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

User:Fasach Nua

This user has already been discussed at AN here, but no real solutions were found. After continuing the disruptive behaviour, I issued a block (for full details, see this version of user's talk page). The user has since declared in multiple places that this block was based on lies and bad faith. Out of curiosity, I asked the user where exactly I had "lied", and in return I got a fairly civil, if not cryptic response. I replied, and then again got called a troll. This user has unfortunatly learnt nothing from their block, but I have: it appears that critisism towards this editor is often met with acusations of trolling, lying, and buckets of bad faith. This is in addition to the root problems this editor has, namely the constant removal without discussion of images they feel fail NFCC - a perfectly valid cause at first glance, but destructive when you consider that it is often done without discussion, repeatedly (thus violating 3RR), and abusivley (in my case at least). There are two issues here: this editor's behaviour and interpretation of the NFCC rules; and this editor's abbusive response to any challenges. Any help or input from other sysops would be appreciated. _TalkIslander 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this thread here, notice very, very promptly removed here. Without an accusation of trolling, suprisingly enough. _TalkIslander 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the user has tended to taken an extremely narrow interpretation of fair use and run with it, IfD'ing a lot of images for removal. He has specifically noted his opinion that essentially, certain types of articles don't deserve images. Were this hyper-deletionist editing behavior to occur in article space, the user's pov edits would likely draw the attention of numerous RfCs, AN/I complaints and resulting blocks. The sheer number of IfDs across a lot of articles allows the user to escape cursory notice, though the user was in fact blocked for this sort of behavior before. Fasach Nua has not learned from it, and continues to edit as before. I affirm Islander's comments that the user seems intent on a razor-thin interpretation of NFCC that consensus has not intended. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have to say that FN has repeatedly shown himself to be disruptive despite broadly based condemnation of his approach. His interpretation of the use of non-free images is excessively narrow. He refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue with other editors and will not consistently afford them a fair opportunity to challenge his views in open forum or through established process. There is a clear disdain for other contributors and frequent references to the process of developing concensus as being little more than "mob rule", which is incredibly anti-community. He plays the rules that suit him and ignores the rest. Its appalling to have to watch one petty duel after another and the ongoing assault on other editors views and contributions. Anyone who has to consistenly accuse such a large number of others of trolling, wikistalking, lying, etc. should really be taking a hard look at what it is they are doing. I'm not sure what can be done, but its something that I suspect will be an on-going nuisance, because although its papered over by a veneer of correctness, at its core there is an unhealthy and distasteful well of disregard for others. Wiggy! (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how long it's going to take for him to get banned. I think he's had ample time (six months) to change, and he's not. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I share Wiggy's frustration over what can be done concerning FN's behavior. Maybe a limiting of the behavior, so as to protect the project might be part of that resolution, such as a limit as to how many IfD nominations he can make, while at the same time attempting to counsel the lad as to the more accepted interpretation of our image use policy. However, that is me, trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. As evidenced by the dust-up over at WProject Football this last May, FN has shown himself to be an adept editor who is not some newbie. He has a history of repeatedly engaging in pointy behavior and failing to follow consensus. If we give him the strongest warning possible regarding an impending ban, it just might help to rein in his more extravagant efforts to push a pov. I am not entirely convinced that the user is irredeemably beyond our assistance. He clearly knows how to edit, and I am of the impression that, if properly guided by someone FN can respect, he may yet be a positive editing influence in the Wiki community. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that, judging by previous behaviour, anyone who tries to warn him will just be instantly labled a troll, and I see no way around that. _TalkIslander 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The alternative is to remove him, and thus avoid the need to warn him. I think that's a bit much, but he has served to piss off just about everyone who comes into contact with him. We are a community, not his parents; if he doesn't think he needs fixing, then we can't parent him. We can kick him out of the clubhouse, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(untab) Not sure I entirely agree with what your saying, but it's undeniable that something needs to be done, and I cannot do anything, as I'm too involved. I don't wish to give this 'editor' any more ammo. Help from another administrator needed. _TalkIslander 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by GoRight

GoRight, a civil POV pusher on global warming related topics, recently returned from a 6 month hiatus. Since coming back, he has proceeded to disrupt numerous global warming related articles. He's already been warned by myself and R. Baley, however, he continues in his pattern of adding specious or fringe theories attributed to less-than-reliable sources, and then edit warring when they are removed. Can someone please look into this? Raul654 (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is particularly concerning, but the remainder is something that should be sorted out through civil discussion to the point that there is consensus. Edit-warring when there is no consensus isn't helpful - if he doesn't cease with that, then please leave a note as I think a topic ban would then be warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, here, the edit you note above was a direct verbatum quote from the cited article. In general I prefer to let the original author's words speak for themselves rather than my trying to paraphrase and thereby potentially introduce nuances into the meaning that would be unwarranted. In retrospect, I agree that I could (should?) have been more sensitive to the direct naming of names ... but still the words are those of the article's author and not my own.

I have since moved on from this specific edit and attempted to provide a much more neutral version, [1], that conveys the important aspects of the charge with the contentious aspects having been removed. I have also provided an extensive discussion of why this particular source should be considered WP:RS even within the context of WP:BLP. See [2] and [3].

I am a GW skeptic. I do not try to hide this fact. But this fact makes me unpopular with the GW alarmists that frequent the GW pages, of which Raul is one. Anyone who frequents these pages will quickly recognize that there is a small group of editors who work in concert to prevent the addition of material that is counter to their personal POV by taking turns reverting changes from editors they disagree with (thus easily overwhelming an individual's ability to respond under WP:3RR), which effectively gives them a pocket veto to push their POV by simply disclaiming consensus (many times without any discussion). In his short time here, [4], Solomon quickly faced this group when he was merely trying to correct what he knew first hand to be false and misleading information. His experience was that of any GW skeptic here and he recounts those experiences acurately, IMHO, in [5], [6], and most recently [7].

This case is a prime example of their modus operandi. Raul simply comes in, reverts my edits, provides no discussion or justification for why he did so on the talk page or even in the edit summary, yet tells me on my talk page that I am not allowed to use the article described lest he block me. There are extensive on-going discussions on these points yet I believe that Raul has yet to comment there even once. Personally, I find that behavior to not be within the spirit or the intent of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Feel free to review my edit history. I am confident that it will show a consistent record of making extensive attempts to reach consensus on the talk pages of the articles I have edited, as well as the proper use of dispute resolution mechanisms such as RFCs and the Noticeboards to bring in outside perspectives.

I freely admit to being WP:BOLD about adding material to these pages, but being WP:BOLD and edit warring are not the same thing. It takes two (or more) to edit war. Again, review my record of reverts and take note of the names on the other side of the "war". I think your will find a great commonality among them. Since my one and only block here I have lived within the limits set forth in the policies and gudielines. In fact, please note that I have thus far respected the demands of User:R. Baley and User:Raul654 as they apply to WMC yet both keep expanding the scope of their demands so as to prevent me from making any contributions related to the Solomon articles. Is this particularly reasonable on their part? --GoRight (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he may cease with that particular edit, but that's not going to stop his general disruption on GW articles. I like the idea of a topic ban, though. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - since he's continued to edit war on the Fred Singer article (adding a hitpiece written by ex-Wikipedian Lawrence Solomon about that article) I've warned him that the next time he does, I'm going to block him. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that this editor has engaged in extensive discussion at Talk:William Connolley and gone on to reference those remarks to similar issues at Talk:Fred Singer. Blocking is not justified in this case unless the editor violates 3RR. I suggest you use dispute resolution instead. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Disruptive article editing - which he is doing in spades - is blockable. As for the talk page, he only started engaging on the talk page *after* R Baley told him (on his talk page) that is made another edit like it he'd be blocked. (And while he was simultaneously edit warring on William Gray, Global Warming, and Fred Singer). And, if you actually read what he says on tah talk page - he's talking *at* people, not too them -- he has yet to convince a single other person of anything except that he has no desire to abide by our rules. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I also disagree with your threat to block GoRight if he makes the same edit again. You are involved in these articles yourself and you should not use your admin position in this case. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as the arbcom has stated a number of times, the three revert war is not a license to revert war within limits. If he cannot edit within the expect norms of behavior - and so far, he has not - then he's going to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, first of all, as I see it, GoRight is within our expected norms, has engaged in thoughtful talk page discussion and has some support for some of his edits. Second, you are in an editorial dispute with him and your blocking him would be very inappropriate; you know that, I know that and so do 1000+ other admins. If this editor needs blocking, I suggest you ask another admin here rather than take it on yourself (this also protects you from hassles over admin abuse). Third, I think our traditional forms of dispute resolution are called for, not sanctions.

