very very minor and insignificant breaching experiment; more likely it was nothing more than a bit of juvenile silliness that's not going to happen again. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we're an encyclopedia, fabricating a source is one of the biggest sins we have here. By any reasonable academic standard, it's a Very Bad Thing. This type of thing gets people kicked out of universities. If you want to chalk it up to juvenility, so be it. But what do we know about juveniles? They stay that way, for several years. Is there any reason to believe this problem has actually gone away? I don't think people change that quickly. Friday (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From my talk page:

"That's exactly what we're saying, anonymous caller. If it were up to me I'd laugh and exclaim just how ridiculous it is for this person to expect to ever be able to edit again, but short of that, I've made the above suggestions. Here's hoping. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:58, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia drove away so many people like User:Jmaynard that there aren't many parliamentary procedure experts left to work on WP:WPPP's articles with that same degree of intensity. If you had ten people improving those articles as fervently as I, Wikipedia could probably be more choosy about who it keeps... then again, if you had ten such people, that WikiProject's work would probably be mostly complete by now. In many respects, Wikipedia just never quite got the concept of WP:EM... Sigh. Larry E. Jordan (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)"

I really hope OM isn't accurate about what's going on here. Despite sarcasticidealist's explanation, this user still has ten socks, been disruptive and sabotaged. Too many chances. Short of blocking him indefinitely right now, please insist on the provision that one more sock = permanent ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:45, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I will support a permanent ban if OM commits a single additional deliberately disruptive action (which would include abusive sock-puppetry, hoaxes, etc.). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The time I donate to the project is invaluable. I don't have much of any time to vet articles and sources, especially those made intentionally false. The block stays, IMHO. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Friday and NonvocalScream. Get rid of him. Blueboy96 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me just go on record as saying that yes I agree, get rid of him. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:27, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)
To all of you advocating re-blocking, can I be clear on the principle on which you're advocating it? Is it that a single deliberately disruptive action is sufficient for a permanent ban? If so, is your position that all vandals should be permanently banned? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Ten socks, + socks to evade indefinite blocks, refusal to use unblock process and choosing sockpuppeteering instead, + sabotage and misc disruption = permanent ban. That should always be true, I think. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:34, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's fair, although I'm not sure what you mean by "misc disruption". But your position is reasonable, I think, although I'll continue to hang my hat on the belief that blocks are preventative, and that I see nothing to prevent here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I could forgive one hoax article. But 10 socks, abuse of two attempts to start with a clean slate--sorry, we don't need him. Blueboy96 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The sabotage wasn't the first issue brought against OM, if you remember. His block was the result of other disruptive acts as well, such as posting the same proposal to multiple locations. See the many other ANI reports for OM. What we're preventing is further disruption. After a while, it may be prudent to expect more. That's when blocks are used. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:44, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, those. I don't consider any of the pre-hoax ANI alerts about OM to have documented actually disruptive behaviour (hence my lack of support for a block until the hoax), as opposed to simply annoying behaviour that is acceptable from good mainspace contributors. In that regard there are substantial parallels to be drawn between OM's projectspace activities and Kurt's: I wish both would knock it off, but both are clearly here to build the encyclopaedia and are expressing opinions of the sort that ought to be tolerated, if not embraced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

K, then remove the misc disruption from the equation above. A permanent ban is still warranted. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:59, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

blocked again

User has been blocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:27, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it was for creating an article called Easter Bunny Hotline that claimed to let the user speak to the Easter Bunny, but led to a recorded message of some sorts which is certainly not child-friendly. [3]. I think we're done here. Blueboy96 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...what exactly did he do wrong here? Near as I can tell, he created an article about a legitimate phone hotline. Whether the subject of the article is a hoax or nonsense is irrelevant--articles about hoaxes and articles about nonsense are not, in principle, verboten--after all, we have articles about Lamarckism and articles about the Piltdown Man hoax. And there's certainly nothing wrong with creating a non-hoax, non-nonsense article (even if the article itself is about a hoax or nonsense) that is summarily speedily deleted, either. You're going to have to do better than this if you want to make a legitimate case for driving him away. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts suffices. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What "abuse"? Aside from the one-time hoax, he has done nothing inappropriate or unacceptable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet on autism articles again

Reference for context:

Wrong Planet is a bulletin board/forum about Asperger syndrome.

AlexPlank (talk · contribs), aka Perl (talk · contribs) is the owner/founder (actively involved in editing that article in the past; recently, it has been edited mostly by IPs—if problems with COI persist, a CheckUser could be warranted).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph and threads on Wrong Planet advocating against Wiki's Asperger syndrome article (these are just a few, there are others):

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=883579

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=43197

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt49566.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx50638-15-0.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt53562.html

Now, to current business—Wrong Planet members editing Autism Speaks:

Autism Speaks is "a New York City-based advocacy organization, founded ... by Bob Wright, Vice Chairman of General Electric, and his wife Suzanne, to improve public awareness about autism and to promote autism research." (Through a series of mergers, I believe they are now the largest organization speaking for people with autism.)

Because some Wrong Planet members perceive Autism Speaks as "pro-cure" (which some autism activists perceive as an insult), there are numerous anti-Autism Speaks threads at the Wrong Planet bulletin board.

Recently, negative information has been added to the Autism Speaks article, sourced to the Wrong Planet bulletin board (not a reliable source).[4] [5] I've reverted;[6] Alex Plank (the owner of Wrong Planet and an experienced Wiki editor) inserts further text sourced to Wrong Planet bulletin board.[7]

A thread on Wrong Planet [8] questions whether it/they (WP/bulletin boards) are reliable sources, and Alex Plank responds with:

if sandyGeorgia is the one who reverted it, you should just revert it back to your version. She's a wikipedia troll who attempts to control articles on wikipedia. she has no authority, however. ... It was SandyGeorgia. I reverted her edit. The only way to stop her is to not let her bullying pay off. Make sure to watch the page and revert ok?

At the same time, similar issues are occurring at the Wrong Planet article. Because of past issues/arbitration with members of Wrong Planet, it would be helpful if other editors would step in to attend to the Wrong Planet disruption of the Autism Speaks article and insertion of information that is not reliably sourced. If Wrong Planet has the membership base it claims (17,000 members, although I doubt it), help will be needed on the Autism Speaks article, and I've been slandered enough on that bulletin board and would prefer not to be the person watching over the Autism Speaks article, considering past history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilco, will watch. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted and left a general note on the talk page regarding online forums as encyclopedic sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, [9] seems to me to require some action. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Am I reading that correctly (that he may have published confidential info that he obtained as webmaster of Wrong Planet)? I also just noticed that he said (see above), that he had reverted me, so he must be one of those IPs or other accounts ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't make out where it came from, but it's obviously grossly inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a matter for WP:OVERSIGHT to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. All the info on Wrong Planet is properly sourced. User SandyGeorgia is a disgruntled former member of the site who was banned for trolling and has an ax to grind. I do run the site and have made no claim that I am not involved with it. I don't see it as a conflict of interest because I leave my bias at the door when entering Wikipedia. Alex (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Perl, making up stories here (just after re-instating a lot of non-reliable sources just removed from the article) is not going to bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perl, SandyGeorgia is a long-standing Wikipedian of stellar reputation, whereas you have just caused me a lot of work getting your egregious privacy violations oversighted. You want to escalate this? Feel free, but I can give you a pretty confident prediction of who will win. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also a long-standing Wikipedian and have been a wikibooks administrator and am currently an administrator for another language wikipedia. I've been here much longer than SandyGeorgia and I guarantee you that no one's privacy has been violated. Alex (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, setting aside the egregious privacy violations you made of another person that were oversighted today, calling me a troll on Wrongplanet, advocating reverts of valid edits, edit warring on articles to insert information sourced to your own bulletin board (not a reliable source), COI, possible sockpuppetry, past canvassing against Wiki articles on your bulletin board, and now putting up some serious lies about me here, you've got a great reputation going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about egregious privacy violations yet that is a complete fabrication. I find that suspicious, TBH. Alex (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, JzG (and everyone else who saw the post before it was oversighted) fabricated the whole thing :-) By the way, did you obtain and post that personal information about that fellow from your position as webmaster of your bulletin board? If so, that wouldn't speak well for the value you place on your "17,000" members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you're talking about? Alex (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. All of the personal information about some fellow (since the post had to be oversighted, from memory, his name, address, school, IP addresses, e-mail addresses, and whatever else was in the oversighted link of your "egregious privacy violation" of some poor fellow's confidential information). Again, since you just posted a call to arms on WrongPlanet ("we have a problem. need major backup:"),[10] I hope you treat your bulletin board members better than that fellow was treated. Fortunately, since I'm not one, I won't have to worry about my confidential information being posted to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perl, David Gerard does not oversight edits for fun. There were five edits killed, in which you revealed, exactly as Sandy says, someone's name, email address, location, IP address and other private data, in furtherance of an apparent vendetta. As privacy violations go, it doesn't get a lot worse than that. It is also clear that your edits demonstrate a conflict of interest, and that you have used Wikipedia to further an off-wiki agenda. You have been caught bang to rights, I'm afraid, and now would be a good time to show some contrition and a commitment not to continue or repeat such behaviour. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That information was gleaned from an email sent by the individual to a public email list. No details were posted that were not publicly posted to the internet by the guy in question. Alex (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I'm sorry, but you are being sold a porky by SandyGeorgia. It may not be obvious to you - but even though she may be otherwise a good contributor to Wikipedia, her handling of this issue is laced with bias against Wrong Planet. It's not just a forum. Alex has articles as well. Just for the record, I think you'll find that Aspies for Freedom have a similar view of Autism Speaks as Wrong Planet does. And I would point out that while individual statements on a forum might not fulfill WP:RS by themselves, a collection of statements that agree with each other would be a very strong basis for a reference style comment on the article concerned. I'm pretty sure that has been done in the past.

Now maybe Perl may have a WP:COI issue re the mention of Wrong Planet. But that doesn't mean dump the whole thing. I certainly hope a blacklisting of Wrong Planet is being considered because I'll fight it straight away and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If Wrong Planet was brought up for deletion, I for one would vote to do it. I think that the attacks on Wikipedia, attacks on editors and canvassing to have people at that site come here to 'correct' the article warrents blacklisting and even deletion. I feel disgusted with what I read there on your board. The behavior there in my opinion was rude, mean and against many policies of Wikipedia. If you have been an editor here for four years like you state, then you should know that what is said on your board is totally unacceptable. --CrohnieGal^Talk 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Planet is self-published; those views don't belong in other articles unless they are published by reliable sources, although Wrong Planet views can be stated in their own article, within policy. No porky here; Fenric (would that be Quatermass on Wrong Planet?); just Wiki policy, WP:V. (Are all 17,000 members of Wrong Planet planning to weigh in here? Fine, but that won't change Wiki policy.) Wrong Planet only marginally meets notability anyway; they have a Wiki article only because William Freund gained national attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that SandyGeorgia is a banned member of WrongPlanet (for trolling) who is engaging in ban evasion in order to post messages from the Wrong Planet forum. Her role in this is hardly that of an objective observer. Alex (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex Plank (aka WikiBot, aka Perl), I took the evening off last night to allow time for you to re-consider your wanton abandonment of the truth in this attempt to discredit me; striking untruths is the way you can retract them on Wiki and that will end the problem you are starting for yourself. Yesterday I was inclined towards making allowances for your brazen false attacks on me; today, considering you've repeated, I note that this behavior is not part of the Asperger syndrome profile to my knowledge, and there is no reason for me to make allowances a second time. Please strike the false statement to retract it;[11] I came to the situation on WrongPlanet originally by googling to find out where the canvassing on the Asperger syndrome article was coming from,[12] and that was when I discovered that I was a frequent topic of conversation there.[13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For the specific issue of posting (now-oversighted) personal information by User:Perl, it's just not acceptable. Perl's defense, that "The information was gleaned from an email sent by the individual to a public email list" is hardly mitigating - regardless of what's on an public email list somewhere, the information has no place on Wikipedia. I can't speak for the community on this, necessarily, but I'd look on any further issues with inappropriate posting of personal information by this or affiliated editors very unfavorably. The other issues between SandyGeorgia and Perl are probably best pursued in dispute resolution rather than in this forum. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I believe before pursuing this further in DR, I do need to give him the chance to retract and strike the misinformation here, correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell I agree with what you say above but do you think that the canvassing and attacks on the board of Wrong Planet needs to be taken care of here? Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - no, I am not Quartermass from Wrong Planet. And I think you need to back off Alex, because you were indeed banned from Wrong Planet for trolling. He has nothing to withdraw from what I can tell unless I missed something completely different. And you haven't explained why Wrong Planet fails WP:RS (and I'm talking about aside from the forum - and besides, what is wrong with making a general reference to the views of a clear group of people in the one place?). I think you have just as much to explain here as you claim Alex does. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of whether Wrong Planet is a reliable source belongs on the talk page of the relevant article, or failing that, at the reliable sources noticeboard. I would urge everyone not to import outside disputes onto Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make the same point. Please take it to WP:RS/N. However, to give you a preview of what will likely be said there, I don't see that a website without any attestations to its reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, and run by non-experts, is likely to meet the requirements for reliability on an article about a medical condition. Relata refero (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Relata, I totally agree with what you say. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with MastCell that outside disputes should not be brought to Wiki, but since I have not posted to or been banned from Wrong Planet, that information cannot be allowed to stand here on Wiki. It is now a two-fold personal attack on me on Wiki brought by Alex Plank[14] and Fenric.[15] (appended to add): Since I have no off-Wiki interaction with them, this is strictly an on-Wiki attack, furthered by them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if someone would tell me what my next step is, since it appears that Alex Plank is able to make this fraudulent claim here with impunity. I imagine this claim will play well with his membership. What is my next recourse if he can post something like this to AN/I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I advise that SandyGeorgia's claims to no off-wiki interaction with Alex Plank are untrue. She will need to provide evidence of this and in an appropriate environment. The dispute came here because she has used her bias against Wrong Planet to manipulate the interpretation of Wikipedia rules in her favour. Note that my talk page is off limits to everyone and has been for some time.