For what it's worth, I probably agree with you much more than with GoRight on many broader scientific and policy issues off-Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think GoRight is a civil editor with much to contribute. His talk page comments are well-written with reasoning is supported by our policies and guidelines (more so than some but not all of the opposing comments). We have time-proven dispute resolution processes and rules and we need to follow them.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his talk page contributions are mostly form without content, fluff-pieces propped up by cherry-picked sentences from our policies. It's most obvious in the "global warming causes earthquakes" discussion here, where he insists on adding patent nonsense (or maybe he insists that he was right to add nonsense albeit not insisting on actually adding it any more? Or may be he insists that his insistence is justified?) based on an MSNBC story that apparently he knew had already been withdrawn by other news outlets and that is based on a crank article in a crank "journal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a content dispute. The text GoRight added was well sourced, even though I probably would not include it. But threats to block by an involved admin are way over the line here. When exactly did civility become a blockable offense? ATren (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's rather more than a content dispute. The edit cited by Ncmvocalist at 05:13, 24 June 2008, for example, raises serious Biographies of living persons concerns. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a cited opinion piece from a large Canadian newspaper. I do happen to agree that it doesn't belong, but it's not so clear cut as you would make it and it's certainly not blockable. I've seen content disputes over blog-sourced criticisms in BLPs by respected editors; this claim sourced to a Canadian newspaper is tame by comparison. ATren (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What it amounts to is that one person writing an opinion piece has made a very serious charge about another person (which happens to involve a characterization of the latter's interactions on Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there). There are serious BLP concerns (one guy's factual and potentially defamatory statement is not normally to be given such weight in that context) and even without BLP it contradicts the general tenor of mainstream reporting on the matter (see WP:REDFLAG)). There are enough concerns that, if the writer persists, and moreover if he has a history of pushing this line or similar ones, administrator action may become necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We typically don't make such judgements about reliably sourced claims, you know that. BLPs are littered with criticism from ideological opponents from published sources. If you keep acting naive to this fact, people might start accusing you of civil POV pushing. ;-) ATren (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More to the point - nobody said he's been uncivil. He's a a POV pushing edit warrior who doesn't understand or abide by our basic policies regarding reliable sources, but nobody said he's uncivil. He has, however, been highly disruptive, and that is most assuredly blockable behavior. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, re-read what I said - I never said you called him uncivil - quite the opposite, in fact. I object to the link to Civil POV Pushing as if civility is some sort of a violation. The implication seems to be that you object to his civility in this dispute. As to the claim of POV pushing, his text was reliably sourced (even if I agree with you that it didn't belong) so it comes down to a judgement call between editors on two sides of a contentious topic. If repeated attempts to add sourced material is considered POV pushing, then repeated removal of that sourced material would seem to be POV pushing as well, no? ATren (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, assuming what you say is true (and I don't buy it), you are not supposed to block editors with whom you are engaged in editorial disuptes. The community's rules on this are very clear: please see WP:BLOCK#Disputes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, as for a topic ban, which you mention above, I think only ArbCom can institute one of those; I suspect they would want to see you pursue other forms of dispute resolution first (as I have already suggested). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the BLP allows for emergency action by involved administrators. In this instance I don't expect that Raul654 will have a problem persuading an uninvolved editor to act. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the update here.

• I don't think it's advisable for a block to be imposed by an admin who is considered involved - none of us want a very avoidable controversy and drama to follow.
• This does not overlook the fact that edit-warring is unacceptable - it just means the tools should be used by someone else, regardless of the end result.
• If the editor can control himself in his conduct (at least), then that's that. If he can't, then either a short block will need to be considered by an uninvolved admin. If it's something more, then as the community, we can institute a topic ban.
• Please keep up with any updates here - I think we can afford to keep this open for about a week. Will ask an uninvolved admin for help if there's any major problems.

Hopefully, the matter ends here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, I don't see a clear-cut BLP violation. I see criticism of one notable figure by another quoted in an article. We have tons of that in our BLPs -- just look at articles like George W. Bush --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As the statement in the op-ed is factual in nature, being an accusation of misconduct by a third party, there's no question about it: it's a BLP matter. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the edit I'd cited earlier? There's no need for emergency measures at this point - I'd cited that 2 days ago, and it hasn't continued since...has it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if Wikipedia: Reliable Sources were to adopt the rule almost all wikipedia science articles use: Non peer reviewed sources are not reliable sources when reporting about novel scientific results. GoRight, Blue Tie and some other editors know that this is the rule used on the Global Warming article, but they will nevertheless add text from non peer reviewed and will then start to argue that it is consistent with official wiki policy. :( Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and general disruption by User:Furtive admirer

[[::User:Furtive admirer|Furtive admirer]] ([[::User talk:Furtive admirer|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Furtive admirer|contribs]]) has been POV pushing on Jonathan Pollard. I reverted his mostly unsourced additions and gave him a {{uw-npov2}} warning. He then reintroduced his POV edits, this time introducing blatant vandalism[8] (notice the last part about "cause of global warming"; Furtive admirer later claimed that this was to prove a point[9]). This time I gave him a {{uw-vandalism4}} and included that diff in the warning.[10] His response was to accuse me of being paid to edit.[11] I then warned him not to make personal attacks, and expanded on my reasons to revert him.[12] He also was warned by another user against making personal attacks.[13] And yet, he choose to once again attack me[14] ("You should go to law school and then you will be paid for your attempt to intimidate and impeach witnesses", "Go find someone else to bully. You enjoy it a lot" ...)

What can be done about this user? Rami R 10:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this, it seems Furtive admirer is going to step back from the article. If she does so, then this is moot. If she continues ro POV-push and add deliberate misinformation, please bring this up here again. Neıl 龱 10:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent my revisions to Carol Pollard, Jonathan's sister last night after responding to Rami's threats. I did not log on here to have such difficult interactions and verbal abuse. I thought this was a credible source; obviously, you can't handle the truth (Jack Nicholson).

Carol's response is: "I wish you peace and thank you for such a nice job you did on the entry.

XXX Carol"

FYI: If you want verification of any of the additions I made, her email address is: <deleted email>

I have also contacted Dr. Morris Pollard, Jonathan Pollard's father, and though he is in his mid-90's, I suggested he deal with you directly, and/or have author, Mark Shaw correct (see footnote #24 on Pollard Page: ^ Shaw, Mark. Miscarriage of Justice, The Jonathan Pollard Story. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. 2001.) your errors with his sources. Obviously, you have serious issues here with writers and regretfully look at the glass half-full. I didn't realize how skeptical you are; you appear to alienate anyone with a triple digit IQ; it obviously reduces the quality and the integrity of your project, which now bears no weight in my ongoing acquisition of cultural literacy. My brother did warn me in advance about your treatment of contributors.

Rami, it is obvious you did not realize i was a female. You probably would have behaved better. First impressions are lasting. My dad always said, "You can catch more flies with molasses than vinegar."

This is definitely a waste of time and energy...

Furtive admirer (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with Rami R's "rvv" edit summaries, and the general treatment of Furtive admirer. While a lot of the stuff FA added to the article had severe bias and style problems, there was also some relevant and cited information mixed in -- and in any case, it certainly was not vandalism. When I see cases like this, I feel more sadness than I do anger... FA is clearly trying to do the right thing by protecting the reputation of a friend and making sure the "real story" (as she sees it) is told. The fact that her edits go against numerous Wikipedia policies is due to a lack of knowledge, not malice.

I'm going to see if any of her edits from yesterday can be salvaged. -Jaysweet (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) On a side note, you may actually be able to catch more flies with vinegar, but we get your point... ;)

Well, okay, less of the edits were salvageable than I thought. Still, I really don't like people throwing around the V-word, especially in a sad case like this. I'll leave it alone for now, but what it with that, please? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've added a note on FA's talk page (I didn't realise until today that she had left me a message as that was on my User page) hopefully explaining the issues. I agree with the comments about vandalism - I am prepared to assume good faith, and labelling those edits as vandalism is not helpful. It was full of bias and undue emphasis, but I doen't think she was deliberately disruptive or trolling. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to the article "Currently in his cell, Jonathan Jay Pollard continues to control the Earth's satellite weather system which is the primary cause of Global Warming." is clearly vandalism-- for whatever purpose it was added. DGG (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was added by an IP, and Rami reverted a dozen edits by Furtive admirer along with that edit in the "rvv" edit summary. Even though FA later admitted the IP was her, I don't think that was known for sure by Rami at the time. So I still don't care for the edit summary. I'm not asking for admin action on it or anything, I'm just saying I wish we were nicer to users who are clearly trying to do the right thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless I read the diff wrong, that bit of vandalism was added by Furtive admirer, at [15]. a few edits earlier, at [16], she added the edit "Following Pollard's arrest, Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova boasted to Jonathan that he would make it impossible for any Jew in America, let alone anyone, to support him.", an unsourced BLP accusation. I'm looking at the edits under her name, not at Ramis. Anyone who would add those two edits, let alone all the other violations, should be prevented from further work on the article. DGG (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah, you are right. I got confused because of this, which re-added the WP:POINT-y joke from an IP. I did not realize it had been already added earlier.