Point taken re WP:RS issues, for the other users. I'll put something on the WP:RS/N area when I can. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You advise? What. . . that SG prove a negative (the off wiki stuff)? Also note: your talk page is for wiki-business. And finally, with the off-wiki coordination campaign and the insults against SG here, in addition to having to oversight posts by Perl from this board --there should be blocks, and we shouldn't allow the editors who are here for wikipedia to be attacked onsite by outside interests. And Wikipedia doesn't need to give outside interests a platform. Why is this allowed to continue? R. Baley (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you are not Quatermass. Fenric, you don't seem to be following the issue. Perl aka Alex Plank has made an unfounded accusation; you have furthered it, both of you have brought untrue accusations to Wiki. I can't prove a negative; there's no interaction, period, you all made the claim, it's not up to me to prove it. The dispute came here because non-reliable sources were being used in articles, off-Wiki canvassing was occurring, and I wanted to disengage from those articles; while here, others discovered other matters and it has grown to include privacy violations and unfounded statements about me. That was done by you and Alex Plank. Since you removed from your talk page my request that you strike the accusations above,[16] it appears you don't intend to discuss or remedy the untrue accusations. If you think my interpretation of reliable sources is incorrect, by all means ask at WP:RSN if you can use bulletin board posts from Wrong Planet to source Autism Speaks and BLPs. The claims you and Alex Plank have made about me will need to be resolved, but this isn't the place for that, and I don't know why these attacks on me are allowed to continue at AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll weigh in with a support for David Gerard's use of oversight here and JzG and MastCell's opinions on the matter. Perl and Fenric owe Sandy an apology and a retraction. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should I withdraw a comment that has been made in truth? SandyGeorgia is lying - it's that simple, and I stand by it. I don't have access to the block logs so I am in no position to give full details of that but I did see it unfold on the forum concerned. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I do not and have not posted to WrongPlanet, that is simply not true. You (or anyone) can search my name on the forum and see every mention of me there; not coincidentally, neither on any of those threads nor on the multiple occasions going back many months when Alex Plank has put out his calls to arms to revert Wiki articles (and my posts in particular), was I mentioned as a banned user of WrongPlanet. That strange claim first surfaced here, in an apparent attempt to distract and discredit from the other issues with his editing. If you saw this alleged issue unfold on the forum, by all means save those threads and present them, as you will need them if you don't retract this lie. I'm curious to see who I supposedly am on WP, and whether that person's prose is as convoluted as mine. I would like to request that something be done here about Fenric (aka 203.17.215.98 (talk · contribs) [17]) continuing to post lies about me; I tried to engage him on his talk page, but he deleted without response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider who just now read this ANI report and looked at all the diffs including the off site board, I believe that SandyGeorgia is owed an apology and that blocks should be issued already. This behavior in many ways is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also when looking at the off site and some of the users pages of the editors posting here, it appears that a lot of them are teenagers with a grudge of some sort. Alex says in one of his user boxes that he is a teenager. I agree that a negative cannot be proven and SandyGeorgia shouldn't have to prove anything at this point. The problems as I see it are the users are attacking SandyGeorgia and seem to be trying to discredit her. Of course this is just my outside opinion but this situation should be handled quickly and harshly for the behavior that has been shown that shows no help toward the project of writing an encyclopedia, it's more like WP:Soap, WP:GAME, WP:Not#Battleground and so on. There are so many policies being broken I will not bore everyone by listing all of them.

On a different note, I also think that the article stub [18] should be a speedy delete. I don't see it as WP:Notable and it is written by by some of the editors here in this ANI which would be at least a breach of WP:COI. It states it is notable because of a couple of interviews done about this website. Plus it is after all mostly a talk board that is being used to attack Wikipedia and its editors. Anyways, I agree with what other editors here have stated like Mastcell, David Gerard, JzG and others. I really think it's time to put an end to all of this and hand out blocks/bans and delete the offensive materials along with possibly blacklisting the Wrong Planet. Thanks for taking the time to listen to me,--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the comments here re SandyGeorgia. I see no reason why User:Perl should not be blocked for 48 hours for the oversighted edits and repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. We would not let any other user away with this and some have been indef-blocked in the past for similar things. That he has been here 4 years but does not understand the basics of what constitutes a reliable source also worries me. The entity does however seem to be notable, despite the article's issues. Orderinchaos 15:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse I believe a block is reasonable, even one that is a little longer than the 48 hours considering all that has been said here in ANI and on the website Wrong Planet. --CrohnieGal^Talk 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about the article, although note that it attained/maintains notability only because of national press coverage of William Freund, and when you remove that, there's not much left to meet notability. Also, neither Perl nor Fenric have engaged in talk page discussion with me regarding these lies, but for now, at least Alex Plank seems to have stopped, while Curse of Fenric (talk · contribs)—re-appearing only to weigh in on this discussion after a six-month absence of Wiki—continues to repeat the lie and removed my post from his talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: in addition to William Freund, there was another murder of a dermatologist that garnered national attention; both connected to Wrong Planet because the perps posted there. Take those away, and other mentions are non-reliable self-published/blog sources and publicity or press releases. Wrong Planet gained notability on Wiki because two of its posters committed murders that garnered national attention. Interesting path to notability; I don't know if it should be redirected to William Freund. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Those oversighted comments were made in attempt to help another wikipedia editor who was trying to combat a spammer. They contained no private details that are not publicly accessible on the Internet. Perhaps they didn't belong on wikipedia but they were posted in good faith months ago from data gleaned by searching the banned wikipedia spammer's name on google. My personal opinion is that I feel that SandyGeorgia is discussing the issue in a misleading manner in order to discredit the Wrong Planet article.

Wrong Planet has been referenced by the media multiple times for a multitude of different reasons, not just those two incidents. Notability for Wrong Planet comes from the fact that it has thousands of users and has been mentioned by major news agencies in many stories about Asperger's Syndrome and other issues. SandyGeorgia has been on a campaign to discredit the website for quite some time. She was adamant in trying to get the article deleted and other wikipedia editors were opposed to doing so for obvious reasons. Other organizations with less than half the amount of members Aspies for Freedom, for instance, for some reason were not targeted by SandyGeorgia.

The COI issue certainly needs to be addressed by having edits made by uninvolved parties (i.e. those who have not taken part in this discussion) but COI does not negate the fact that Wrong Planet is a significant topic and certainly encyclopedic. Alex (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex Plank, you are experiencing glitches in your truthfulness; please point to a diff that shows where I was "adamant in tryng to get the article deleted"? Perhaps it was the very strident stand I took at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong Planet (sarcasm intended, since I did not)? Alex, I must ask you, formally, to cease and desist on this campaign of mistruths attempting to discredit me, noting that you still haven't produced any evidence for the lie that I am a banned member of Wrong Planet. I have posted to your talk page, trying to engage you in conversation about these lies; please respond there as appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I am sorry that you feel that a campaign of mistruths is being perpetrated against you. I nor anyone else that I know of meant to say anything that would upset you. Based on your denial of being banned, I will assume good faith and seriously consider the possibility that the banned member of Wrong Planet was someone pretending to be you. If you like I'd be perfectly ok with striking any comments I've made about you that you feel are unfair. I would ask that you provide me the same opportunity. Some comments you've made similarly contain "mistruths" concerning me. I am asserting that some statements you've made are misleading and untrue. I have faith that we will be able to work out this misunderstanding. Alex (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to reread this ANI and especially your website about whether attacks were made against SandyGeorgia. She deserves an apology immediately for the stress she has had to endure through all of this. This of course is my opinion as an outside but I was very upset reading all of this and I'm not even involved. --CrohnieGal^Talk 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; striking the false statements that 1) I am a banned WrongPlanet member, and 2) I have tried to get the Wrong Planet article deleted from Wiki will be a good start towards ending this problem. If you will kindly point out to me anything that I have said that is demonstrably inaccurate or untrue, I will gladly strike. Of course, I'm curious that someone was impersonating me on Wrong Planet, but since I regularly check google for occurrences of my name there, and I have not seen that happen in at least the six months since I've been checking, that claim also stretches credulity. Please understand, Alex, that I started this thread here on AN/I for one reason; so that others will begin watching these articles and I can disengage, since I have been resoundingly and unfairly targeted and lied about on your forums, beginning with Mechanima and continued by statements made by you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Specifically, I take issue with your accusations of lying and use of language that implies dishonorable intentions. As I'm sure you're aware, the word 'lying' implies a purposeful deceit. You have no reliable way of knowing what I nor any other of wikipedians believe to be the truth. Consequently, to claim that I would knowingly state something untrue not only shows a lack of good faith but also demonstrates a certain amount of prejudice against the validity of what I have to say. I am sure parties on both sides of this issue have made similar mistakes.

Secondly, when spammers come to the site, their accounts are disabled and their messages are deleted almost immediately so I take issue with your assumption that if you couldn't find it on google, it must not have happened (this also demonstrates a lack of respect)/

I similarly feel unfairly targeted.

Alex (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that you've struck the comments. As to whether it's a lie, note that I granted the possibility that you were confused the first time it came up. Fenric and you continued the accusation long after I denied it. Please strike the incorrect statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also refer you to Wiki's policy on off-Wiki attacks. Your statements about me, my editing, and Wiki articles at WrongPlanet include, but are not limited to:

editors have had many problems with SandyGeorgia in the past. Something needs to be done. Her commits should be reverted... We have the advantage of numbers but we need to act on this advantage![19]

if sandyGeorgia is the one who reverted it, you should just revert it back to your version. She's a wikipedia troll who attempts to control articles on wikipedia. she has no authority, however. ... It was SandyGeorgia. I reverted her edit. The only way to stop her is to not let her bullying pay off. Make sure to watch the page and revert ok? [20]

as I said before, the only way to stop her from ruining the article is to revert her edits that include stuff that isn't cited.[21]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The comments were not attacks on you. The one comment that could even be considered as an attack was made when we were under the impression that you were the same sandygeorgia banned from the Wrong Planet forums. As for the other statements, they merely encourage Wrong Planet members to counter unsourced edits on Wikipedia. You've reverted edits made without references yourself many times in the past. Additionally, you pasted quotes together in misleading fashion. One sentence that was written at a different time was added to another sentence to make the two look as if they were said one after the other. Please use proper quotation formatting to indicate which quotes are excerpts of larger comments. As I said before I'm perfectly willing to strike the comments you take issue with but I ask that you do the same for me. I have not gotten any indication that you are willing to do so and want us to both be on the same page before we go ahead with striking the objectionable statements. Alex (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur: I don't make unsourced edits. And, I've never seen even vague mention of a "sandygeorgia" having posted to WrongPlanet; if "she" did, you (in all good faith) could have simply inquired on my talk page if it was me, but it's interesting that this claim first surfaced on this thread. You've neither struck your statements, nor pointed out anything untrue I've said. If you don't intend to strike, please continue this dialogue on your talk page, as this is now wasting everyone's time; I've got work to do. I suggest the thread be marked resolved and closed if you don't intend to strike, and the harassment against me can be continued in another step of dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, there were a lot of indications that made it seem like you were the same person. We still have reason to believe that you were indeed banned from Wrong Planet. This is a statement of fact. While you could be right about not ever being a member, we're only basing our opinion on what transpired. I am not, and have not, attempted to say anything false about you. I wrote this on my talk page: "I have been making multiple attempts to work things out with you but you do not even acknowledge how antagonistic you're being towards people on wikipedia. I've searched your name on Google and found other people who described you as a bully. By refusing to show any respect towards me as an editor, I am beginning to come to the same conclusion. I am still offering to strike any comments you don't like if you do the same. Despite the fact that moderators on wrong planet strongly believe you to be the same person we banned, I'm even willing to strike that comment. But you have to also at least acknowledge your role in this conflict."Alex (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in on this situation, I suggest formal dispute resolution. This has gone far past everyone needing to take a chill-pill. --Sharkface217 20:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you came here immediately after Sandy posted a message asking for your help on your talk page. I have attempted multiple times to reason with Sandy. I suggested we both strike comments made to one another. She refused to do so. How can we resolve the situation when one party refuses to even engage in any sort of compromise? Sandy, please do the right thing so we can get this over with. Alex (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have warned Perl that the speculation about SandyGeorgia and other inflammatory remarks made here are excessive and need to stop. That, combined with tendentious editing of an article on a subject against whom Perl has a self-admitted real-world agenda, is really not acceptable and needs to stop. This morning's edits reinserting grossly biased material against consensus and several otherwise uninvolved editors give particular cause for concern. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you can remove any comments of mine that you want to strike if it will cause you stop harassing me. I am willing to sign off on any content you want to strike on my behalf. This issue has gone on long enough and I'm tired of getting messages from your friends on my talk page. Alex (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - now as Perl has admitted that the person who was definitely banned from Wrong Planet MIGHT not be SandyGeorgia (the truth is we really don't know either way, and speaking for myself I find it hard to take Sandy at face value - and that's not an attack, that is a truthful personal opinion on my part) I'll echo Perl's above remark to the letter.

Further, the only reason I'm even editing is because of this issue. My talk page will always be cleared of everything except admin instructions (SandyGeorgia is not an admin so I can do what I want with her comments on my talk page) no matter what is said (nice or otherwise). The remark in red at the top makes that clear.

Now I'll just say this in closing. Alex - you personally actually can't add material from Wrong Planet to other articles like Autism Speaks, because that does present an issue with WP:COI - even if what you put is true and verifiable (and it is). It would be better if someone else did it. I'd stick my hand up, but it's likely I'll be labelled a meat puppet of you and that will get both of us into trouble. If someone else not related to the situation could look into this it would be appreciated.