I have struck a number of my comments above, in accordance with this. Perhaps I should strike more, I'm not sure... I have been imagining what I would feel like if I knew someone who was sentenced to life in prison under circumstances I felt were unfair, and I admit that may be clouding my judgment in how this user ought to be treated. Because of events in my personal life right now (nothing major, just some property fines I feel are ludicrously excessive) I may also be particularly susceptible to the image of a "hanging judge" messing up someone's life for no good reason. If I'm in the wrong here, I apologize. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atten: Jaysweet and StephenBuxton--- Thanx much for your rational sensibilities. Your parents brought you up with a PMA ! (positive mental attitude) Having been involved with the Pollard Case for more than 18 years, I happened on your site and was appalled by the typical mess the contributors have sourced. I didn't realize the technical requirements were so copious --- beyond my scope. so... i have enlisted author Mark Shaw, author (see footnote # 24 on the Pollard page) to review and make corrections. His book was neutral, written from the Defense and Prosecutorial points of view. He will take up matters. If you edit him out, you just might as well shut the site down!!! He will clarify with his sources many of your omissions and errors. For example, that in fact: "From March 6, 1987, until June 10, 1988, Pollard was held for all practical purposes incommunicadoo in the hospital wing of the center set aside for the Criminally Insane" in the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners..."According to a communique from Michael Quinlan, director of the Bureau of Prisons, the order to transport Jonathan Pollard to Springfield was directed by 'Attorney General Ed Meese, the Justice Department, and the Office of Navy Investigations'."(see Pollard page footnote # 24 p.148) or that "while in prison Jonathan could have won his freedom if he had singled out certain jewish leaders as coconspirators". (same footnote , p.157); or the Alan Dershowitz affidavit attesting to an exparte conversation with Supreme Court Justice Goldberg and Judge Robinson (p.123);or, "Joseph diGenova encountered the media on the courthouse steps and continued his venom-filled tirade against Pollard. 'The sentence imposed reflects the severity of the damage...It is likely Pollard will never again see the light of day.'"(p.143) I read the history of the page and it seems you have been struggling with this page for more than 5 years. That is unreasonable. It may be in part because it appears none of you are American Citizens and haven't realized or perhaps are now beginning to with the treatment of the prisoners held without charges since 911, that America treats selective prisoners much like the KGB. Wikipedia can be a great source for the Truth rather than sourced material contracted out by the Federal Government, especially the CIA, which is how the notorious Seymour Hersh receives his primary earned income. I really think there are too many chiefs patrolling this website and not enough Indians, if you get the US metaphor. Perhaps, you might want to insert the sourced info above and salvage some of my efforts. Finally, I strongly recommend you remove Rami from this patrol assignment and reassign him to a less controverisal page. He is negative, volatile, suspicious, and very immature. he does not know how to handle people. he could have seen i was new to the site, simply based on my entries. he does not teach; he dictates. best regards for a postive outcome to this issue, both on your site and for Pollard's sake. "The Truth is on the march and nothing shall stop it." Emile Zola Furtive admirer (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you can all see, User:Furtive admirer clearly does not understand Wikipedia's purpose, and continues to make personal attacks against me. This cannot continue. Rami R 22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Furtive admirer, you are doing it again - please assume good faith! First off, Rami was not doing anything wrong in reverting your edits that you made, as they were adding a lot of undue bias and opinion to the article. Ok, maybe the wording used in the edit summary was a little harsh (but only a little), but there was nothing wrong in his actions. He had seen that the edits included something about controlling satellite systems to control global warming or some such nonsence. That would ring alarm bells in any editor that spoof info had been added and so all the rest of the information could well be suspect. In that instance, reverting all edits is appropriate.

Might I suggest the following course of actions. First one is to you, Furtive Admirer. Please stop assuming that people who are removing your edits are out to get you, and please stop labelling such people as "negative, volatile, suspicious, and very immature" as this sort of behaviour is unnacceptable. Please read all of the policies that I told you about on your talk page before you make any further edits.

Secondly, to Rami and FA. Let what has gone on before pass, and start afresh.

Thirdly, allow FA to make her edits, citing sources (see WP:CITE for help there). Rather than others automatically reverting them, go through them instead and edit them to remove bias, point of view and original research (by original research, I mean information without references).

Fourthly, if the changes are not to everyone's satisfaction, please follow the dispute resolution process (see WP:DR) until you reach an article that is going to satisfy everyone.

Everyone happy with that? StephenBuxton (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One other comment here, and this is assuming good faith edits regarding controlling the satellite system. If you look at the section it was added to, you can see that it was regarding a novel that was apparently based on the character of Jonathon Pollard: Pollard's story is frightening. It calls up images of a shadow government, totally inconsistent with the American concept of a Democracy whose elected leaders are subject to laws they are pledged to uphold. His story inspired the movie Les Patriotes (The Patriots) by French director Éric Rochant in which US actor Richard Masur portrayed a character resembling Pollard. Currently in his cell, Jonathan Jay Pollard continues to control the Earth's satellite weather system which is the primary cause of Global Warming. It is possible then that rather than stating Jonathan is a Blofeld-type character, the edit was meant to imply that he is being portrayed as such. It does of course go without saying that any unsourced comparrisons are original research and should be reverted. Please note that this is only an assumption. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)

I try to avoid this page, but seems this is the only option. I speedy closed the above AfD, as a previous discussion was closed four days ago. However, "Killerofcruft" has disagreed, and reverted my close, twice now. I find this to be highly inappropriate, and would appreciate help in the matter. Thank you. Al Tally ^talk 12:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer the notability questions he has posed? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this - I became aware of the article after reading about it here on AN/I today, before that I had never heard of, edited or had any connection to the article. I carefully reviewed all of the sources and found that there is not a single mention that is not either a listing, by the author itself, trivial or entirely unconnected to the subject matter. There are literally NO Reliable Sources for this article - it is not notable in any way shape or form. It exists and that's it. Generally there is a gentleman's agreement (and as far as I'm aware that's all it is - a suggestion not a policy) against re-opening AFD so soon (and I'll confess I missed the fact that it had been AFD's so soon) but my understanding is that is to stop involved parties using the AFD process as a weapon to hit each other over the head with. I have come to this article cold, I have reviewed it, I have searched for reliable sources. I cannot find any reliable sources, I cannot find any non-trivial sources. On that basis, I have made a good faith use of process. If this is closed, I'd like someone to be specific about the minimum period I'll have to wait because as soon as that is up, I'll just AFD it again - again in good faith, because of the lack of notability and the lack of reliable sources about the subject matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll list it, without regard for the current state of the article? Assuming that it currently fails RS now. That hardly sounds like a good faith nom to me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - obviously I meant with the qualification of if the sourcing remains the same. apologies for any confusion caused by my brevity on this matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't typically care for rapid re-noms.. and even though IMO KoC's username has a dash of implicit bad faith, which I also don't care for... my inclination would be to let the AfD play out. The article has major notability concerns, and the previous AfD only really dealt with the COI concerns.