So unless I need to sign off on a SandyGeorgia strike out (per Perl's statement above) I'm out of here. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you do know. I've told you it wasn't me; neither of you have presented any evidence that 1) this alleged person posting to WrongPlanet who pretended to be me ever even occurred, or 2) that it was me. So as long as you drag this onto Wiki after I've told you it's not true, you are 1) failing to AGF, 2) dragging off-Wiki issues to Wiki, and 3) harassing me. Since messages posted to Fenric's and Perl's talk pages are routinely removed,[22][23] and Perl refuses to strike, I guess we're done here. (Except for the interesting edit warring that occurred in July 2006, when Alex used both accounts to insert links to Wrong Planet at Asperger syndrome. Isn't the sockpuppetry supposed to be prominently displayed on both accounts? I know that several of didn't realize he was both accounts when that was happening, and there is no message at Perl about the three alternate accounts, which he also used on Autism Speaks with the WikiBot (talk · contribs) account. Doesn't the sockpuppetry need to be disclosed/displayed on all three accounts?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm having a hard time getting through to you it seems. I specifically stated that you could strike whatever you want of mine in order to get you stop harassing me. Even when I said you can strike anything you want, you then claim I refuse to do so. Wikibot is not a sockpuppet. It's a bot and I accidently made one edit while logged in under that name. You seem to just be looking for a conflict when there isn't one. Alex (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a number of people are having a hard time getting through to you. The reason you are being asked to strike your statements is that is the way you can retract them; by asking me to strike them, you are refusing to retract. I don't care if the lies stand (no one will believe them anyway); if you want to end the false accusations you've made about me, it's up to you to strike to show that you retract the false statements. If you do that, we can move forward amicably. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read through the entire thread, and don't see an occurrence of me calling you a liar, rather me saying these statements about me are lies, untruths, unfounded accusations and misstatements. I could strike every occurrence of these words and change them to other softer words, but doing so won't alter the meaning of the sentence in any case I could find, which is to say that the statements about me are not true. I am not a WrongPlanet poster or member, I have not posted to spammed or trolled WrongPlanet, I have not been banned from WrongPlanet, and I have not attempted to get the Wrong Planet article removed from Wiki. I have no off-Wiki interaction whatsoever with you or WrongPlanet or any of your members. These are untrue statements; there's no other way to state that or sugar coat it or strike and change the wording. I made allowances in the beginning of this discussion, but the accusations continued even after I stated that they are not true. I acknowledge that at some point you may have believed the things you said, so I do not intend to say that you willfully concocted this story, and you have my apology if I've made you feel accused of willful intent to deceive. I recognize that you may have honestly believed the things you said (but I would have appreciated a query on my talk page, if you believed I was posting to your message board). I am sorry if you feel that I said this was a willful intent to deceive, and I am willing to acknowledge it may have been an honest mistake on your part. You can confirm this by striking to retract the statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's not just that I'm a wikifriend of SandyGeorgia's that has encouraged me to post here; I've had a hand in copy-editing and negotiating the summary style of the Aspergers article—a technicallly difficult task given the disparate, fractured state of the literature and the research it has reported, as task that has produced an admirable contribution to the summary literature. I was impressed with Sandy's professionalism in the preparation of that and other articles; she is one of the most reasonable WPians you could ever hope to meet; and she now performs an exemplary role as delegated FA Director, which is a key mechanism by which we maintain/raise the standards of all WP's articles. This is why I find the deprecation of this most valuable member of community—for no good reason as I see it here—to be totally unreasonable. I have first-hand acquaintance as an onlooker with what I regard as the unhelpful and, at times, hysterical and destructive approach of Zeraeph. I find it extraordinary that the influence of this user is back again so soon after a ?12-month ban. I find the Wrong Planet article to be highly questionable in terms of its text and, in particular, its in-house verification. WP's authority on the Internet cannot afford to be brought into disrepute by such loose standards as are evident in that article, and Sandy's role in bringing it to our notice should be commended. Tony (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Outside View of poster with possible bias. In the absence of any verifiable reference for all the accusations; SandyGeorgia unable to prove an absence, and supposed edits to WrongPlanet being removed (and unrecoverable?) we must only look to what WP provides us in the way of resolution. Per AGF we must believe both Perl and Curse of Fenric and also SandyGeorgia. Perl and Curse of Fenric have an absolute right to believe what they wish regarding edits to WrongPlanet, but in the absence of any proof SandyGeorgia has the right not to have her good name tarnished by unsupported claims. I do not believe SandyGeorgia has any need to defend her on-Wiki actions or reputation, and I further believe that Perl's and Curse of Fenric should now cease making these accusations. If there was any substance (i.e. evidence) then it should have been presented by now, and it hasn't. As a previously uninvolved party, I would strongly suggest that this discussion end now. LHvU (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• The personal animus directed against SandyGeorgia is misguided, unfair to her, and counterproductive. She is simply applying Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, policies which have not only been adopted by the community, but are consistent with the standards for such sources in the scientific and medical communities.

Wikipedia at its best can do no more than reflect scientific consensus. It should not be used as a means to attempt to change that consensus. Those who find that consensus somehow deficient and who seek a place to register that disagreement must look to their own forums and resources; they should not make Wikipedia the instrument of challenging that consensus. Wikipedia is a mirror and perhaps a lens; it is not a tool or a weapon. There is of course room in Wikipedia for addressing legitimate differences of opinion on scientific and medical issues, but those differences must be supported by reliable sources.

It may be satisfying to some to personalize their disagreements with consensus and sourcing standards, by too-eagerly assuming bad faith and too-readily paying heed to those whose advocacy has degenerated into personal attacks. SandyGeorgia has been the subject of these efforts. But she is doing no more than applying the standards of the community, and as indicated above, the community will stand with her in enforcing those standards and protecting from personal attack those who carry them out. She is not the issue here. Those who have attacked her should strike those attacks and stop personalizing this, for her sake, their sake, and the good of Wikipedia. Kablammo (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec Reply to LHvU, thank you for acknowledging your possible bias as a participant in the ArbCom case leading to the ban of Zeraeph, the editor who started these claims about me on Wrong Planet.) Anyone can believe anything they want; for example, that the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. Alex Plank and Curse of Fenric have translated their off-Wiki beliefs to Wiki and stated them as fact, have presented no evidence (of course, since it didn't happen, there can be none), and have persisted with the accusation even after I stated it's not true. When off-Wiki beliefs become unfounded accusations and unretracted statements of fact on wiki, that violates AGF and NPA. Alex Plank has had ample time to retract, he hasn't, Fenric hasn't either, and the more important issue of getting extra eyes on the COI editing and off-Wiki canvassing against Wiki articles was addressed within hours of this thread first being posted (there have been other breaches, POV deletions of critical material, available by browsing the article's history and the off-Wiki canvassing requests,[24] but I don't believe it's in my interest to be the one raising these issues any more since I've been targeted, and will leave it to others to watch and discover from here forward; more important is just to stop the COI editing moving forward and be aware of recruiting and canvassing). Nothing else to be done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

-Sharkface217 agreed to informally arbitrate this at Sandy's request. I agreed to Sharkface's terms but Sandy has ignored the suggestion. In addition to this, I've already given Sandy the authority to strike anything she doesn't want on my behalf if it will resolve the issue. I'm trying to take the high road here. I'd like Sandy to do the same. [25] Alex 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not correct on any count; perhaps you overlooked above where I specifically addressed your concerns about respecting you, acknowledged that you may have believed these things to be true, and apologized that you felt accused of a willful intent to deceive.[26] I cannot strike your content; I'm fairly certain that would be against WP:TALK guidelines, and you are requested to demonstrate good faith by striking the untrue statements about me (that I have posted to Wrong Planet, that I am a banned member of Wrong Planet, and that I have tried to get the Wrong Planet article removed from Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am giving you permission to strike anything of mine you believe to be untrue. Since you're the one with the complaint, I have given you permission to retract my statements on my behalf. I do not want to be accused of retracting the wrong thing and since everything I've posted I believe to be true, I can't identify which things you think are lies (aside from the two you mentioned). The ball is in your court now so I am removing myself from this discussion. Alex 18:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackworm disrupting discussion pages

Blackworm (talk · contribs) has resumed his long-running campaign of soapboxing on gender-related issues, currently at at Talk:Sexism and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#What_is_systemic_bias.3F and Talk:Sexism#More_information_about_misandry_than_misogyny. I left a warning on his talk, which was removed with the comment that it was "harrasment".

Blackworm's recent troubles include assuming bad faith when offered mediation: see User talk:Blackworm#Request_for_mediation_accepted ... but it's hard to pick out parts of Blackkworm's history in this area without being arbitrarily selective, because almost the whole of Blackworm's involvement in these issues appears to involve conflict.

The latest episode fits a long-standing pattern which is akin to trolling: trying to engage editors in wide-ranging debate by raising open-ended philosophical questions on relatively simple issues (such as the purpose of WP:SB), and then accusing others of personal attack or censorship when asked to desist.

Can this be dealt with by admin action per WP:TE and WP:DE, or is a matter for an RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another relevant discussion thread is this one[27] at talk:Wikiproject gender studies. There was an WP:AN posting about this same issue back in January where User:Pigman brought many of the same problems to community attention[28]. Since then Blackworm has continued with the same tendentious behaviour, still treating WP as a battleground and as a soapbox. These are some instances of accusations he has leveled at specific editors: Lquilter, myself and SirFozzie and Pigman--Cailil ^talk 13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been loosely following Blackworm's participation in discussions and work since I posted to the Admin's noticeboard in January 2008. I've hesitated to take action because his perspective and arguments run counter to my own. This has made it a little difficult for me to discern whether my motivations are purely to counter his disruptive and tendentious behaviour or to act to eliminate an opposing but entirely valid viewpoint presented in a somewhat abrasive manner. In an ideal world, I'd be entirely clear on the distinction between violations of WP policies and spirited counterargument. In this case I'm finding it difficult to sort through.

Blackworm has consistently made attempts to insist on his views in the face of the often overwhelming consensus of other experienced editors. My observation is he is determined to insert his minority views on gender/sexuality related articles by invoking WP:NPOV and claiming these views need equal representation. The problem is that he rarely offers little in the way of good WP:V and WP:RS sources to support these views. Then it comes down to him saying he thinks a perspective should be represented equally with all others, regardless of sourcing, a very problematic viewpoint for the encyclopedia.

As I noted in January, his contribs are overwhelmingly on talk pages, indicating he is more interested in discussion than actual work on the articles. Normally, this would be a commendable sign of communication and attempts to reach compromise and consensus but, generally, I've observed him to be argumentative and belligerent rather than working with others to reach solutions in conflicts.

Because of my ambivalence in this case, I'm not comfortable with personally taking action but I entirely agree with BrownHairedGirl and Cailil that Blackworm's participation is more disruptive than productive. Cheers, Pigman☿ 15:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again you three. I again deny BrownHairedGirls's claim of my being involved in any "campaign." I don't believe two discussion threads posted more than two months apart constitute a campaign. I can't help but perceive sexism, racism, bias and illogic in the stated aims of those WikiProjects. I'm not asserting the existence of these things, I'm relating my impressions and asking questions on those discussing pages that will hopefully allow me to understand that the projects are not sexist, etc. This is made difficult by a few editors who pounce on me and demand that I go away for asking such questions.

I strongly deny assuming bad faith with respect to the mediation I'm involved with (in fact I explicitly deny it in the section linked above), and I object to the accusation, especially considering this mediation is currently active and ongoing and the accusation pollutes it. If I was assuming bad faith in mediation, I would guess that I would have been told by now by the mediator. Since this is not the case, I demand you keep your speculation and bad faith accusations to yourself.

I follow the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. I am sorry if this causes me to enter into disputes in the gender-related articles that you edit. I consistently have my position misrepresented, however, most recently when BrownHairedGirl asserted that I was demanding equal representation for sexism against men and women on the sexism article, when really the only thing I said was a denial of the original poster's assertion that the article currently deals more with misandry than misogyny. Note that in Talk:Sexism, BrownHairedGirl made an arguably soapboxing speech alluding to women and the right to vote, and women in business, and when I responded with an example of what I believe to be sexism, accused me of soapboxing and WP:OR. The claims were referenced, only the conclusion of sexism was arguably WP:SYN -- but this hostile, vehement attack seems completely misplaced given that the entire sexism article contains no cites and references! Anyway, I'm glad to further discuss that, but then BrownHairedGirl demands my silence at the end of every detailed reply to my posts, insisting on the last word. Fine.

If I am blunt, and (sometimes) steadfast in my position with regard to article content even in the face of outnumbered opposition, that is no different from the editors I have been involved in discussions and disputes with, especially in circumcision and circumcision-related articles, which are dominated by one particular editor. Perhaps it's the behaviour that I have learned "works." The important thing is, I don't force my view into articles, I respond politely and with good faith in disputes (not immediately jumping to claim bad faith as is the case here), and I abide by consensus. I do let my view be heard, however; and my views sometimes seem to upset those who disagree with me as much as their views upset me. I don't see that as abnormal in dealing with these controversial subjects.

I believe that most readers would agree that the questions I ask on the two WikiProject Talk pages are not open ended nor philosophical. I am concerned with them because they are the only places in official Wikipedia space, as far as I know, that specifically call for actively countering the points of view of specific racial and gender groups which they list. I have yet to be convinced there is a sound basis for these actions, and thus have taken my concerns to the project members in what I believe is a respectful way. Many editors have responded with respect and reciprocated good faith; others, such as Cailil and BrownHairedGirl, immediately respond with personal attacks, failures to assume good faith, and demands for silence backed by threats of administrative action.

I want to specifically thank Pigman for his insightful post above. Again, however, I deny that I am demanding equal representation for minority points of view, and strongly request evidence for that claim. I am demanding their representation in areas I feel the majority view is presented as fact, or the minority view is misrepresented or presented as fringe, per WP:NPOV. It may surprise you to learn that I don't even share some of these minority views personally, and have been commended on my neutrality and objectivity both here and in my real-life interactions with others.

Remember, it takes two to have an argument. I again invite the neutral reader to look at my recent contributions, read the talk pages I'm involved in, read the mediation I'm involved in, and above all not to simply read selected contributions referenced by my longtime critics here, along with their commentary and often improper interpretation of those contributions. Blackworm (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pigman. I brought this here because I disagree with Blackworm on most (but not all) of the substantial points he raises, and because of that I don't feel comfortable acting alone.

The overall pattern I see is of someone who is looking for things to argue about, rather than for ways to improve the encyclopedia. His contributions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic_bias#What_is_systemic_bias.3F is based on nit-picking about the definition of the word "systemic". Encarta's definition is "1. of system: relating to or affecting a system as a whole", which reflects the usage at WP:CSB, but whatever the merits either way of the definitional argument, what difference does it make? WP:CSB identifies an persistent imbalance in coverage, notes that it reflects the interests of contributors, and sets out to redress the imbalance in coverage.

At Talk:Sexism, Blackworm's opening contribution included the assertion that "Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress": that's an attack on other editors, and an expression of Blackworm's views on the subject of sexism (which is soapboxing). I have challenged Blackworm to start provide references for the inclusion of material which reflects his understanding of the subject, and I'll await the response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is also a relevant edit summary:"How strange that a member of Wikiproject: Gender Studies, a group with a goal to eliminate systemic gender bias, would add "women's rights" but not "men's rights." Hmmmm"[29] - which responded to USer:Grrrlriot's addition of Women's rights and Equal rights to Right. Blackworm's summary is an allegation of deliberate omission of men's rights by Grrrlriot which is an assumption of bad faith. Blackworm's claims that pages have been "hijacked by feminists and profeminists" are a very old problem[30][31]. There is also his altercation with myself at talk:feminism (Talk:Feminism#Persons_of_interest) which is a continuation of the same issue to teh present.

I do think it would be helpful if some outside sysops would review this issue in general - I personally am happy to have my behaviour examined and I'm sure everyone else would be too. Blackworm has made a number of serious accusations about a large number of editors - but has provided no proof of these allegations--Cailil ^talk 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I again deny your accusations. In the first contribution you reference, there is no allegation of deliberate omission. The other contributions you reference are over a year old. I claimed that one page (not pages) was "hijacked," and the claim was misplaced and inappropriate, although echoed by others in that discussion at the time. Blackworm (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict.] You don't seem to be awaiting a response, if you're simultaneously demanding my silence. I am quoted out of context above, and I invite the reader to read the post that prompted that response, which said: Yes, some editors are so concerned that "feminists" or "anti-male editors" will try to ruin wikipedia that they go overboard in requiring "equal treatment"; we end up with what is clearly a disproportionate emphasis on misandry etc. Is that not an attack on editors? Why did you jump on my apparent attack on editors, but not on Lquilter's?