However, DilligentTerrier should weigh in before any decision is made. He has been involved with the cleanup of the article and his opinion would definitely count for something. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This prior AN/I section re Killerofcruft should be noted. Similar behavior is continuing; the issue is not notability of the article but incivility, which is particularly a problem in AfD where tensions tend to be high. Koc acknowledged being a "returned user having exercised his right to vanish" which explains how a new account is suddenly so active in such a manner. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to my incivility in that AFD? please be specific and provide diffs. Your constant accusations and bad faith attempts to slur my name are getting tiresome. If you have problems with my activities here - open a RFCU, if you have a problem with any particular edits of mine - bring it up on the relevent article talkpages. in all cases, provide diffs and don't throw around accusations you are unwilling to back up with specifics. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it was in that AfD, though I have not reviewed it. It's here in AN/I and elsewhere. Example: the response immediately above. The effect of my post was

• (1) To connect this report with the prior AN/I notice,
• (2) To separate the issue of conduct from that of notability, which is not an issue to be resolved with AN/I, ordinarily, AN/I being designed for dealing with editor behavior, not content issues, but some are easily distracted. I.e., an editor might (this is not necessarily a present claim against Koc) be grossly uncivil or disruptive in, say, proposing an AfD that is a proper AfD, i.e., the article is actually not notable. More to the point, an editor might close an AfD in a manner ultimately found to be improper, which is then reverted by another instead of (a) discussing it or (b) going to DRV. The second is considered to require the first, and both are preferable, and sometimes even required, in lieu of using reversion. Edit warring is a conduct issue, not a content issue. *Any* revert without discussion, where the reason is debatable, is arguably edit warring. and
• (3) The editor has been uncivil, repeatedly so. My response is a graduated one, which has not yet reached the level of requiring proof; however, everything I've said could be backed with diffs, and will be if I come to the conclusion that it's worth the effort. At this point, I'd only suggest reading the prior AN/I report, which contains examples, and the User's Talk page and contribution history. Next step is to formally warn the user on User talk:Killerofcruft, that the user had not been formally warned was one of the arguments against block in the prior report; I'm refraining from doing that myself, at this point, but I will if any reasonable editor suggests that I take on the task.

At this point, my comments are discussion, of user behavior, not a formal attempt to sanction the user. Koc narrowly escaped being blocked in that last AN/I report and I had nothing to do with that; in fact, my comments probably helped reach the conclusion that action against the user was not yet warranted.

So that's a "no I'll just keep making accusations" --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations, no. I'm not making accusations, generally. I point to evidence, sometimes I present obvious conclusions from the evidence, typically quite solid ones (though I make mistakes from time to time, and I try to apologize for them promptly when they are pointed out). However, what Koc considers "accusations," yes. Consistent with policy, guidelines, and the welfare of the project, I will continue to comment on what I observe, as part of the essential process by which Wikipedia regulates itself. There are now two AN/I reports in as many days over Koc behavior, involving different users, with no sign to me that Koc recognizes that his behavior is at all problematic. The first AN/I report, referenced above, was closed with a comment that it should be sufficient as a warning regarding his edit summaries (though more was mentioned in the AN/I report than that).[17] Subsequently, Koc commented that it was closed "because it was a lot of crap."[18] I would call that defiant disregard of a warning.--Abd (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

just so people don't think I left this hanging - I will make no further comment to abd - it just seems to feed ... well whatever this is suppose to be. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The first AFD was handled improperly, as it resulted in a keep but without a discovery of whether adequate sources exist. The second one should probably run- the first one wasn't useful. Friday (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it was procedurally correct. It just so happens that nobody had much to say about the notability and verifiability. I still feel uncomfortable with starting an AFD so fast after the last one was closed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many aliases in this discussion. In addition to KoC, Al tally (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Majorly (talk · contribs). Unclear what that means. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the article, I've made my comments on the talk page and in the AfD. There's no third-party confirmation of notability. I've tracked down the unlinked citations in the article. (See the talk page and AfD page for links.) The cited articles are on line, and they're very, very brief mentions of the article subject. This is self-published original research by a new editor writing their first article. The article looks better-cited than it is until you find and read the citations, and discover there's almost nothing there. I was planning to send it to AfD in a few weeks, after allowing time for it to become clear that it's not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now at least 3 editors on that second AFD who are saying "too soon to renominate", totally ignoring the point that the original AFD ignored notability. Thus, this apparently self-promoting and dubious article will likely get retained. Wikipedia at its finest. NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The inventor of the language and the main author of the article seems to bang the lid down on this one --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the RS or notability issues, the 2nd AfD should be procedurally speedy closed. The first AfD had its chance at the article and to renominate four days later is disruptive as it takes time and energy better spent on writing and improving articles. This also points out the need for policy on a minimum interval between nominations. A collaborative project the size of WP has to have process, or it won't work. Keeping an article that may, or may not, be notable enough does infinitely less harm than violating process, in spirit or letter. The editors voting to keep in the 2nd AfD (due to unseemly haste to renominate) understand that problem and are correct. If the article is still believed to be inadequate later on, come back in three months and renominate. Also, Killerofcruft as a username seems to display an inherent bias toward deletionism. — Becksguy (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting the right answer is more important than some arbitrary time limit between AFDs. As pointed out, the first AFD ignored the sourcing issue, for some reason. Friday (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If sourcing was so important, it should have been included in the 1st AfD. It had its chance at the right answer. It's not about arbitrary time limits, it's about minimizing the disruption to Wikipedia. We have an overwhelmingly large number of AfDs, more than anyone can keep up with, even in their areas of expertize. Renominating because someone wants a second (or 3rd, or 4th, etc) shot at an article, especially within short time periods, just adds to that massive problem. And four days just boggles the mind as disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Becksguy. The proper procedure to initiate a review of the previous AfD is to go through the deletion review process. This whole re-nomination is a disruptive abuse of process. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Killerofcruft has it right. If the subject is self-promotional and not notable, then the first AFD is irrelevant. The "you had your chance" stuff is childish. Getting it right is all that matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And according to my count, the previous AFD had a grand total of TWO "Keep" statements aside from the original author. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the article, and the "you had your chance" argument doesn't hold water. Even without bringing up notability, it was teetering on being deleted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should take the time to get it right. That includes working on the article to find reliable source, sometimes it isn't obvious, and, in fact, it may not be obvious to the original author. The claim, above, that the inventor isn't aware of RS and therefore it does not exist, is a non-sequitur. Now, for me to find out the truth of this, myself, could take hours of research, on a topic where I have no knowledge. This is a community project, and we take advantage of community resources. It takes time. For this reason, when an AfD closes without consensus (which was the case here, in fact), immediate renomination disrupts the process of improving the article. Yes, it was "teetering on being deleted." Should we keep it teetering? I'd say we should give it a month. It survived AfD, and debating notability doesn't find sources for the article. Patient work does. Sometimes RS exists and is not googleable. If no RS appears in a month, nobody would be questioning the renomination. It is only that it was done a few days later, by a newly registered "returning user who exercised his right to vanish," an apparent deletionist from the user name, that is the problem. That user edit warred to keep the 2nd nomination openm which was the cause of this AN/I report, which got distracted by the notability question. User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name -- may indeed be right about the article, but what's the hurry? What's the problem with taking the proper time and following the proper process, which does not include edit warring? --Abd (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't argue for "speedy" deletion. But if the author himself can't find a reliable source for this article, then what likelihood is there? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last two days something like (and this is from skimming) >80% of Abd's edits have been a) about me or b) have involved subjected I was already editing or discussions I was already involved in. At least 3 of those edits were removed as personal attacks. People asked me to tone down the edit summaries - I did that. People said my name could cause problems - I changed it. I have no problem with people querying my actions - when asked on my talk page, I have answered. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like he's out to get me. Maybe it's in my mind but I honestly feel he's following me around try to cause trouble. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this content dispute on ANI? People have a right to bring a rightful AfD if they so wish, they are entitled to their (IMHO rightful) opinion that this should be deleted and IMHO no-one should ever be on ANI for creating an AfD in good faith, just because the complainer on ANI disagrees with it. If Crufty's name is ensuring he's harassed, then maybe he should be encouraged to change it, but apart from that leave Crufty alone!:) Sticky Parkin 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Sticky Parkin should look at the beginning of this discussion? It was brought here because User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name to User:Allemandtando -- was edit warring with an administrator. The discussion, which was originally and properly about user behavior, was sidetracked into what should have been a question resolved through ordinary process (discussion and, in this case, DRV, if discussion fails -- but discussion wasn't tried -- unless an AN/I report is "discussion"), that is, whether or not the article is notable. Above, Allemandtando dashes some hopes that he is going to change his behavior as well as his name. He's done a number of things worthy of comment. The appropriate thing, when comment is made, isn't to challenge the comment but to examine the behavior. He claims to have done that, and we can hope that he does, but what do I have to do with this AN/I report? Or, for that matter, the one filed yesterday? If I were "out to get him," the number one thing I would have done would have been to warn him, so that his behavior would then have been promptly blockable. I'd have, by yesterday, filed an SSP report, just in case, and I'd have taken several matters to AN/I. But I didn't. I see now that he has also withdrawn the problematic AfD nomination, and a compromise seems to be in the making. Good move. I haven't pursued him and I have no plans to. However, given what's come down, I do plan to keep my eyes open. I'll grant, it is not easy to recover from the level of negative attention he has drawn in the few days since he registered; offenses that might not raise an eyebrow otherwise can result in a block. But he's not in danger from me, personally, only from the consequences of his own actions as seen by the community. Which I do not think blockworthy, yet. As was the conclusion from the last AN/I report, he can be considered warned. User:Arcayne may have played a role in calming the waters, for which he is to be commended; let's hope they stay calm.--Abd (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Killerofcruft/Allemandtando has withdrawn the AfD nomination, but reserves the right to renominate in eight weeks, pending the addition of sources. I endorse that compromise. Will a uninvolved admin/editor close as withdrawn by nom, without prejudice to renomination. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as there are other delete or delete/userfy votes, it isn't automatically closed if withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were to adopt a "negative" kind of username, it would be along the lines of "Killerofcruft" -- something like "Death to spam". Several of us will be watching that article, so its author had best come up with some sources, or he'll be hearing about it again soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to the author alone to come up with sources. This is our project, not his. In any case, if the original attempt to close the AfD had not been interrupted by edit warring, there wouldn't have been those delete or delete/userfy votes at this time, and we'd either see an adequate article down the road a bit, or another AfD, this time a proper one. AN/I didn't work this time: properly, seeing the rapid renom after close, without going to DRV instead, the user involved should have been warned about edit warring, and the AfD promptly closed by a new administrator, avoiding a whole lot of wikifuss. Next time, please, administrators, don't allow a proper AN/I report -- and this one was proper on the part of User:Al tally, who reported instead of edit warring, himself, -- to be derailed over content issues, as this one was from the beginning by Baseball Bugs, who asked Al tally a question about notability that was, for our purposes here, irrelevant. The user could be right as rain about the notability of the article, and the edit warring still not permissible.--Abd (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the spammers and self-promoters win. So far, they've won this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A note on the players in the AfD:

• Al tally (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Majorly (talk · contribs).
• Killerofcruft (talk · contribs) is a redirect to Allemandtando (talk · contribs).
• TotientDragooned (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely pending a name change.

Have I missed anyone? --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blocked. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

← I think things are getting too muddled here. Really, the 2nd AfD isn't out of process. The nominator was unaware of the first nomination and, in good faith, nominated an article with no reliable sources for deletion. Now, if we want to be slaves to process, the correct procedure would have been to close the 2nd AfD, file an appeal at DRV stating that the 1st AfD did not have enough participation to get a result and that it should be relisted to gain a consensus. Which would wind up either re-opening one of those AfDs, or creating a 3rd one.

Rather than tying ourselves up in red tape, I'd say it's more effective to simply let this AfD run its course. The final decision could be appealed at DRV if you really wanted, but I'd say it's frivolous. If the article is kept, it should stay for at least a couple months before being renominated. If it's deleted or userfied, there's no reason it can't be written (or undeleted) later with proper sourcing. Process may be important, but we shouldn't let it get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I rarely invoke WP:IAR, but I think this is a case that calls for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Even now, the article's defenders are working feverishly trying to prove notability, i.e. trying to find some shred of evidence that anyone besides the article's author has ever heard of this computer language. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm ... at 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) you said on the AfD page "Every minute the defenders of this article are spending defending it, could be better spent looking for information that the subject is actually notable". So now some folks are actually trying to improve a Wikipedia article. Whatever perverted mischief will they think of next ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. They must have heard me, then. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:JacobDyer08's edit summaries

JacobDyer08 (talk · contribs) uses a very non-standard edit summary when editing. It's long, unrelated to anything he's actually doing and it usually goes like this:

my name is jacob dyer and i live in bristol. it is fantastic. i sound like barnaby bear. i like barnaby bear. one time he went to france. i went to france. but some kid burnt my neck. i didnt like it

or, after he was warned (again) about using such summaries

but my name IS jacob dyer and i DO live in bristol!

Although it might be humorous, it's diruptive to the other editors working on the same articles because, other than checking one-by-one all of his contributions, they have no clue as to what he's actually done before typing such an edit summary. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits are OK. They are mostly reversion of vandalism. The summaries are, however, seriously disruptive. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this is a good-faith editor. What I think might be causing the problem is, when he was told to use edit summaries, he was not told what an edit summary is or how to use it properly. While I know there was a link, it seems like a plausible mistake, especially for an inexperienced editor. Just try to have a civil, non-warning like, discussion with the user and see what happens. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is good advice. I struck an earlier stern warning, and replace it with this. Perhaps young Mr. Dyer was just confused :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After I added the first note about edit summaries, I didn't see any further edits for a few minutes, so I assumed good faith and guessed that he was reviewing the edit summary page. I had considered bringing it here in the first place, but seeing the pause seemed good enough for me at the moment. As he's a new editor, I hope that he takes this issue to heart as vandal fighters are generally helpful. Slambo (Speak) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some established editors nearly always use blank edit summaries, or terse, one- or two-letter summaries, which convey no meaning to other users. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these types of edit summaries any better? GlassCobra 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No better at all, but they don't get templated or raised here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that a blank edit summary is better than the one he was using. It clutters up the history and makes it harder to identify changes.

The 2-letter edit summaries can actually be really handy sometimes, depending. I agree "rv" is pretty useless (yes, we know you reverted, thanks), as is "+" (we can tell you added content), but "ce", "sp", "wkfy", etc., those are pretty handy, IMO...

Anyway, I think Juliancolton was right that the poor kid just didn't understand what an edit summary was. As long as he stops, it's fine. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sea Change

The end of the intro to the article Sea Change has an obviously weasel-worded statement lacking sources, so I added the {{who?}} tag at the end of it. User Stan Simmons removed the tag without providing a source, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt because he's new; then I added a {{ww}} tag. He then removed the tag again, so I went to his talk page and gave him a link to WP:WEASEL (to which he didn't respond). I then expressed my concern on the Sea Change talk page, and he didn't seem to get what I was saying, so I took the matter to WP:3.

After going to WP:3, Juliancolton agreed with me (and the guideline) and reinstated the tag, but Stan Simmons simply removed it again. I re-reinstated the tag and told him that I would seek an admin's help if he didn't stop (or at least add sources), but today he just removed the tag again.

Can something be done about this? Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The user does not appear to comprehend what a weasel word is, so it might be best to leave a stern message on his talk page explaining what a weasel word is, and what may happen if he continues to edit war over whether {{ww}} should remain in the article. I'll keep an eye out for 3RR violations. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried leaving a message before, and like I said, the message was unanswered. The way this user's going, leaving even a stern message seems like it would be a waste of keystrokes. Anthony Rupert (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just posted another message on Stan's talk page, as well as a similar message on the Sea Change talk page. But I didn't reinstate the {{weasel}} or {{ww}} tag because I don't want to be accused of an edit war or violating 3RR. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sea change... isn't that what you get back when you spend a few sand dollars? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound bitter, but why haven't any admins responded to this yet? There have been several incidents reported after this fact that have since been resolved. Anthony Rupert (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that admin action is required. I've made a non-admin contribution to the Talk page. Let's see if it helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Need fresh eyes in the case of User:WikiDon v. User:General Mannino

Resolved

 – General Mannino block reduced to six days; Wikidon blocked indef by uninvolved admin Sarcasticidealist --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• WikiDon (talk · contribs) (socks: HoundDog23 (talk · contribs), Generale d'Armata Mannino (talk · contribs), IP4240207xx (talk · contribs))
• General Mannino (talk · contribs) (sock: MI General (talk · contribs))

This is in regards to this thread above, which now needs fresh eyes.

A quick recap: General Mannino and WikiDon got into a conflict earlier in the day in regards to the Mannino article. Things escalated into personal attacks, with accusations of stalking on both sides. MBK004 (talk · contribs) was considering a civility block on GM, and after this edit, perceived by some as a death threat and others as an innocent joke, enacted a 1-week block on General Mannino.

A few editors were about to step in and say the block seemed excessive, but then new evidence came to light. This aborted RfA was uncovered, which, among other things, was polluted by GM using the sock MI General (talk · contribs). And then, this infamous edit occurred, and everybody freaked. General Mannino was indef blocked -- not solely because of the threat from the Generale d'Armata Mannino account, but the diff was known at the time, so it is hard to say exactly how much that came into play.