I don't dispute the meaning of "systemic." I question the assertion that systemic bias exists here and must be countered. Again, I dispute that there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup of a group of editors, as these projects seem to assert. If that were true, what is stopping one from asserting "systemic bias" in any group of editors (e.g. WP:GS) based on their demographic makeup, or indeed any particular editor on the basis of their gender and race? It seems to me like a tolerated failure to WP:AGF on a grand scale. Also, some editors involved in those projects routinely interchangeably use the word "systematic" to describe the bias, which carries a notion of planning and intent (1. done methodically: carried out in a methodical and organized manner). Indeed, the WP:GS page said "systematic" until I changed it, a change which persists to this day. Are the majority of editors inserting bias in a methodical and organized manner? Can you see how a devotee of WP:AGF might object to this apparent assertion of two WikiProjects? In any case, I've said what I needed to say on this; and until someone is able to answer the questions I posed on the two WikiProjects' discussion pages, I have nothing to add to them. Blackworm (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm's conduct shows many of the classic techniques of trolling:

Playing word games

• You say "I don't dispute the meaning of "systemic."" ... but that's exactly what you did here when you cited a selective list of definitions (culled not from a dictionary, but from a wikipedia disambiguation page, which is a navigational tool not a list of definitions).

No, I did not do that there. I asked which of the meanings were being used in that group, as a starting point for discussion. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Using straw man arguments

• You say that you "dispute that there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup" ... but I have seen no claim by anyone except you that there "must automatically" be any such thing. What is noted at WP:CSB is that there a bias exists; there is no claim that that it "must automatically exist"

Well, all right, if you want to get technical, I challenge the claim that there is "systemic bias." So far, you have nothing but WP:OR when it comes to supporting your claim that such bias exists. When I ask for evidence of bias, I'm presented with a few examples of debatable imbalance in articles, rather than a proper reliable Wikipedia-wide study of imbalance. If such a study were done, and it came to conclusion of encyclopedia-wide imbalance, that would seem to be the only valid evidence to suggest bias, and thus seemingly the only valid evidence to condone actively editing articles in pursuit of countering this bias. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, enough.
First you try pinning on others the claim that they believe "there must automatically be bias in favour of certain racial and gender groups based on the demographic makeup" ... and then when challenged you back down, and claim that your argument is about the evidence, which is not OR, and which has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
This constant shifting of your stance is why I think you are a troll: it's a technique designed to perpetuate an argument rather than resolve anything. Enough: open an RFC if you want to, and set out your case, but cut the trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(interrupted post continues)

Misrepresenting others

• Blackworm says that I "made an arguably soapboxing speech alluding to women and the right to vote, and women in business". Wrong: you raised at Talk:Sexism an allegation of "imbalanced coverage", to which I responded with to an example of the effects of sexism, and asked for counter-examples.

I cannot find the phrase "imbalanced coverage" anywhere in that discussion, and I would appreciate it if you would strike out that quote and rephrase. I pointed to an imbalance of information, an imbalance I believe is appropriate given the imbalance in reliable sources discussing sexism against females versus sexism against females. I objected to the previous claim that the smaller amount of information on sexism against males was an over-representation. Again, I'd appreciate it if you didn't read more into my words than what I say. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting his own conduct;

• Blackworm claims above

  "I consistently have my position misrepresented, however, most recently when BrownHairedGirl asserted that I was demanding equal representation for sexism against men and women on the sexism article, when really the only thing I said was a denial of the original poster's assertion that the article currently deals more with misandry than misogyny."

  Blackwood did indeed correct the original poster as he claims, but he completed that post by a comment which could be read either as general soapboxing or as an attack on contributors to the article "Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress"

Again, I was alluding to Lquilter's prior categorization. I believe your interpretation of my remarks is a misrepresentation given that context. I believe my comments to be a de-escalation compared to Lquilter's comments. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Claiming different objectives to those actually purused

• Blackworm claims above that he is "blunt, and (sometimes) steadfast in my position with regard to article content". But a quick examination of Blackworm's contributions at WP:CSB shows nothing about content, and at Talk:Sexism#More_information_about_misandry_than_misogyny Blackworm has reacted angrily to repeated suggestions that he start providing references to support the addition of content he considers appropriate.

That seems to be your opinion, and I respect that, but I deny being angry, especially not angrier than you. Your comments could be viewed as escalating, also. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been ongoing for months. Blackworms notes "Perhaps it's the behaviour that I have learned "works."" Perhaps; and if so, it's time to put a stop to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, another approach would be to teach me it doesn't work by reading the last three or four archives of Talk:Circumcision, where the behaviour I refer to is endlessly rewarded by administrators, then proving to me it doesn't work by putting a stop to it there. Then I would have no choice but to stop believing that behaviour is sanctioned and acceptable. Unlike a few editors I have encountered recently, I wouldn't talk to administrators or AN/I just because I disagreed with someone on content or interpretations of conduct. You won't find much talk about it here. Blackworm (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that most readers would agree that the questions I ask on the two WikiProject Talk pages are not open ended nor philosophical. I am concerned with them because they are the only places in official Wikipedia space, as far as I know, that specifically call for actively countering the points of view of specific racial and gender groups which they list." If you are concerned that a project is "inappropriate" then take it to RFC. But making unsubstantiated claims about the purpose of WP:CSB and WP:GS on Talk:Sexism like this is inappropriate as is giving your opinion about what "masculinities" as an area of research[32]. And as stated to you before adjusting the aims of a Wikiproject which you don't want to join to a version against the consensus of the project members is also inappropriate[33]--Cailil ^talk 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, I think that's a useful way forward. If Blackworm wants to change the aims of WP:CSB, he can open an RFC; and if he thinks that it should be deleted, he can take it WP:MFD. But it's time for an end to the soapboxing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can abide by that -- the discussion thread on Talk:Sexism being derailed from the start by accusations against editors, I'd just as soon see it end. And you're right, discussions should be about content, which must be sourced. I see a lot of possible WP:OR in that article, so maybe I can contribute by sourcing material and deleting unsourced material. I'll try to show you that I'm not what you imply I am.

On the matter of WP:CSB and its child project (so I'm told) WP:GS, does that mean that the discussion is over? Should someone there answer my question(s), would a reply from me short of taking it to WP:MFD be seen as inappropriate? I respect your position as an administrator, and I would like to know if you are closing that discussion at this time, with no response to my claim of the projects' fundamental assumptions justifying its actions resting on WP:OR above. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It might helpful if you asked your questions at WT:CSB rather than Talk:sexism. As far as I can see Puchiko & Wikiacc have answered the questions you asked on the project talk page. The post you made about WP:CSB on talk:sexism is off-topic (see WP:TALK). And a correction - WP:GS is a project "with connections" to WP:CSB not its child project--Cailil ^talk 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Return of a banned user

I would like some opinions on the issue of an editor apparently returning to en.wiki after being banned for one year. Namely, Stefanomencarelli initiated an arbcom that ruled substantially against the incivil behaviour exhibited. The banned editor may be operating under 190.140.234.59 but has so far although returning to the "old neighbourhood" and making mainly inconsequential submissions, has been a "good faith editor." I would be inclined to keep an eye on this account and other anons who exhibit similar editing patterns but again have not participated in any disruptive actions. What say you? FWIW, the aforementioned editor may be legitimately trying to re-establish himself as a reformed contributor, and I would have no problem with that. Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Hi there, some users might actually change from being a ¨vandal¨ to a reformed contributor, as you said. Therefore, for now, I would assume good faith! Have a nice day! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thus, as long as he's not causing any problems there's nothing to worry about. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is that it goes against policy. A 1-year ban from arbcom wasn't put in place for them to simply sidestep it - it's there for them to have a lengthy time-out and to use that time for self-reflection. It's like going to jail and breaking out - sure, you may have changed, but you still have to do the time. And I think they can have an arbcom ban appealed by the mailing list, can't they? If this user really has reformed, then I don't see any reason why arbcom shouldn't allow them back. Valtoras (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy is, ultimately, nonbinding. If it comes down to a choice between following the rules or making the encyclopedia better, the rules lose. Bureaucratic masturbation takes a back seat to getting actual work done. As long as the anon sock hasn't been causing any problems and has been editing productively, enforcing this particular rule against him would mean a net loss to the encyclopedia. There's no reason to worry about it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:11, 23 March 2008(UTC)

Wrong Kurt. Bans are bans. Blocks are blocks. I suggest you read up before talking down to people. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I'm quite aware of the difference. The principle still applies. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Undo by user MezzoMezzo in Islamic Music article

The User:MezzoMezzo has undone my referenced addition to the article Islamic music calling them not true factually and historically (see this) and according to article's talk page, this user has done this act upon new additions before. Please do the necessary acts. Regards, Dany (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears as though the user is violating WP:3RR on top of removing references. This kinda smacks of WP:OWN, although I don't like making such accusations directly to users. I would drop a note on their talk page and the discussion page about the reverts. If it continues, warn about 3RR. Also, it couldn't hurt to go to WP:RFC/U. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what exactly is being spoken of, I haven't even come close to violating the three revert rule on that article. Furthermore, Danrah's insertion was blatantly POV and the references were from a fringe site presenting "facts" which were not historically true. The site also uses the term "Wahhabi", which is a religious slur, to support a straw man argument. I am actually quite appalled that this user brought this here without even attempting to discuss the issue with me, and I am just downright confused as to where this accusation of a WP:3RR violation is coming from. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is MezzoMezzo's view that is not factual. Islam permits singing under the condition that it not be in any way obscene or harmful to Islamic morals. Having said that, this is not the place to resolve the content disputes.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User:MezzoMezzo has undone my additions again. (see this )Dany (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Doctor (Doctor Who)

On 18:07 March 1, 2008, I submitted edits to the article Doctor (Doctor Who), among which were two additions that have led to problems. One involved regeneration and the line of dialog, "...dead too long this time..." from the 1996 Dr. Who telefilm, the other the TARDIS's alternate console room seen throughout the 1976-77 season of the original Who programme, introduced in the serial The Masque of Mandragora. They were promptly reverted by User:Edokter, claiming in his edit summary that they were speculation. The latter edit has just been effectively conceded (one of the people in the dispute just made a mere minor fine tuning-type edit to my restoration of it), but the other remains disputed. However the disputes, seen first in edit summaries then in a talk page thread, Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)#Reverting reversion by Edokter, have been far less than reasonable. First User:Ckatz replied to my posted defense of my work, then Edokter himself joined the discussion. Neither have ever actually dealt with what I posted in my defense (which was an airtight case), nor acknowledged my saying in subsequent posts that they have done so. I had also pointed out that there are things in the article, including what the alt. console room edit of mine was refuting, was speculation, and their failure to remove them as well was dubious. No mention of this from them, either. After my posting of March 6 was not responded to for two weeks, I assumed concession by default and reposted the three edits that had been in dispute (User:DonQuixote, after making a factually indefensible statement about the regeneration edit, made compromise suggestions for the other two, one of which—for the edit I have not specified here—I stated then that I accepted and is what I posted, but no actions were taken or even comments made by the other two editors on either). Ckatz reverted the regeneration edit with no new ground stated, but, as I said, merely did a minor fine tuning to the alt. console room passage, effectively conceding its basic validity. Both he and Edokter added new replies to the thread, having no more validity in the context of the actual facts than any of their previous postings; Edokter's suggests that at that time he was unaware Ckatz had conceded the one edit. I recommend most strenuously that they both be subjected to disciplinary action, especially Edokter.

If you are wondering why there are no links to "diff" pages, it is because the only way I know to do them is according to the instructions on Help:Diff, which when followed to the letter simply do not work. I posted a comment to this effect with more specifics on Help talk:Diff#The instructions here don't work on 10 January 2008, but there has as yet been no reply or action. Ted Watson (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Admins do not settle content disputes. You have made no accusations of anyone violating policy, so there appears to be nothing for an admin to do. --Tango (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If the involved parties cannot come to a consensus, the next step would be dispute resolution. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The complaint was of not discussing in good faith. If that's not a violation of policy, then the policies are absurd. Ted Watson (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

After your first post, two different admins investigated the issue and left friendly messages on your talk page urging you to dial-down the rhetoric and be more civil to others. The hostility of your reply coupled with your abject refusal to even read No angry mastodons or Beware of the tigers is rather telling. You accuse other editors of having "lied" [34] (emphasis not mine), call the work of others "garbage" [35], describe the opinions expressed here on AN/I as "offensive—and incompetent" [36], and even denigrate those who try to help you [37]. To be perfectly frank, I am rather shocked that you do not have a talk page full of civility and no personal attack warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ip disruption

There are Ips going around replacing core wikipedia namespace pages (village pump, ANI, AN, etc) with "hello" and then a random number of some sort. They seem to be coming back every time they are blocked too, an example is provided here [38], and here is another [39], [40] newest version so far. Thoughts on this? AndreNatas (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Obvious solution: hit the fucker with a range-block, surely? Don't have the technical ability for that myself, but someone online must do. Moreschi (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like the Canadian 172 vandal, with a new MO. How I've always wanted a range block for AOL. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Back again, they also seem to be using a vandal bot by that speed [41]. AndreNatas (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, just multiple tabs works as well. Can't rangeblock? Then all I can suggest is RBI. Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. (I'm not an admin) Wouldn't a rangeblock to all of 172.xxx block every single person on 172.xxx? How can an IP use bots??? Should they just be blocked on sight? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the contributions for the 172.128.0.0/10 range (AOL), and there's a large number of positive contributions by non-vandals just today. A rangeblock would be quite inappropriate, given the sheer numbers of non-vandalism edits. Also, for AstroHurricane001, they mean bots as in "automated programs" not user accounts with the +bot flag set. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

ESCStudent774441

I blocked ESCStudent774441 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours for disruption, rudeness and completely failing to get it (for multiple values of it). Something tells me it might be simpler just to indef this one, but he's asking for (or is that demanding?) unblocking, so please review. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrigible troll with no useful contributions and even less clue. (Declaration, it was me he was trolling).--Doc^g 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the case, but I've rejected the unblock request on the simple grounds that he didn't give a reason. I need a little more than "it's unjust" to unblock someone. --Tango (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ECed with you Tango, sorry about that... I reviewed enough edits in the time prior to the block being placed (at Doc's request) that I endorse the block as sound, and I declined it as well... ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've just declined it a third time and protected his Talk page for 12 hours. I think three bites at the cherry, combined with Admin-shopping, is enough. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked

I just indefinitely blocked ESCStudent774441 (talk · contribs). If anyone can see why we should let this tedious charade continue, by all means unblock...and good luck with any mentorship... — Scientizzle 02:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

and I thought for a while that I'd got through to him. Never mind, my mistake. I doubt now that any mentorship could be productive. WP:RBI and WP:BEANS indeed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• How dare you! You've violated his legal right to free speech! Clearly we must unblock to allow him to shop us all to ArbCom for this flagrant abuse of his constitutional rights. Otherwise we're surely all headed for Trenton, New Jersey. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