It has now emerged that the edit above ([19]) stating an explicit threat and implications of IRL stalking against WikiDon, was in fact from a sockpuppet of WikiDon himself. It was also uncovered that HoundDog23 (talk · contribs) is also a sock of WikiDon. The latter account has generally been used in a positive manner, but also participated in the earlier edit war at Mannino. To date, no action has been taken against WikiDon, so that will clearly need to be an outcome of this thread, I am afraid.

To muddy the waters further, General Mannino, in responding to what he felt was an unjust indef block for a sock that he claimed was not his (which ultimately proved true), made a rather unwise unblock request, in which he complained that Alison (talk · contribs), the admin running the Checkuser, may be biased against him because she is Irish and he is Italian. A quite unflattering moment for GM, and normally I would think this would be the nail in the coffin that would mean the indef block should stand -- but I can't help but wonder if he would have said something so dumb if WikiDon had not pulled the fake sock shennanigans.

Alison has wisely requested that this be handled by a previously uninvolved admin. I agree fully. This situation has just been too confusing for those of us who have been deeply involved. Clearly, action needs to be taken against both users, but it is unclear exactly what the severity should be. To those who chose to sort this out, I say: Good luck :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Update: Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) has reduced the length of General Mannino's block to six days, i.e. restoring the balance of the original 1-week block for personal attacks. It remains to be decided what action to take against WikiDon. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) False flagging and attempting to frame another user (for threats, of all things) earns you an indefinite block in my book; this is not the type of person who usually has a demeanor compatible with a project built on collaborative editing. GM's conduct isn't above board either, but his current six-day block seems about right for an immature threat probably made in anger. We can always keep an eye on the latter's behavior and see if they reform. east.718 at 21:19, June 24, 2008

(e/c x2)I'm most certainly involved, but I can't help chiming in. First, Metros enacted the 1 week block after reviewing MBK's thread here, not MBK004. Then, I upgraded to indef (prematurely). Ultraexactzz has already revised General Mannino's block back to the original week, and although I'm not sure how i feel about that, I won't argue. I would say GM's situation needs no further discussion; I don't really see Ultraexactzz's decision being overruled, given what's happened.

However, the question remains what to do about WikiDon. If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/General Mannino‎, there's yet another sock of his uncovered. I advocate an indef block on WikiDon and all his socks for eggregious abuse of our trust, trying to frame another user, and wasting our time with fake death threats. This can't possibly require a "warning" that you shouldn't do this, and I view trying to frame another user as just about the worst use of sockpuppetry there is; worse than block evasion, worse than vandalism. I'm going to step back and let an uninvolved admin deal with it, but that's my two cents. I'm now off for a quick self-administred trout slap for the hasty indef block. --barneca (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already indef-blocked WikiDon based on the above thread, before this one existed. If you think that was premature, my apologies, but this appears to be a pretty flagrantly deserved indef block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist indef blocked WikiDon. I am satisfied with that, so marking this resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That said, I am very sad to see a contributor as prolific as WikiDon disappear over such a dumb, dumb incident. I don't see how it can be anything but an indef block, but this sucks.  :( --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that in his explanation he talks about the dark side of human nature, in others, while it appears that he went down that path himself. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, given the conversation on my talk page, I'd love to see a finite date placed on his block rather than the indef that he got. While what he did was seriously wrong on a whole number of levels, I see it more as an aberration and something that is decidedly out of character than an ongoing thing. The guy needs a break from enwiki - no question of that - but indef? That's a bit harsh, IMO - Alison ^❤ 08:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. I'm seeing a degree of contrition that your typical bad user seldom displays. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What? He was in a dispute, and created a sock account with the sole intention of getting his opponent indefinitely blocked. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. He has posted a very sad story to your talk page, Alison, and I can see how it would elicit some sympathy, but he's only sorry because he got caught - do you think if he had gotten away with it, he would have felt sorry? Balls. If we have to have a finite date, I would make it some time in 2108. Neıl 龱 09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(I have commented out the resolved tag, since there is now discussion on whether to make WikiDon's block finite)

This situation really, really depresses me.  :( I was about ready to say that I endorse reducing it to a finite block, but I thought I'd pop over and see what is going on at his talk page.. and then I see that IP4240207xx (talk · contribs) was also a WikiDon sock. I am very disappointed to see what he wrote in regards to it there... He says the sock existed due to a login problem and that Jimbo was aware of it, so therefore it was a legitimate alternate account. That is all fine and good, but you can't take your legitimate alternate account and use it to give the appearance that multiple people are taunting a blocked user you recently had a dispute with, as he did in the pile-on at User talk:General Mannino the other day.

Since our blocks are preventative rather than punitive, I really don't like to see a long-standing productive contributor disappear over a single incident, no matter how egregious that incident is. If there's no reason to believe he'll do it again, why punish him for it? "Good for the goose/good for the gander" is poor logic here, IMO -- we don't operate on simply truisms like that. (No offense Neil, I have a very high level of respect for you, I just think you're wrong in this case :) )

That said, even though I keep wanting to forgive WikiDon, I keep finding out something else that makes my jaw drop. What on earth was he thinking??  :(

I guess, on balance, I think I would support reducing it to a finite block, with the following restrictions:

• No use of sockpuppets, or even legitimate alternate accounts, or an IP, or anything. All edits are from the WikiDon account, no matter what.
• No communication whatsoever with blocked editors. I would even go so far as to say no commenting on blocked editors, unless specifically asked by someone for details related to ongoing enforcement.

(Oh geez, I had not yet read his plea on Alison's Talk page... just read it now. Now I'm even more depressed about this... heh...)

Anyway, that's my proposal. WikiDon did about the dumbest thing he could do, but he only did it once (or at least, only over the course of one day). Do we really believe he's likely to do it again? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One more comment... thinking about the goose/gander thing, here is why I think it is different: Yes, if we lift WikiDon's indef, some people will say, "Hey, you are letting him off with a free pass just because he's done a lot of work for the encyclopedia! Enforcement should be the same!" However, this logic is deeply flawed, because again, our enforcement is preventative, not punitive. If somebody had been at enwiki for a week, and then did what WikiDon did, we might rightly be suspicious that they were planning this all along and/or that this is likely to be the normal M.O. for this person. But clearly, I don't think WikiDon edited for four years so he could build up enough trust to --- to what? Momentarily confuse a few editors & admins, and get a dubious contributor's block extended? And I think it's obvious from his past contributions that this is not his normal mode of behavior. This is not "that type of editor," and we all know that perfectly well.

I still think a case can be made that the indef should stand -- this was about the dumbest thing he could have done -- but arguments that involve something along the lines of "we wouldn't even have this conversation if he was a new editor" are flawed, IMO. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see a pressing need to have this conversation now. Indef isn’t the same as infinite. There have been other people that have been allowed back on after a suitable interval (which seems, historically, to be between 3 months and 1 year, depending on the severity of the problem, the level of friendship they cultivated, the personality of their mentor, and (most heavily correlated) the results of a random number generator). I also sympathize with the issues he’s been dealing with.

However, I suggest leaving it indef for now, rather than finite, and have him request an unblock in some number of months, at which time he will hopefully be in a better frame of mind, we won't be quite so pissed off, and we can discuss it then. I will say that his long explanation seems to indicate still not "getting it", but I see that conversation as better for later, than now.

Alison suggested somewhere (can’t find it now) that he pick a different Wiki, like Simple or Commons or Wiktionary or some other language, with less conflict, and start the long journey of building back up the broken trust. I agree; I’d look more favorably on a return in X months if there was a history of good work elsewhere. I’d also add my opinion (which I suspect others disagree with) that the key is to simply avoid all significant disputes at his new Wiki, and accept that with his history, he’s probably always going to be at a disadvantage in that he’ll always kind of need to walk away from a fight, including here if he returns. The price you pay, I think. Others probably will want to see evidence of good dispute resolution, I don’t know.

Anyway, executive summary is: leave indef for now, suggest work on another project for a while, open possibility of unblock review in some number of months, when he's got a decent editing history elsewhere, and perhaps gains perspective about how unjustified his actions were. --barneca (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

After a suitable interval, like some number of months or a year, he could ask for an unblock. Allowing an unblock too soon, if it's to happen at all, would open a serious can of worms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I kindof hope WikiDon sees this. Might make him feel better to know we might consider an unblock at some time in the future...

I'll put the resolved tag back in, since it is resolved, for now. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members

Camden, New Jersey could use protection against IP edits. It's currently the target of an ongoing campaign of vandalism by multiple unrelated IP addresses, as its history reveals. It's apparently a coordinated effort by members of the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity according to this comment on Cooper University Hospital, which has been the target of similar, persistent mischief over several months. See Talk:Camden, New_Jersey#Ongoing vandalism by fraternity members for detailed information about similar vandalism on other articles. This has been going on for months and continues to escape serious administrator intervention because the edits are coming from so many different IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. I've semi-protected this article, with an expiry time of 3 months. -- The Anome (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please place such requests at WP:RFPP. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism campaign is more complex than can be addressed by protecting one article, which is why I posted it here. Perhaps my comment above wasn't clear enough. It's a campaign of ongoing vandalism by multiple unrelated IP addresses on multiple articles; Camden, New Jersey just happens to be the latest target. It's disheartening that past appeals for administrator intervention against these vandals have gone nowhere. Instead, the typical response is a quick scold on a minor procedural point, which ignores the bigger issue. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What other action were you looking for? Is there a pattern to the IPs? Or to the targets? Or something else? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no obvious pattern to the IPs. Some of the targeted articles involve Camden, New Jersey, but not all. The frequent edit-summary taunts about "the Network" and references to "TKE" are what suggest it's a coordinated campaign by fraternity members using different PCs. Background information is here and here. The action I'm looking for is an administrator's guidance on how Wikipedia handles this kind of persistent vandalism. There must be a more effective way to respond than just blocking IP addresses one at a time and protecting individual articles, right? Especially when there's ample evidence that the vandalism is coordinated, has been occurring for months, and almost certainly will continue on other articles from other IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more steps need to b taken so I have decided to void the "resolved" tag since its not really resolved per se. Smith Jones (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As a user formerly named "Teke", I'll take further action. Keegan^talk 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving the chapter in question a call in the morning. I spent two years as a TKE president, and I'm quite ashamed as a proud Wikipedian. Keegan^talk 06:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect external action will need to be taken. This "network" is not going to be stopped by simply blocking IPs. Enigma ^message 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the university should help.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what university or chapter would that be? The TKE Chapter Map doesn't show a chapter in Camden and the disruptive edits don't suggest an obvious geographic origin to me beyond Camden. &#151;Whoville (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's Rowan University. Keegan^talk 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I contacted the prytanis of Rowan chapter as well as a couple others in surrounding areas and told them if they heard anything, please ask them to knock it off. Other than that there's not a lot much more we can do. Keegan^talk 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) most of the TKE stuff is because Wikileaks has posted their manual. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. And, of course, all websites using MediaWiki are actually just secretly subsites of Wikipedia. Makes me glad there are no fraternities in Australian universities. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK poor fact checking issues -- does it matter when articles on main page are wrong?

Does it matter that the articles in DYK are often plagiarized and wrong? Today's list has a fact from Deux Balés National Park which maps the Black Volta River in far eastern Burkina Faso--it's not. The river on the map, in far eastern Burkina Faso is the Oti. The Black Volta is just west of center. I don't think that complaints about problems on the main page are welcomed. But DYK appears to be out of control. Do editors earn rewards for DYK contributions? There is not much time spent fact checking. Even Wikipedia could have been used to fact check this article, and see that it's wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not quite the Oti, either. In fact, I think the location marker puts the park in Benin on the wrong side of a divide. --Blechnic (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have felt for quite some time that our obsession with keeping DYK featuring only Wikipedia's newest articles results in a sacrifice in its quality. I really think we should drop or substantially alter the five-day limit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I do recall a suggestion to use facts from recently listed Good Articles but I don't recall the outcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea--reward articles that have had people work on them and review them. I started a discussion at WP:Did you know, talk.[[20]] I would like to see more people care that the encyclopedia doesn't get its facts straight, and then highlights the incorrect facts along with plagiarized material on its front page. It's something I think the writers who get their facts straight and the writer who don't plagiarize would care about a lot. Because someone of the other kind may be editing along side you discrediting your work. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only do two updates a day, and require articles be 2500 characters. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insinuate Blechnic that the people currently working on DYK don't care to "get the facts straight". I just spent three hours singlehandedly vetting DYK submissions for eight viable hooks for the current update. I don't recall seeing you there trying to help, nor in fact have I ever seen you trying to help on the submissions page. But you seem quite keen on criticizing the actual contributors who you claim don't "care" enough about the quality.

As for your criticisms - you claim that plagiarism and mistakes are rife on DYK but have only up to now provided a single example. So there is no evidence that this is a serious problem. We only have your word for it. But I must say I haven't actually seen you doing anything to correct any of these alleged problems, so again it appears to be a problem you want somebody else to fix. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A single example? No, they are all over the place. I just read one article, it's plagiarized.

Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized from this page.[21] Maybe it's in the public domain, but it doesn't say that it is. --Blechnic (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the articles written by Carol Spears that appeared on DYK were plagiarized. The article Deux Balés National Park moved one of Africa's major drainage basins to the other side of the divide. I haven't seen a single article on DYK that wasn't plagiarized or wrong. Are you going to correct Beth Wambui Mugo or shoot the messenger? I'm betting Wikipedians will continue to shoot the messenger--it's much easier than finding a solution. Actually, I tried to correct it the first time I found plagiarism in an article on the main page, I got attacked viciously by half a dozen editors and three admins, blocked for a week, and threatened with a ban if I ever tried it again, so don't tell me I haven't done anything.--Blechnic (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized, I have to take the rap for that one, I didn't check it thoroughly enough and it should be pulled from the front page and the DYK removed. But I can't do everything. We simply don't have enough people on the project, and while I've picked up many examples of plagiarism, one or two are bound to slip through. But I don't think we get that many.

As for Carol Spears, I didn't know about this case but we do rely to some extent on the good faith of our contributors, and if someone is routinely plagiarizing material it's not unusual on wikipedia for someone to take a while to pick it up. I can't actually recall Spears submitting any articles to DYK but maybe she did. So again, one or two examples do not prove there's a chronic problem. But anytime you do find plagiarism at DYK, by all means inform us so that we can deal with it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Carol was the one promoting or suggesting the articles she wrote be put on DYK. I don't know who did. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have pulled the Beth Wambui Mugo article from the front page as a possible copyvio until further notice. Thanks Blechnic for picking that up. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This a direct product of DYK's current format, the fact that articles appearing there are usually 2 - 5 days old precipitates the ammount of these situations. If DYN is supposed to attract interest to articles, then we should try to rotate it towards Stub/Start class articles that we already have, those are becoming more ignored by established users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the current system, any article expanded over 5 times is eligible. That is an incentive to work on start and stub class articles. For instance, I took Christopher Smart to 50k and submitted it to DYK. There are many people like myself that do such work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plagiarism in DYK articles before as well. I feel fairly confident that I could create an article based on plagiarized content and submit it to DYK and it would pass. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Caribbean H.Q., find a way to reward responsible contributors: those who don't plagiarize, who spend the necessary time to write an article, and wind up with just a stub or start class article. It takes me five days to write an opening paragraph for a brochure on a plant pest, and that's after every else has done the research, and I've read their research. Yes, Akhilleus, it would be pretty easy. --Blechnic (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess one step we could quickly take would be to formulate sanctions for those who submit copyvios to DYK. First offence - three month ban from submitting articles to DYK. Second offence - indef ban from DYK. Something like that should help deter users who are tempted to take short cuts in order to gain a DYK award. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the DYK medal by itself makes much difference to article-writing incentive. If a person thinks purely along these lines, they would have to write 50 articles to get 2 medals. It's much easier to get barnstars by grandstanding, etc. Writing articles is not an efficient way to get barnstars, in the case of a person who planned their wiki-routine on optimising their barnstar count, they would not write articles. As for things being on the main page, a lot of FAs with blogrefs, non-RS, COI references have made it on the front page. That's not to say anything about articles with deliberately concealed POV pushing etc. A lot of articles are only of interest to the author, or people from a certain country or ethnic group, in which case the person/group can do whatever they want to. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK are supposed to include hooks that are cited in the main body of the text. With that in place, there should be no copyvios (as cited) and it should meet verifiabiltiy (as cited). As such, there really is no problem with DYK, and there should be no alterations to it. The admin who work DYK put a lot of effort into it and perform a thankless task. Perhaps we should instead take the opportunity to actually thank their contribution that dramatically helps Wikipedia as a whole instead of bringing up issues that aren't actually issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of both articles, I apologise for any inconveniance I have caused. The park coordinates was a mistake, and I completely messed up on that one. As for Mugo, I automatically assumed Kenya was the same as the US in terms of government sources, and I would like clarity on the issue. I was on a wikibreak while all this occured, and I am not cutting corners to work for the 50 DYK barnstar; instead, it is simply an area that I work a lot in. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Kenya's copyright laws, but why not always state clearly that it is copied verbatim from a source, or simply rewrite it? It wasn't particularly well written, which is how I knew it was a copyright violation or plagiarism or just plain copied and pasted.