@Guy... hehe... he did make some threats, I feel, as I opined on his talk and mine, although didn't mention NJ, I think he actually claims to go to school at SUNY in Saratoga Springs. Subsequent to Scientizzle's indef (note that this indef came from the very admin he was insisting review his 24h instead of just any random admin) I asked him straight up if he is prepared to do things correctly. He answered yes to all 3 of my rather direct questions, so there will be no room for further waffling. Call me a softie, I guess, but I'd give him one more chance based on that... (VERY short leash, mind you) and I've asked Scientizzle for concurrance. If he agrees, I'll unblock but won't hesitate to reblock. (I suppose he did already agree, see above). My expectations are low (I usually get burned, as you all point out to me each time :) ) but I'm willing to try one more time... Thoughts? Brickbats? Prearranged snickering? :) ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• I diagnose testosterone poisoning, also known as Angry Young Man Syndrome. I have no opinion on whether he's ever likely to be of much use to the project, but he needs to lose the chip on his shoulder and the exaggerated sense of entitlement and his own importance. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:S7740 is going through other users's Talk and Talk archive pages and deleting his/her comments

S7740 (talk · contribs) is claiming copyright to all Talk page comments they've added and is deleting all of them from everybody's Talk pages and Talk page archives. Corvus cornix_talk 03:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I now see that I don't have copyright to my comments, but didn't realise it was such a bad thing to remove them. I don't really see the problem, as it is not forbidden.--S7740 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is not considered appropriate behavior to remove your comments see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. Jeepday (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, you do have copyright to your comments, to the extent that they are eligible for copyright protection. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't state that it is not appropriate or prohibited to change or remove your own comments, but merely suggests some guidelines for doing so.--S7740 (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is considered extremely rude to do so, as 1) it disrupts the continuity of the conversation in question, obliterating needed context, and 2) other people may use those comments as reference in future situations. Unless your decision is to forgo common courtesy in favor of pointless control over your comments, then it is best to leave them intact. —Kurykh 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you might consider it rude, but I'd rather you didn't state your personal views about what constitutes 'common courtesy' as fact, and recognise that in a global community such as this, other viewpoints than your own exist. Please do not also make assumptions about what is pointless or not, as this kind of assertion presumes that you alone have the right to decide if other people's actions are justified. Which would seem to be an arrogant position to take.--S7740 (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to suddenly remove my comment above for no apparent reason, rendering your response as a statement coming out of the blue, would I be doing you a disservice and making you sound foolish? This type of courtesy is not as subjective as you cast. I may be primarily speaking for myself, but from the comments by others above, I can sense that there are others who agree with my statements. You need not condescend to me about the existence of differing viewpoints, as I know full well they exist, or else we won't be here discussing this matter. —Kurykh 05:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The comments of my own that I deleted had no replies in existence, therefore your point about context is irrelevant and presumptious, and you are merely interjecting in a matter which you have insufficient background information. It was not my intention to appear condescending toward you, but merely to make you aware that you were stating personal views in a way that implied them to be inviolable truth. --S7740 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you have a reason for removing your comments from pages? Mr.Z-man 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that, for being released under the GFDL, anyone can restore them all, and therefore what you are doing is futile? Without a valid reason, it may be seen as disruptive. By the way, you own the copyright to the comments you had done, but you have licensed them under the GFDL. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several. The matter was closed and I wanted to move on from it, plus there was no context anyway, amongst other things. But I don't feel I should have to justify my reasons anyway, because I wasn't breaking any kind of rules, except I suppose the unspoken rule of wikipedia amongst some who lay in wait here to stomp on every new edit, which is to make up the rules as they go along, according to their own prejudices and convoluted pedantry.--S7740 (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Rey, I know it's futile, and I'm not doing it now. I only did it once on one page, and a couple of times on another, because I didn't realise that I was being instantly reverted and therefore tried a few times because I thought something wasn't working. The title of this thread is misleading because it gives the impression that I'm making changes in a big way here and am constantly doing it, which is just not true. In fact the thread title actually sounds like something a child would scream out to a teacher in class to get someone else in trouble. Regarding futility, I've now come to realise that attempting to make any changes at all here in this pedant's paradise is a really rather futile exercise in frustration. --S7740 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just a system of traditions that we aren't very good at writing down. Now that you've discovered a problem, feel free to help us solve it. — Dan | talk 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The comments in question are (for the most part) located here for the sake of posterity. S7740 feels his comments are not part of the larger discussion. I disagree: part of this sort of community is the dialogue that takes place in building this encyclopedia. Yes, that's hopelessly Utopian of me. In the end S7740 had initially attempted to insert some information into the written history of an article. When two editors challenged this, he became belligerent (and, dare I say, often pedantic) in his frustrations: Wikipedia simply wasn't doing what he wanted it to do. We were all at fault. We moved too slow. We were pedantic. When he didn't get what he wanted, he simply tried to erase his presence here. I guess some people are just like that. What can you do? freshacconcispeaktome 13:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Kurykh's view of courtesy here is very widely shared.DGG (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I get some help with User:AeturnalNarcosis concerning fair use of album covers?

AeturnalNarcosis (talk · contribs) is adding album covers with fair use rationales only for the album articles to the article about the band. When I repeatedly try to explain to him/her that that's not a valid use of fair use images, the user replies with incivility [42] and [43], for example. Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Along these same lines, I could use a hand at Ashley Alexandra Dupré‎, where Justmeherenow (talk · contribs) persists in inserting an album cover image into the article to illustrate the subject. ➪HiDrNick! 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but that's probably a slight mischaracterization, as the image is being used in an album infobox as album cover art, not to identify the article subject. Nesodak (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a picture of the article subject! ➪HiDrNick! 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And? It's not being used to identify the person, it's being used way, way down in the article to ID the album in an album infobox. Nesodak (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The conversation is taking place at IfD here, which is probably the most appropriate place for it. Nesodak (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems re: image

As I understand it, images licensed under a {{GFDL}} must identify the author to conform with the license. Around two months ago this image was uploaded here, the uploader listed it as GFDL but didn't provide the author's identity. The site it comes from does not either.

• A 2/4/2008 thread at possibly unfree images determined it could indeed possibly be unfree but since we don't know should therefore be "kept".
  
• A new thread was opened 2/29/2008 at Images and media for deletion, and still awaits resolution. Would somebody please close the discussion either:
   • keeping the image and explaining why so I don't repeat the same mistake.
  or
   • deleting it, and if I'm wrong about the copyright reason explaining why so I don't repeat the same mistake.

Anynobody 08:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I hope this does not need saying, but we don't assume images are free unless there is proof otherwise, all images are inherently copyright unless explicitly released by the rights owner. It would need a fair use rationale, and the onus is on those seeking to include the image, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. But it should undoubtedly be removed from Commons, as there is absolutely no credible evidence to back the assertion that it is free. Commons is not for unfree images. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• commons vapourised it some days ago. I suggest en do likewise.Geni 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#I4, or maybe WP:CSD#I3. Either way, I agree. It only seems to be proposed as a way of supporting a certain POV anyway, from what I can see. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this as sarcasm, but thank you so much, really, for saying we don't assume images are free unless there is proof otherwise, it's exactly what I've been saying to those trying to keep said image and now coming from someone uninvolved maybe they'll finally listen. Anynobody 03:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been saying the same thing too! Guilty until proven innocent. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Grawp harassing edit at Eridani Edict

Eridani Edict is non-notable {{honorverse}} thing and I removed a one-off redlink to an even less notable bit of fancruft and suddenly a vandal shows up and undoes my edit. I reverted and two IPs showed up to play an undo with a bit of vandalism followed by 2nd IP removing just the vandalism game. This is so Grawp. Seen it many times.

• [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp

For the past week throw away accounts and IPs have been undoing many edits of mine to "Honorverse" stuff. I request review of all this.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello upon reading this thread and looked at the article, he's just been at it again, reverted it though. [50]. AndreNatas (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we're live - this is ongoing. Thanks, and Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Grawp is currently attempting to remove this ANI thread with an ideal number of Ips, I think we should Sprotect this page. AndreNatas (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Perl (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• So how about someone semi-protects Eridani Edict? This has not stopped. The diffs above are far from all of it; see the new section at the checkuser case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this still seems to be going on, I've semi-protected it for a week. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tomorrow, I'll see which of the other honorverse articles I've edited today he moves onto when I pack-in for today (which is soon); this is the ongoing pattern. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to rain on your parade, Jack, but those look like the same style of edits as was used to post death threats to User:J Milburn last week. However, as Grawp targets (such as Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) and yourself) have also simultaneously had edit-links c&p'd to an off-site forum (I'm not saying which, and I will redact any mention of them) for mass-spamming of death threats, I believe that these users and Grawp are allied. These IPs aren't Grawp - Alison ferreted out his IP range in the original Grawp CU case (it's 4.168.24.0/24) because of the harassment and disruption, and the IPs up top do not match (however, it should be noted that that range's block expired). At best, these are proxies for him. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive misguided edit by anon.ip

66.229.149.116 keeps reinstating unsourced material in Capricorn (astrology). I think he is doing so on purpose. Hopefully this is the right place to post it, I couldn't decide if it constitutes vandalism per se. Thank you, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

After that many reversions, it's close, but IP has received only one warning as yet. Have left a final one and advice as to sourcing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully the person will get the message this time :) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this person doesn't want to listen. [51] --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

single purpose account - edit warring

user cormhamster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CormHamster seems to have a single purpose account - the account has only been used to edit 2 articles, both closely related to eachother.

Since March 20th this user has made the same revert six times on the same article, despite the revert removing a information from a reliable source and consensus clearly being against him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad_Watch&action=history

When I mentioned that he had perhaps made too many reverts, the user made it clear that he planned to push the rules as much as he was able to do.

I think you have made too many reverts within the last 2 or 3 days. 3 reverts is not a right, perhaps it might be best for you to leave the article alone for a while. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will operate within the rules of the site. Nothing more, nothing less. CormHamster (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad_Watch#cormhamster

I don't know if this user is a sockpuppet or not, I dont think there is enough evidence for a checkuser, however single purpose account, multiple reverts, a desire to push 3RR as far as possible and a blatant disregard of consensus, is really not acceptable. I was handed a 12 hour block for my reverts on that article - even though I didnt exceed the 3 reverts limit, and I am trying very hard to not enter into another edit-war, users like this who offer nothing other than reverts have no place in wikipedia, and offer nothing apart from tiresome ANI reports and users like myself trying to keep an article decent, while remaining within the rules and the spirit of the rules.

Oh and excuse the crappy formatting and links, I am rather lame when it comes to wikipedia coding. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Warned about gaming 3RRDGG (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of images of children posted by Dr harlwo

New user Dr harlwo yesterday posted several images of nude children. I do not follow closely the rules and practices on images, but I am concerned about the appropriateness of these, as listed at [52].(updated link) Edison (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No licensing information, so that gave me an excuse to delete the images (faintly out-of-process, but, hey, desysop me, see if I care). This has been his entire contributions that I can see - some almost-kiddie porn. Trolling or WP:POINT. I suspect the latter, due to the hamfisted attempt to add it to the article. On that basis, I call WP:SPA and we'll see if he ever edits again. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That guy just violated US LAW. Someone call the FBI NOW. --Rio de oro (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're being satirical, which is unclear, nudity is not pornography. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you're so terribly concerned, realize that even the admins are just volunteers, and your tone sounds like you're commanding everyone, instead of being polite. If you're so concerned, you can call the FBI yourself, or much more advisably, email Mike Godwin and ask him if contacting the FBI is the right course of action in this situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this "crap" is against the LAW because this site is in the USA soil whic follows USA law. Doing this type of activity is a FEDERAL OFFENCE. If this crap is still here this web site might either get shut down or Jimbo or other guys on the Foundation Board might get a lawsuit or arrest for pedophilliaRio de oro (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to report this to INTERPOL , the FBI, the SECRET SERVICE, the US MARSHALLS.Rio de oro (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you, er, don't. Not every image of a naked child constitutes child pornography, and I'd advise you to chill a little, and take a look at Miller v California for guidance. A potted, although incomplete and out of date analysis is here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• No evidence, no luck, Rio. Calm down; if you keep at it the way you're going you're going to have arrhythmia before the year is out. ;) I'll echo RHE: just because it's a nude picture of a child does not automatically make it child pornography, but as I have not looked at the pics in question I cannot say whether or not they should be on Wikipedia. All the same, it is good that admins erred on the side of caution and deleted them; now people need to get out of Pulling Mode. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nudity isnt porn as stated above. Btw wtf would the secret service do? БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Protect the president from seeing it, of course. Deli nk (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nude pictures of minors, whether pornographic or not, can of course always be summarily deleted from Wikipedia. Bringing the site into disrepute, you see. And no I am not talking about renaissance paintings of nude cherubs and whatnot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, nudity isn't pornography. I can think of four album covers that depict nude children. Not saying that Harlwo's images belong here or anything or that a case couldn't be made against their legality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, nudity <> pornography, but [53] is a pretty clear red flag. I have shown the good doctor the door. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nmate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi there. I don't know if I'm posting at the right place, however, I must make a concern that I cannot tolerate User:Nmate's actions any more. I believe he's inserting POV into articles, sometimes in sublime English, and turns a deaf ear to advice/warnings, and erases them. This has been going on for a few weeks now, and I don't know what to do. Can anyone take a look at this and do something about this? MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs of the problem edits. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Although older, but IMHO still relevant: [54], then various at History of Bratislava (most recent, but there are some older as well), example of removing warnings, and also edits at Košice, Prešov, and more. Though not all necessarily fall into category of problem edits, I think this is enough to be noticed. Because he is now defended by his "friend", it's more complicated to tell him something. Personally, I have enough of his edits and behaviour. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: He also written wrote this personal attack while ago: Quoting:

Dear MarkBA!
why you are not on the Marián Kotleba's seminar than ''otec'' Tankréd ?
	  	
[[Nmate]]

For your information, Kotleba is (or was) leader of Slovenská pospolitosť, now a banned Slovak neo-Nazi political party (now it is an association). I think this is a serious personal attack, IMHO indirectly accusing me of Nazism and something needs to be done. He also wrote some similar "jokes" like this one and I find this intolerable. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update No. 2: I find the comment just under me very characteristic. False accusations, unprovoked personal attacks, etc. Also left another of his "jokes" at my talk, which I've already removed. I believe something needs to be done quickly before this one escalates. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA

I would like to protest against MarkBA's fabricated complains. All his activity is opponent with the wikipedia's mentality. He thinks that he has more right to edit wikipedia's contents than anyone else as he censors the Slovakian articles all day.He's able to modify each article every day and writes false things into it, in which he belives and this way controls my rights to edit. I have never said that he is a Nazy as he claims, I just wanted to say that his modifications are in harmony with Slovakian extreme right mentality. These aspects are injurious and unfair for Hungarians.Please ignore his complains in the future.Nmate (talk • contribs)

The right one speaks... The fact you didn't answer my objections is to be omitted? Again, few personal attacks in one comment, trying to prove otherwise. You're just trying to divert attention. Please ignore this comment. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 22:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You can see he is a unrealible man. Nmate (talk • contribs)

Please stop using unjustified personal attacks. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, knock it off. There's nothing we can do about nationalist conflicts in the outside world, but can and do prohibit you from bringing them into Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? Nothing was said about nationalism... My main concern lies elsewhere, as explained above. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that your talk page history is there for all to see, and some of us admins do our homework before commenting on a dispute. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There were instances of incendiary communication that cannot be reduced to the fact that the contributor has introduced confusion to several articles in the English Wikipedia by posting a foreign language text to a string translator and copying the sometimes little comprehensible output to the English Wikipedia:

— 2/17/2008: "There is a Hungarian joke that whole Slovakia's only history is possible to send in a short mobile phone's text messsage. All the best from mad'arsko. Nmate" [55]

— 3/1/2008: " the important historical events should be there and so Slovak historical event is not exist before the 20th century.All the best Nmate" [56]

— 3/3/2008: "I heard about Frantisek Knapik appointed Juro Janosik for mayor of Slovak army after He death for 300 years.Congratulations!Do you think that from your Slovak sources it is possible to write serious articles? Because you can write English well it is not enough there. 'Cheers' DovideniaNmate" [57]

I commend you, Raymond Arritt, for taking note so soon after it was brought to this page by both parties involved and considering steps to resolve both the recurrent damage to the English Wikipedia and incendiary communication. ilmari (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Starfire777

Despite repeated requests, Starfire777 (talk · contribs) has been on a crusade against "Darwinism"[58] [59] and engaged in edit warring[60][61][62], then after a 3RR warning[63] continued.[64][65] I've given Starfire777 a 24 hour block for edit warring, note that I made one of the reversions.[66] Please review this block. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse by a non-admin. User clearly has an agenda, but doing my best to AGF, the block is warranted by simple repeated violation of policy. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also clearly a returning user, from the use of the term weasel wording in the summary of his very first edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Need more eyes at Race and Intelligence

Hi, we'd need more eyes at Race and Intelligence, as it seems again there is POV-pushing brewing, and the the possibility of outright edit-warring. Of particular relevance is the latest RfC question about the current neutrality (or lack thereof) of the article, and the behaviour of one user, User:Jagz, who seems to be POV-pushing and lacking in civility. However, as I am myself a very involved party, I'm inviting people not to take my word for granted, but to please go there and make up their own opinion, and act as they see fit. Thanks. I'm just raising the flag here. I invite other, neutral eyes to make up their own minds about the whole situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protected to stop edit war. It should go without saying that this page was intentionally protected under the wrong version. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; they've all been wrong versions if you ask me. Here's hoping the RfC turns up more useful suggestions (there have been a few already). In any case, thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a message someone left on my Talk page that seems to sum up the situation recently:

You are fighting a group of some the most effective blockers on wikipedia. The subject it really very emotive and goes to the heart of many peoples core belief systems. You are performing valiant work in the face of extreme personal attacks and I commend you. Try to ignore such attacks on your intelligence and competence and so on. The article as it stands is a shamble of POV and weasel words and fails to describe the debate in any coherant fashion, and this is by design. "importance, or lack of importance" must be the definition of weasel words. It is like it is writen by a teenager, with no understanding of language. 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

--Jagz (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake has a history of being involved in edit wars on race-related articles although manages to circumvent 3RR by participating with others. He also expects others to observe certain editing protocols and then fails to follow them himself. He has also demonstrated a propensity for calling my edits POV-pushing regardless of their merit. His actions do not promote the peaceful resolution of disputes, in fact I believe the opposite is true. --Jagz (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote abve was from User:Lobojo who basically never was involved in either te talk page or the article. He's entitled to his own opinion. However, you did fail to transcribe the rest of the section, were other users pointed out the fact that you were editing against consensus, to make the article fit your own POV, and you were asked to stop this. That was back in January. Now, two months later, you are still edit-warring against consensus (for which you were recently blocked). I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions about your behaviour. Also, about POV-pushing, please realize that just about every other editor involved in the article calls your edits the same. You know what they say: if it walks like one and if it quacks like one... I would like to suggest that you start discussing constructively on the talk page where most editors are trying to rewrite the article. So far, your contributions on the talk page have been less constructive than many other editors'.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unclear of the criteria of WP:3RR at the time I got blocked but it was an incident in which you were involved in edit-warring. I thought it applied to the same material, not different material on the same page. --Jagz (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You were unclear?

• here
• here
• here
• and here

After being issued four warnings (that I can fish up in under 3 minutes), ans having issued several yourself, you claim to still be unclear on the concept of 3RR. Please don't insult my intelligence.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The following section is from a request for arbitration that mentions Ramdrake.[67]. --Jagz (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

There has been a great deal of edit-warring on race-related articles in the past few months. There have been so many reversions I'm not going to bother listing diffs. Just take a look at the protection logs:

• Afrocentrism, two protections in last four months for edit-warring
• Black people, two protections in last three months for edit-warring
• Race and intelligence, four protections in last four months for edit-warring
• Race and ancient Egyptians, two protections in last two months for edit-warring

And, you guessed it, it's the same people. Picaroon (t) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Per request for specificity on the talk page, the users who are most commonly involved in revert wars on these articles are Dbachmann, Deeceevoice, and Ramdrake, with Jeeny and Futurebird also contributing some, but not as many, reverts. Egyegy, Muntuwandi, Taharqa, and Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, and other also join from time to time. This list is by no means exhuastive. Picaroon (t) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian Laettner semi protect s.v.p

can someone semi protect Christian Laettner for a month ? or block user 74.138.172.31 ? Cheers. Mion (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

History of that user shows it is going on from januari, so 1 day is not helping, Mion (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:74.138.172.31 single purpose account

• 20:41, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→1992 East regional final game)
• 00:21, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)
• 03:22, 21 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→1992 East regional final game)
• 17:32, 12 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)
• 04:12, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:74.138.172.31‎ (Undid revision 187397752 by Anabus maximus (talk))
• 02:05, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:74.138.172.31‎ (→Your recent edits)
• 01:46, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (Undid revision 187123594 by Duke53 (talk))
• 20:46, 26 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (Undid revision 186971386 by Duke53 (talk))
• 05:13, 17 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Christian Laettner‎ (→College career)

I suggest the middle, two weeks ? Mion (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. If that doesn't stop them, a much longer block is possible - this appears to be a static IP address. Is anyone else involved in the vandalism? If not, there is no need for protection. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see User:216.84.48.187 is also being used, but hasn't been in over a month. If they go back to using that address, it can be blocked too. --Tango (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging of histories

Resolved

 – Pages merged and movedKralizec! (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please merge the histories of the two pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop/by White Cat

The history under /by White Cat should be merged into /Workshop

Thanks.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do ... give me a minute ... --Kralizec! (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! Though you should double-check that the correct version is currently showing. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More anon harassment and vandalism

In what appears to be a continuation of an issue brought forth above ([68]), 87.113.93.118 (talk · contribs) has been continuing to vandalize parts of my userpage ([69]) and maliciously edit my comments on AfDs ([70]). For the reasons I gave in the discussion above, I believe this anon has some connection with Fredrick day (talk · contribs), even if he is not FD himself; at the very least, it's quite clear that it is someone who has been involved in the OM mess. I'm getting sick and tired of this. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• You could take it to AIV, but it'd be a whack-a-mole situation; this person is using a dynamic IP - see also Special:Contributions/87.114.141.40. It's a PlusNet account from the UK, which spans 87.112.0.0-87.115.255.255; not really a blockable range, I'd say. Black Kite 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, we unfortunately can't block the whole range very easily at all, and even if we could, we wouldn't since we'd be blocking half of England in the process. If you believe there is a connection to Frederick day, you might want to try requesting a checkuser - if things come up positive, we can hardblock that account. Sorry we can't do that much, but as Black Kite pointed out, he'd just pop up somewhere else if we tried blocking him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

202.7.209.160 (talk · contribs)

Not sure quite what is the best procedure. The editor has made numerous edits this month, it looks like a pattern of adding random names and phrases to random articles. The only one I know for a fact is incorrect is the edit to Portland Trail Blazers, but the others look like somebody playing around randomly, rather than making substantive and informed additions. Editor has been warned four times, but more edits than that are problematic. Not sure if a block is the appropriate remedy at this point, or something else. -Pete (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the IP vandalizes again, go ahead and give them a {{uw-longterm}} warning, then report to WP:AIV if it continues. Since it's an IP, we have to be a little more careful about the blocking. They appear to have stopped for the night anyway (or day, rather - IP is coming from Australia). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific reply. There was one more, so I issued the longerm warning as you suggest. I will try to check back tomorrow. -Pete (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:AeturnalNarcosis again

I have given AeturnalNarcosis (talk · contribs) a uw-v4 warning. I see that nobody has bothered to explain to him why his repeated addition of fair use album covers to the Fleshcrawl article isn't proper, despite my plea above. My next step is going to have to be WP:AIV unless an admin will bother to do something. Corvus cornix_talk 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No administrator intervention is required here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm surprised no one has made note of this yet. Daniel Brandt, the redirect, has been deleted again. Much discussion is brewing on Talk:Daniel Brandt, User talk:WJBscribe#Daniel Brandt, and possibly a 5th DRV (depending on if this can be quickly resolved or not). -- Ned Scott 05:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, in other words, a "5th DRV unless I get my way". Discussion is happening on the talk page, this is forum-shopping. SirFozzie (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the community gets its way. This is not forum shopping, this is notifying the proper areas on WIkipedia about relevant discussion. Please don't be so disrespectful and full of bad faith. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For values of community=Ned Scott, I assume. You are forum shopping, even uninvolved administrators are saying that, flat out. Quit it. SirFozzie (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You assume incorrectly, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)You pasted this comment to 3 noticeboards in the space of 4 minutes. Mr.Z-man 05:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI, BLP notice board, and the Village Pump, where people are supposed to give notice of such things. There is absolutely nothing wrong in doing so, and there certainly isn't anything disruptive about it. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The village pump is for general policy discussions, not about every incident like this, that was most definitely overkill. Mr.Z-man 05:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have put it under Misc. then, but it certainly wasn't overkill. This isn't a tiny little incident, either. I respect that you, as a fellow editor, are seeing this as something that might be forum shopping, but considering it's just as possible that it's not forum shopping, and that no disruption is caused by those messages (unless you count yours), why do you feel the need to attack me about this? Is it really not feasible in your mind that this is not only appropriate, but exactly what a Wikipedian is supposed to do in this situation? I'm more bothered about you attacking someone else for bringing notice to this than the issue itself. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said "tiny." And if you see my comments as an attack, you really need to calm down. Mr.Z-man 06:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I mistook replying to you for Frozzie. While you do seem to be agreeing with him, your comments are more just general statements. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt deleted again, discussion brewing, possibly a 5th DRV. Sounds like a trailer for WikiDrama: The Movie. Mr.Z-man 05:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand Pierce Brosnan will be playing the role of me in said movie. Just a whisper I heard somewhere :) Daniel (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, could Brad Pitt play me please? WjBscribe 05:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What, not Johnny Depp? ;) Shell ^babelfish 05:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear this is not likely to be resolved short of DRV, suggest you wait a bit and raise the issue there tomorrow. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't looking for resolution here, only requesting comments on the discussions themselves on those talk pages (incase that wasn't clear). -- Ned Scott 06:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Realistically, more comments there are highly unlikely to provide a resolution of this issue, but to each his own. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Until we have a better way of making these decisions, it's the method we're stuck with. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think DRV would be a better way in this case, as it will be closed-ended and finish with an definitive result. Discussion on the talk page is bound to be interminable and produce nothing resembling a consensus, from what I can see. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The took it upon himself to remove this thread from this page. I reverted that deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 06:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think admin action is required, please revert my close. But please let's not get into a silly argument about it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The is Tony Sidaway. Corvus cornix_talk 06:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Ned Scott block review

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&diff=prev&oldid=200249131 I think the block serves no purpose. Please unblock him. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Krimpet has blocked User:Ned Scott because of the Daniel Brandt drama above. Corvus cornix_talk 06:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He was told not to forum-shop elsewhere. He forum-shopped elsewhere. He even admitted it was a bad place to take it. he took it there anyway. Good block. And I took down the inflammatory title. SirFozzie (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I said that it might have been better posted at "misc" rather than "policy". -- Ned Scott 06:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

She blocked him for his forum shopping of the matter- including restoring a totally unnecessary cross-post to the village post. He has agreed to stop and she has unblocked him. Valid block, valid resolution. Drama over. WjBscribe 06:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with the assessment that it was unnecessary, and it is a sad day to see people being blocked for posting a short, neutral message to the village pump. Don't equivocate my notices with the kind of trash that caused us to develop a guideline on the mater. It most certainly wasn't a valid block, but arguing for the sake of principal won't get me anywhere tonight. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Routine block for being a silly sausage. Good call. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To take to an extreme, if an administrator asked me to stop broadcasting, I would certainly seek the input of others before reinserting my message. Good block. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And how would you do that if you were not allowed to ask in the first place? -- Ned Scott 06:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did you seek the input of others regarding Krimpet's request? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And I ask again, how could I without being blocked in the same way I just was blocked? Or even if I wasn't blocked, I'll be attacked for "causing drama", and no one will objectively comment about the issue of giving out notices. This was anticipation of disruption without any disruption (again, unless you count those who freaked out about the possible disruption). -- Ned Scott 06:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. If you had sought clarification on your action and Krimpet's request on this board, I think you would have gotten it. Without attacks. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I lost faith in the ANI thread when people started talking about Brad Pit. Considering the likelihood of admins anticipating disruption and the nature of the topic, yes, I probably should have done everything I could have to appear non-combative and corporative. I was insulted at the idea that I was forum shopping and didn't want to give the accusation any kind affirmation (for a lack of better words). This was more a block about my haste rather than what I actually said or did. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we live and learn. :) Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, enough. I wanted to give a simple, neutral message about a relevant discussion that is of interest to the community. You're free to disagree with my judgment, fine, but what I did was painfully mild, and most certainly not deserving of a block (what amounts to four edits). I understand the anticipation and assumptions made, because of the topic and because of past discussions, so I can't completely fault Krimpet, but if you people can't be reasonable and objective about these things, then don't bother talking about it. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you disagree with my review of this block, That means I'm not being reasonable or objective and I should have not bothered? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm sure people have other reasons for endorsing the block that are objective and reasonable (which doesn't necessarily make it correct or incorrect, etc) -- Ned Scott 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm confused. Your statement here contradicts the one you made here a few minutes ago. O_o NonvocalScream (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not very good with words. Allow me to explain. You're being objective in that you're actually saying "why didn't you make sure about X before you did it again". Tony isn't being objective, respectful, or helpful in calling me a sausage (though I guess you could say he's trying to de-escalate the situation with humor, I'm not sure). You disagree with me regarding the block, but I can still respect your reasons (just as I can respect Krimpet's original block, since I can imagine Krimpet's line of thought at the time). -- Ned Scott 07:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is ok, I understand better what you mean now. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment may have been neutral, but using phrases like "discussion is brewing" and hinting an another DRV (which we all know would be a year's worth of drama crammed into a week, not to mention indicating your goal in the discussion) are not necessary. Just an invitation to join in would have been much better and far less drama-inducing. Mr.Z-man 07:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't consider "brewing" to be a controversial word. It just popped in my head to describe something forming. I'm sorry if the thought of another DRV disturbs anyone, but it is the most likely next step. I don't desire drama, but it is an unfortunate side effect of discussing something rather than ignoring it.

Thinking about it now, I think the only reason anyone thought I was forum shopping was because I reverted SirFozzie's denial of my edit protected request, and must have saw my notices as an extension of that (which in itself was not an attempt to "ask someone else", but rather a moment of frustration, and feeling that removing the tag would mean "giving in" [yes, still not a good reason to do it, but just trying to tell people what my line of thinking was]). Had I not done that and still left these same messages, there would be no issue, and certainly no block. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with SPA invasion in math AfD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination), some issues are cropping up regarding some SPAs (some registered, some IP) who are jumping into this deletion debate pretty hastily. They're all making some pretty far-fetched accusations about self-promotion, and are generally being pretty tendentious and assume hardly any good-faith on the part of those who created this article. The nom reads more like a rant than an AfD nom, but if you want a real rant, check the AfD's talk page (and I had to move it there from the AfD page). It even appears that some participants in the counterpart AfD in the Russian Wikipedia vowed to come to the English Wikipedia to delete the article here. I'm concerned that these users, particularly the one who posted the giant rant as well as the influx of one-!vote throw-away accounts, are either acting in collision (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or some other puppetry) or are at least disrupting the AfD in a way that requires administrator attention. Could anyone uninvolved in the AfD lend a hand? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: The most disruptive user of the bunch, mentioned above, is continuing to re-insert his rant / personal attack spree into the AfD discussion quite tendentiously. I'm not sure why he considers it the appropriate place to stick an essay titled "Wikipedia or Wackopedia" but I'd appreciate a hand (particularly one with a mop in it) to help sort this out, sooner rather than later. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post for intervention here myself so glad it's been started. The AfD seems to be corrupted at this point so guidance on how to sort it all out and the related issue of cross wiki gaming seems too special for words. Benjiboi 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of socks needed, after CheckUser result

Resolved

 – Careuc indef'd, its master Buffer v2 blocked for a week. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Careuc was found to use socks (User:Buffer v2, see the CheckUser result). I ask admins to ban the sock User:Buffer v2 indef. Thank you. Marc KJH (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nothing to see here; no administrator action required ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Because I used free spech on the Spanish Wiki, I was evicted, but there where many highly constructive people using my IP (we are in a big office) and now they are all unjustly blocked. How can we revert this situation? Is there any authority over all Wikipedias? Thanks --Damifb (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We have no authority over the Spanish Wikipedia; problems there must be taken through their dispute resolution process. Please note that, on all Wikipedias, you have no right to free speech: editing any wiki is a privilege, not a right. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it the other way around: Wikipedia is the one who has the privilege if using my work for free. Many other companies pay. --Damifb (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

People can choose whether or not to add to Wikipedia articles. If someone is wanting to receive payment for their writing, then WP is not the place to be. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That goes without saying, if not I would be rich by now! I still don't believe in the privilege thing. Some day the World government will expropriate Wikipedia and socialice it. Down with Jimbo! --Damifb (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

User avoiding block

70.108.133.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the sock of 70.108.92.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was blocked yesterday by Dreadstar for vandalizing the Elizabeth Hasselbeck article and for personal attacks. 70.108.133.61 is now reverting again on the Hasselbeck article and leaving messages like this to Dreadstar and myself. I'm asking for the sock IP to be blocked and the block extended for 70.108.92.126 because of harassment and block evasion. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 70.108.133.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruption. For the sockmaster, you may aswell contact Dreadstar for what route to persue there. Rudget. 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day

self-confessed puppetmaster - someone want to lock down the account and userpage (since I've tossed the fred identity aside and it's best to tie up the loose ends). --Fredrick day 13:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you are a sockmaster? Looks like you've linked to an edit by yourself. Rudget. 13:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he's saying. He's saying he wants blocking for it. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What action do we take? FD said he's going into 'retirement'. Do we wait for him to come back and the block the account, provided it causes more disruption? Rudget. 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not going into retirement the fredrick day account is, it's served my purposes and I'm more effective as an IP editor - I suggest you block it and then lock down the pages. --Fredrick day 13:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't block on request. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SELFBLOCK. Rudget. 14:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that "I can best do what I do using an IP address" in this comment linked above appears to mean "trolling and harassment"; self-blocking is a no-no, but by looking at recent contributions from this editor, I'm not sure the editor should not be retired. In fact, the linked comment and this whole thread pretty much illustrate the recent trolling behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor says that he has retired his account and he will not be using his account Fredrick day anymore.He will editing as a IP editor.The user has never been blocked before and has made some good contributions earlier.Hence feel we should assumeWP:GF .Anyway no point blocking the account if he is not going to use it and has himself retired it.Let us see how the Ip edit in future Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that he's using anon IP addresses to troll and attack other editors, I was about to block indef anyway. (See for example Special:Contributions/87.114.141.40; Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day.) He's also 'signing' his IP edits as 'Section31', which is an apparently unrelated (and quiescent) account name. I've blocked the IP, but since he seems to be on dialup, that's probably not going to be particularly effective unless we rangeblock his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, rangeblock is unworkable— he's coming from all over, at the least, a /19 at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He claims he's wardriving (see User talk:TenOfAllTrades#Section31); I don't know if I believe him or not. In any case, until he expresses some interest in making positive contributions again, I'd suggest reverting his edits on sight per WP:RBI. Edits all appear to be coming from the range 87.112.0.0 - 87.115.255.255 (a /14), registered to Plusnet Technologies. It could be rangeblocked for some period of time if necessary (perhaps a Checkuser could offer an opinion about the amount of collateral damage such a block would cause), but if aggressive abuse takes place a better strategy might be to contact his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He will get bored and tire himself out, or run out of gasoline money hehe. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

repeated vandalism to 2 articles

To whom it may concern:
Two articles that I help to maintain are being repeatedly edited to include incorrect information, or to remove relevent information. They are Accursed Lands and Roleplay Intensive MUDs.

This has been going on for quite some time. The vandal is identified below:
74.36.3.56 - static IP, either home or office?
User:TSOY Falco (a reference to "the streets of yesterday", a MUD)
74.134.243.9 - sprintlink IP - mobile

Here is the story, sorry about the length:

This person, whom I shall refer to as "Falco", is the owner of a roleplaying game (a MUD ) named "The Streets of Yesterday". He has been carrying on a vendetta against another roleplaying game, which I am associated with, named Accursed Lands MUD (AL-MUD). As part of this vendetta, he has spread lies about AL-MUD on various MUD-related web forums, and attempted to unilaterally change the definition of commonly-accepted terms used by the MUD community. The term RPI, or Roleplay Intensive MUD is one such term.

Approximately six months ago, several of us who have an interest in the "roleplaying intensive MUDs" page noticed recurring instances of vandalism to that page. This vandalism included the removal of the reference to AL-MUD -- which is a notable MUD in the RPI genre -- and the insertion of several MUDs into the 'notable rpi muds' list, most of which are in a stage of development that can be considered pre-alpha (unplayable not accepting players).

AL-MUD is a notable mud in the RPI genre for several reasons, but mostly because it won several awards, including the "RPI MUD of the Year" awarded by the Web's premier non-partisan RPI-MUD discussion forum (http://rpimud.com) for two years running. There is an external link to this discussion forum at the bottom of the article.

Additionally, some changes were made to the "Accursed Lands" wikipedia article (an article which survived a deletion attempt due to the notability of AL-MUD, as measured by the awards won by the MUD). These changes were factually inaccurate -- I can state with confidence that they are lies and not just honest mistakes -- and seemed designed to bolster the assertion that AL-MUD was not suited for inclusion in the "roleplay intensive MUDs" wikipedia page. Unfortunately, we failed to notice these changes to the "Accursed Lands" article, and failed to understand what was going on until recently.

"Falco" edited incorrect information into the "Accursed Lands" article, even though he is thoroughly familiar with AL-MUD and knows this information is incorrect. Specifically, if it's of any interest, he stated that AL-MUD did not feature what is known as "perma-death" (which is when player characters die irretrievably, instead of coming back to try again), even though this is completely false. There were some other malicious edits in a similar vein from another IP address, but we can't prove he was behind them. He used these lies inserted into the "Accursed Lands" article to try to justify removing the mention of AL-MUD being a notable mud in the RPI genre from the "roleplay intensive MUDs" article.

After repeated incidences of vandalism to the "roleplay intensive MUDs" article (and after finally noticing the lies inserted into the "Accursed Lands" article), I tracked the offending IPs to this "Falco".

"Falco" has been trying to use the "roleplay intensive MUDs" wikipedia article as a source to bolster an argument he has been having on a web-based MUD forum (http://topmudsites.com). He goes by the handle "prof1515" on that forum. His anonymous edits to various MUD-related wikipedia articles (which amount to nothing more than malicious vandalism, as far as I am concerned) seem driven by his agenda, which is to redefine the term "roleplay intensive MUD", or "RPI", to apply only to games which do not compete for players with the game he is trying to develop (called The Streets of Yesterday -- http://www.victorianmud.com/). He has a vested interest in the success of his MUD game, since he is a graduate student in history and he is using the development of his (supposedly historically-accurate) MUD to further his studies; rumors are that the MUD is part of his thesis.

Now that he has been exposed as the anonymous wikipedia vandal (by me on rpimud.com, in an attempt to shame him into doing the right thing), he has created a Wikipedia account (TSOY Falco). He continues to add lies and personal opinions to both the "roleplay intensive MUDs" and "Accursed Lands" articles, but now links to the discussion that he fomented on topmudsites.com as a reference to back up his unfounded assertions (presumably hoping that nobody notices that the poster using the handle "prof1515" is the same person as "Falco").

In the interest of preventing a zealot from single-handedly redefining a term that has had the same meaning in the MUD community for many years (RPI), and in the interest of preserving the articles that I maintain in a factual and accurate state, I'd appreciate if the Wikipedia higher-ups could do something about what I consider this person's malicious and underhanded edits.

Thanks in advance for any help. Jayess (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel rears her head once more

Resolved

 – Resolved for now, full protection has been implemented. Rudget. 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Weird she'd be allowed to edit, given how polemical she's been against Jimbo. Oh well. Now, where's my spot on the Colbert show? ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 15:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But, with respect, what administrative action is needed? Is sleeping with Jimbo grounds for a block?!? Whitstable 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the page has been protected. Hut 8.5 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of intent to circumvent block

While I admire his candor, this is getting silly. [[71]]. The user basically removes material from four pages... and has declared that he will continue to do so. I would like to semi-protect, however then he will just start making user accounts. Any reccomendations would be helpful. Hohohahaha (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like he's heading toward 3RR. Useight (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD disruption by MickMacNee

Merged to section below (WP:ANI#Opinion on an Afd re disruption).

User:RachelMarsden on User talk:Jimbo Wales

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

There is an edit war going on, with people reverting her remarks. Does this fall under any policy? I can't help thinking those reverting are in the wrong. Surely Jimbo's user page is as good place as any to leave him comments? The problem is certain users don't /like/ those comments and are reverting her because of that. -Halo (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd think Rachel's comments about certain Wikipedians, esp. Jimbo, gives her an effective ban from Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Deeming somebody to have an "effective ban" from Wikipedia before they're even actually blocked may be a new first. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bans and blocks are separate. Her comments are bad enough that anyone else will be banned (and please, Dan, I'm precluding your censorship of criticism argument), but she's not blocked because a) her account has been inactive until now, and b) omg t3h media. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that much involved here, but comments like that could realistically go by email. There not necessary. Rudget. 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments or hers? Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Her's. I edit-conflicted. :P Rudget. 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, might fall under WP:NPA but it's certainly a borderline case at best and I don't think it's normal policy to revert people for breaking it. The thing is that Wikipedia doesn't want to be seen to censor such criticism. -Halo (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The diff I'm referring to: [72] onwards. -Halo (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been oversighted, I think. Rudget. 16:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly. Bit dodgy in my view -Halo (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT OVERSIGHTED. You had a typo for that diff - remove the "1" at the end. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk)

The post that was deleted from Jimbo's talk page has now been placed on the user's userpage. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have went and removed that message from her userpage, as it seems to me that it is not acceptable on Jimbo's talk page. AndreNatas (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am missing how that edit was disruptive - and why it has to be removed. Please fill me in. Kingturtle (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The same oversighted message has been placed on her talkpage, and it looks like an edit war is emerging there. I wish to revert no further though. AndreNatas (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just leave the message alone. It's rather childish, but not worth edit warring over. There's no privacy concern, since it's all being played out in the media anyway, and the personal attacks are mild by comparison to many we get around here (I've had much worse from vandals I've reverted). If she wants to behave like this, let her, it's not seriously disrupting anything. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why she can't have all or part of that on her user page? Kingturtle (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[73]... should we just leave her alone to get on with this? AndreNatas (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted her user page to her version and protected it. She's not violating any policy I can see, so let's just stop edit warring, huh? --Tango (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the matter of her user page, I think, yes, just leave it alone and get on with things. Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. That is - as long as we know it is definitely the real Rachel Marsden in question and not an imposter. But judging from the user's edit history, I am concluding it really is the real Rachel Marsden. Kingturtle (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Martinp23 16:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuh-uh. I think claiming you were "dumped by Jimbo on Wikipedia" is easily G10 territory. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a clear cut case of trolling to me. If she continues, block here. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not get back at our exes. John Reaves 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but in the interests of writing an encyclopaedia, I think it's best to just leave well alone. Do we really want to take on a woman scorned? It won't be pretty. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care if she is scorned or not, she is hindering the building of this encyclopedia. John Reaves 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, she isn't. She's posting stuff on her user page and her ex's user talk page. The people edit warring with her and forcing a major discussion here are disrupting the building of the encyclopaedia. She isn't. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't bypass policy because hell hath no fury. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do and I have. Call it WP:IAR if you want to (I call it protecting a page to prevent an edit war, personally). What's best for the encyclopaedia is just to leave well alone. Emotions seems to be running too high for people to see that, so I'm imposing it on them. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore her, see if she goes away or ceases to misuse Wikipedia. If not, block. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

umm, the comment that she was dumped on wikipedia is in WP:RS isn't it, rightly or wrongly?:) As to Jimbo's talkpage though- people remove unfavourable/undesirable/ "trolling" comments from there frequently. special, random, Merkinsmum 16:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh people, this is wonderful!! Thank you, thank you, thank you for proving exactly the point that I was trying to make with that one post on the talk page by ubruptly deleting it and threatening to ban me. Excellent! Now, I don't have to explain, or prove, to curious mainstream media that I'm, in fact, bang-on in my assessment of this place. You've done all the work for me. For that, I am grateful. That's all I cared to do, and you folks certainly made sure that I didn't waste any time. lol Much love, Rachel :)

If you're not here to help the encyclopedia, go away. We regularly ban annoyances like you without a second thought. John Reaves 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time in the history of mankind that "encyclopedia" has been synonymous with "cult". I find that highly amusing. :) BTW, feel free and ban me, dear, for making an honest, constructive critique of this whole operation -- and merly restating the fact that I want to be completely disassociated with this cult and have my "article" on here permanently deleted. Banning me will only serve to prove my point, and give me something else to pass on to the "real world" media in all this. I'm sure you know by now that they're kind of paying a bit of attention. :)

Please, John, could you be at least a bit more civil here? --Conti|✉ 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the same person who supported me saying "shut the hell up" to a troll by saying "the best way to deal with a troll is by using a two-by-four"? We shouldn't dance around the maypole when someone's cutting all of the ribbons. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of ever having said that, or supporting you saying that. You must mistake me for someone else. --Conti|✉ 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I could have been a lot less civil though. John Reaves 17:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:DENY. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• More like WP:PROTECTJIMBOSFEELINGS. ;-) daveh4h 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody do something about this? AndreNatas (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How about just leaving it alone? --Tango (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How's about not enabling outright trolling? Wouldn't that be a good thing?--Calton | Talk 17:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel, I'm saying the exact thing John said in a little more civil tone. If you continue to act like this, you will be banned. Jonathan 17:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to convince me that edit warring in User space is protecting the encyclopedia. daveh4h 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there all this discussion? She's causing disruption, and she has no apparent interest in helping the encyclopedia. Block her. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore her it is for the best, and it is also best for us to keep away from her talkpage, as she only restored that disruptive post that was keep being removed anyway, labelling us "facists". AndreNatas (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that she should simply be ignored, and that any further dubious/inappropriate commentary about Rachel Marsden (who I doubt she really is) and Jimbo Wales should be removed per WP:BLP (which does apply to more than articlespace) and/or WP:USER/WP:TALK. If she engages in editwarring without end, I'd say hit her with escalating blocks for disruption. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

She's blocked. Now let's stop talking about it and to her and do something constructive. John Reaves 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, she has just been blocked by User:John Reaves. --Conti|✉ 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

BAD MOVES, folks. You got played :-( -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

argh argh someone is posting bad things about Jimbo Wales quick to the block button mobile Jtrainor (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Krawndawg owns Superpower article

This user has begun a revert war calling my reasoned edits as POV. As regards the article, it is a joke and shame for this encyclopaedia. Failed states like India and Russia are included as superpowers while Japan is conspicuous by absence. Can someone look into this circus? PlusDrawn (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this issue here is WAY premature. You've posted to that article's talk page exactly one time. Do your best to hammer out your editorial differences there - things usually work themselves out without admin intervention. That being said, Krawn is showing a little WP:OWN and is close to 3RR violation... Tan | 39 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I am sick and tired of babysitting. All the arguments of Krawndawg and other editors seem to hinge on fantasy, opinion, theory, destiny and legend, not facts, ground realities or even common sense. What they really need is a crash course on economics not history. PlusDrawn (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What have you been "babysitting"? Unless I'm missing something, you've been involved with editing that article for a grand total of about 8 hours. "Reasoning" isn't the problem here, and isn't how Wikipedia works - our core is NOT truth, it is verifiability. If you can make good-faith arguments that the current sourcing is somehow deficient, or give new sources that refute the existing information, people will listen, and you will have built a case. Right now, you're just personally disagreeing with it. Tan | 39 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm showing WP:OWN. If you'd look at what PlusDrawn is trying to do (removing a good 5-7k words worth of sourced information), and look at his reasons given and the fact that his change is based entirely on his own POV, it's quite clear that this controversial change should not be allowed without consensus. Krawndawg (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true, I agree that this major edit needs to be discussed amongst yourselves. Just watch that 3RR... Tan | 39 16:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the traditional issue found in political pages, a user is trying to push his world views on the article by removing anything that they don't consider merits mention. As a side note I concur that not mentioning Japan as a superpower is absurd. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, regarding Japan, although I wasn't involved in any decision making on whether or not to include them, I think two main reason they're not included would be the fact that they have no nuclear weapons, and their military usage is restricted to defense only as a result of their unconditional surrender in WWII. Same for Germany. Not that this is the appropriate place to be discussing this, but...! Krawndawg (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Japan is a economic superpower, from what I recall being a military force is not a requisite to have great worldwide influence. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

4th re-posting of previously deleted page, circumvention of deletion review process

Dear ANI,

This page is a fourth attempt to post a duplication of the following deleted pages. (Please notice that in the following deletions (the last three), attempts were made to circumvent the Wiki deletion review process by posting on talk pages.) User:Cult Free World is attempting to circumvent the deletion review process again with the posting of this page.

(Previous deletions listed below):

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sahaj_Marg
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Chennai%29
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission_%28Shahjahanpur%29
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Institute_of_Sri_Ram_Chandra_Consciousness
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shri_Ram_Chandra_of_Shahjahanpur
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sri_Parthasarathy_Rajagopal_Chari
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Sahaj_Marg_India
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Sahaj_Marg_India/fr/x

The condition for re-posting an article on Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission was the availability of reliable and verfiable secondary sources.

Despite repeated requests by multiple editors here, User:Cult Free World has failed to produce any secondary sources that would justify a posting of an article.

As in earlier incarnations of this article, there are only primary sources, foreign language sources, and/or mis-represented court cases. And, each and every link and point appearing in this current version of the article, was discussed in depth by editors on the now-deleted talk pages. The consensus on these now-deleted talk pages was that the sources were either unreliable, unverifiable, or completely mis-represented.

A case in point is the last link under "relevant links" in this article. The link is listed as "sexual abuse," but in actuality the case was on a jurisdictional issue related to libel (i.e., can an individual sue on behalf of a group, or, only on behalf of an individual) and this case and the lower court actually found the newspaper article untrue, unfounded, and libelous. Specifically, in this case, the judge rules, YES -- the complainant is an aggrieved party, page 1: "Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of complaint-aggrieved person-complainant being member of Ram Chandra Mission filed complaint against the accused for publishing an article amounts of defamation-whether such complainant is an aggrieved party? Held’ Yes’."

AND, more importantly the judge says (p.4 #5), "The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory." (As an aside, if what was suggested in the tabloid newspaper article really happened, then there would be loads of secondary sources reporting on it and there were none.)

This is just one example of what user:Cult Free World and earlier incarnations (see user:Shashwat pandey and User:Rushmi, confirmed socks) would try and put in the article and then misrepresent as is done here. The other editors on the article(s) agreed that court cases had no place and/or were mis-represented in the article. The Wiki community decided on deletion of articles on the topics until reliable, verifiable secondary sources appeared. See this for recent confirmation that secondary sources are needed before the article can be published.

I have no objection to an article on the topic being published, but would ask that the proper procedure for deletion review be followed and that secondary sources be provided first.

User:Cult Free World's blatant attempt to circumvent the deletion review process is against Wiki ideals and policy and I ask that he be sanctioned for this. Additionally, I ask that this page be speedily deleted under G4 and the topics of "Sahaj Marg" and "Shri Ram Chandra Mission" be salted given the abuse of the Wiki system detailed above.

Thank you, Renee Renee (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free World's claims border on the ludicrous and are not wiki-worthy material at all. What's more, this user doesn't seem to be getting the message from earlier admins on what constitutes wiki standards for any articles on this site. The only way this repeated mis-use of Wiki is going to stop here is for User:Cult Free World to be banned and the topics of Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission protected. This is ridiculous and a complete waste of everyone's time for this user to keep regurgitating the same article, the same arguments in the hope of wearing down the wiki mechanisms of checks and balances and getting past the rules eventually. Please put a stop to this abuse. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on an Afd re disruption

Moved here from WP:AN and merged from above. Black Kite 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The user MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a history of being uncivil and disruptive in the past [74]) is persistantly disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies‎, the AFD of a controversial article he created. Fair enough he wants the article kept, but he is getting out of hand, making ridiclous long arguments/disrupting the page/Assuming bad faith and generally being uncivil to anyone who "votes" delete and calling them liars, aswell as personal attacks against Americans. It is extremely disruptive and he cannot accept the general concensus of the dicussion, see his contributions [75]. AndreNatas (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is disruptive, and I have left a note to this user regarding this. I am also watching his talk page and the AfD for further disruption and will escalate the tone of my warning to indicate a pending block for disruption if it continues. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Basicaly, admin Black Kite has raised an Afd here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Geordies, on the basis that the disruption to the article is so bad it warrants deletion. (I believe currently the disruption is due to only one user, the notorious sock puppeteer User:Molag Bal). BK provides comparisons of Liancourt Rocks to claim this list (no Afd until now, no deletion comment ever) is on a par to this disruptive article of 18 Afds. His other concerns regard dissallowing 153 verified sources as a case for deleting the article, even though he accepts the majority are ok in his opinion. I would like some impartial admin advice and input on this issue, wrt deletion precedence, per deletion of an article for disruption/disagreement only. I would appreciate only non-invlolved admins give their time, and take heed on the regionalistic nature of the content. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, forum shopping? Tan | 39 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the procedure when you believe an admin has incorrectly filed an Afd case? MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• I actually just posted to Mick's talkpage to suggest that here was not the correct forum for his concerns. Basically, Mick has ownership problems with the article, and whilst there are undoubtedly problems with another user employing socks to revert, the basic problem behind the article is that its content can never be anything but original research, as outlined in my nomination. On the AfD so far, Mick has been uncivil a number of times, calling the nomination a "joke" ([76], with the edit summary "unbelievable") and myself a liar ([77], with the edit summary "lie"), together with comments of "rubbish", "outrageous", "contrived" and "ridiculous". His latest addition accuses an editor of commenting on the AfD when he doesn't know anything about the subject ([78]). This forum shopping doesn't help him at all, and I have removed the link to here from the AfD. I suggest an uninvolved admin closes this as resolved. Black Kite 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent)I will freely and fairly admit to the only ownership issues I have ( verifiable by the history), that of creating this list article out of the main artice (stupidly now it seems, to protect it from vandalism), and converting the list to a sortable table to actualy help the ignorant to decide the argument for themselves, i.e. not for wp to decide it for them, and reverting obvious sock puppets. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to be judged on any standards here, my point is, you have raised a deletion based on comparison with completely non comparable cases. You have completely over stated this case, to get perfectly verifiable information deleted. I will happily concede if an admin shows a case for deletion that even remotely resembles the articles that have been deleted for unreconsilable disruption before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mick, I raised the nomination based on completely different concerns. The Liancourt Rocks issue only came up when you said to me "this is never a reason for deletion, and if it has been, I would ask you to provide an example of such a case where it was." - so I provided examples. Black Kite 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, I am asking the admins if this nomination even comes close to any article previously deleted because it is a lost cause. It is my assertion this article is no more divisive than any other controversial article on WP, hence the tags I placed a while ago. Following your digging in at Afd nom, I am asking the community of admins, if this low level article dispute is actually worthy of deletion, and if so, then where next for Afd? MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time for you to take off the Spider-Man suit and come down form the Reichstag. Your comments are well out of line, and you are taking this way too personally. If you can't bring yourself to allow the debate to proceed in an orderly manner, you will probably have to suffer the indignity of being blocked until it is over. Please don't make me do that. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. I don't think it is anywhere near a spider violation to reasonably ask neutral admins if a precedent being claimed at an Afd by a deleting admin is a true precedent or not. I would like to point out, the disruption title is meant to reflect the subject, i.e. a request for an assessment as to whether the article under Afd comes close to the level of disruption of any of the articles held up as examples in the Afd of sucessfully deleted articles due to disruption. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see a whole lot that's reasonable about your behavior. Tan | 39 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Delete the whole thing, because that is obviously what you think the standard is, the original editor, not the content or the reasons for deltion. Ignore the original request, it is obviously of no concequence. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd !vote for delete even if you were the model of civility, able to be reasoned with, and respected Wikipedia processes. As you are uncivil, unreasonable and disrespectful, you just manage to sink your own ship even faster. The AfD is a massive landslide on the delete side, so much that WP:SNOW is knocking at the door. Tan | 39 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- is doing nothing but disrupting the dicussion. He is questioning every delete, being extremely uncivil towards it, and generally assuming bad faith towards everyone who has a different POV to him, this has gone on all day, plus the user has been blocked for incivility and disruption in the past. AndreNatas (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed this edit [79] from the AfD. I've now been accused by McNee of posting a "joke" and "pointed" AfD, of being a liar, of not knowing what I'm talking about, and now of doing the job (proxying, effectively) for a banned user. If I wasn't involved myself I would've blocked him for disruption, NPA and CIVIL long ago. Black Kite 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him for 72 hours for repeated disruption and incivility. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser shows that MickMacNee is on the same ISP as another significant editor to List of Geordies, Gregs the baker (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker. They're probably different people, but I would not be surprised to discover that they know each other. (At one point Gregs complains on MickMacNee's talk page about Molag bal, which seems like an unusual act for an account with only 116 edits.) I think there is something funny going on here. Thatcher 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have declined his unblock request because I think it is a valid block. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy soliciting vandalism?

It's come to my attention that Don Murphy is soliciting vandalism of his article (for what purpose, I have no idea - it seems self-defeating to me): "Insert nonsense in it- Don Murphy is secretly the king of the rat people etc. If you get banned another stooge will take up the charge." Obviously vandalism of any sort, pro- or anti-Murphy, is a bad idea. The article is semi-protected, but I've just blocked what appears to have been a sleeper SPA that's been (re)activated to vandalise the article (JesterJJZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I expect other sleeper SPAs will emerge. Could a checkuser please do a check on them as they appear, starting with JesterJJZ? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I already took care of that first one, which turns out to have a prior block on the IP, too. Dmcdevit·t 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Things are clearly getting really weird when it becomes no longer possible to tell with any certainty which of that article's vandals are doing it out of pro- or anti-Murphy motivations. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's weird, but it doesn't make any difference to us. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

His tactic seems clear to me, encourage the article to be vandalized then claim it should be deleted because it is vandalized. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's either that, or just pure spite. But, as I say, it makes no difference. We'll take appropriate action to clean up and prevent vandalism as we always do. Vandalism isn't going to change consensus on deletion, so if that is his plan, he's wasting his (and our) time. --Tango (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)