Ottava Rima, are you saying that any crap that winds up on the main page to the shame of Wikipedia should be left there? Interesting since not a single person responsible for the crap agrees. Thank you Editorofthewiki for simply apologizing for the park coordinates mess up and saying you blew it. If you need help in the future on West African geography, or fact checking on west African geography, geology, or natural history, let me know. I can usually add some specific details, and link appropriately. I also know some of the geopolitical boundaries, like Black Volta Province is called Mouhoun, and can verify information like this, and often source it. --Blechnic (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I appreciate what the DYK admins do, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved. I don't blame the admins, but I do find fault with the system. And just to clarify this: I've been opposed to the five-day limit for quite some time; not just because of this incident. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Using pejoratives to describe pages does not mean that there is a problem. DYK is there to supply interesting information to draw people towards a new page so they can start editing. All that is required is an interesting fact that is provided in the body of the text and cited. If it is cited, it cannot be a copyright violation, unless it is a quote over 300 words (aka fair use). Regardless, your problem seems to be with the pages that happen to be on DYK, not the hooks which are displayed on the main page. DYK does not cover the pages. It only covers the hooks. If you feel that there is a copyright violation, please go to WP:CP. However, it is the article, and not the DYK, that would be the problem. Your anger is misplaced. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write the word shit 500 times in an article, then put in a good hook, well-referenced, and researched: this meets your criterion for a DYK. No, you've made assumptions that have no basis in actual Wikipedia policy. I could be wrong, please do provide me with a link to the policy that says any crappy article that has a single good line, well-reference can be a DYK. Oh, look, when describing the hooks, here's the language: "While we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles, articles dealing with living persons are especially sensitive. Please keep the Biography of Living Persons policy in mind." Notice it doesn't say "accuracy and neutrality in the hook," but rather, "accuracy in all articles." This is what an encyclopedia strives for: accuracy. Keep dismissing its importance all you want, but it just makes Wikipedia look like shit. --Blechnic (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spamming content into an article is a disqualifier for DYK, and it is one of many things checked. Each article is reviewed before being processed for something as obvious as that. However, it is not the job of the DYK admin to search for every sentence in order to find an unattributed citation. It is not the place of the DYK, nor should it be. DYK deal only with hooks and the size of an article/content needed for such. There is a forum for copyright violations. If you feel that you have found some, please take it there. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, remove that sentence about article content from the DYK page, so that their idea of the requirements conforms to yours, rather than letting readers think the page describe the DYK process and guidelines, instead of you being the only one that describes it. --Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am at a lost to see what you are actually asking. I can quote directly from the page, if you wish, but I am sure that you can easily scan over the page and see that my information conforms to what is said here. Now, I believe your only problem is with the articles themselves, and that you cannot put forth an argument that directly links the DYK process to the copyright violations. So, I suggest that you work with the WP:CP investigators and you can patrol the DYK candidate list hunting them down if you prefer. Heaven knows that Wikipedia needs eager volunteers willing to scan for copyright violations, and you have made it abundantly clear that you have such desire and eagerness. Your contribution would be a great boon for the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in copyrights. What I do is something few people do on Wikipedia: I write articles about African agricultural pests and about tropical African vegetation and geography and biodiversity. I think that moving from working in an area where I have knowledge that almost no one else on Wikipedia has, to an area where I don't have knowledge but a lot of people argue against me as if they are experts, is not a situation that would have a positive benefit for Wikipedia. This is a chronic suggestion to Wikipedia editors with any type of rare knowledge: why you don't join in some general pursuit, where many people have knowledge, instead of focusing on that narrow area where we're missing hundreds of major articles? It's curious.

I quoted from the page on Did you know, by the way. It didn't seem to communicate anything to you.

It's clear this is not an issue of great concern on Wikipedia: accuracy. Even though the DYK selection criteria, under "the hook," says, "we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles" you're here to fight me to the death that "accuracy in all articles" is not part of DYK. They state it. That long quote is a copy and paste, but, damn, you're going to beat that idea out of me. Please, go beat it out of the DYK page you keep quoting from and claiming it doesn't say what I just pasted from it. But, clearly, Wikipedians think that Wikipedia doesn't care about accuracy, and strives to avoid accuracy, and they're going to go all out to sock it to anyone who thinks that it means something when Wikipedia guidelines say "we strive for accuracy in all articles."

I can't fight you. You refuse to read what's there for some reason, or refuse to believe it, or refuse to acknowledge it. I can only read what's there, and can't ignore it willfully like you might be doing. It's there. That's all. --Blechnic (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about anyone fighting here? If I have a problem reading, then I have a problem reading. You feel that there is a problem with Wikipedia. I offered you a place that deals with such problems. You say it is with DYK, but it has already been demonstrated that they only deal with hooks. What exactly do you want? You claim to be too busy working on pages to patrol for copyright violations, but you are here telling us about all of the copyright violations you have found. Could you at least submit those to the copyright violations board so they can be processed? This is a place to deal with incidents that happen based on users. Is there one user causing a problem? If so, please put up the diffs, explain what the user is doing, and make a case. If its some greater philosophical idea or a change, take it to village pump. If you want to aid with the removal of copyright information, take it there. There are plenty of options and ways to act. You already offered yourself as knowing of tons of problems with violations, so I will emphasis the latter once again. As you admitted, you already put in the time researching about all of the problems. Now please finish by submitting it to the appropriate location so it can be dealt with. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. I did. I was personally attacked. I was harassed. I was blocked. The problem is not a one incident problem that you can't seem to get beyond, it's an ongoing lack of concern about dealing with the problem. And this needs more widespread attention. Since you're not interested in reading or understanding what I have to say, there is no point in your speaking to me about what you haven't read or bothered to understand. So, please take your own advice and finish by submitting yourself to the proper location, one you're bothered to read and understand. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that if you would have used the copyright violation noticeboard, the above things would have happened. I also believe that your misplaced criticism upon DYK may have resulted from the history you have claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Sock puppet hysteria, revisiting years of in-fighting, it's not about the encyclopedia's quality. --Blechnic (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with badly maintained DYK largely stems from a poor admin-corps. It is by far more fun to hang out at drama boards and IRC then update the DYK page and check the articles to appear on the mainpage for compliance with policies. In fact, the entire DYK work is done by a handful of admins, and when they are not around, the page does not get updated for many hours after the deadlines. For a while I tried to check articles within the areas of my knowledge and was often pointing out to their poor referencing, POV pushing, misleading hooks, etc. only to get badmouthed by the article's proponents with DYK admins not getting involved for their being too few. It is never too late for ANI/IRC admins to make their DYK editing debut and concern themselves with content of this project. --Irpen 06:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be an administration obsession with drama that interferes with a diversity of needs being well met. What's IRC? Thanks for the post, this was needling me, but I couldn't quite identify it, what is incongruous about Wikipedia: it's stated goal versus the means of actualizing it that has been adopted by many in the community (writing the encyclopedia versus watching the drama unfold). --Blechnic (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be a bad idea to slow down the DYK process and post fewer articles at a time to ensure better quality. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a recently completed discussion that's a little bit related. DYK is used as a process to add interesting content to the main page, a laudable goal. It's also used somewhat as a process of rewards, look how many DYK's I've got! To the extent that DYK is a reward, it will tend to have the same perverse incentives as the recently-disposed-of Award Centre. I've often wondered why an interesting fact added to any article would not be worthy of a DYK. Perhaps a rethinking of the entire process is in order. Franamax (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not about finding current articles. Its about promoting new articles. It would defeat the whole justification of having a DYK . Its not about something interesting. It is about having something interesting in a new topic that would draw people in to editing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Angelucci

• Michael Angelucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article about a musician which asserts some notability, however the creator is: User talk:Mangelucci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...so I tagged for COI and references, after he removed the tags[[22]] Brewcrewer tagged for refs, which Magneluccie also removed [[23]] after adding a couple of questionable refs. I reverted and warned him on his talk page and then a few minutes later User talk:Michael Angelucci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) starts editing the article and removes the tags again LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Legotech,

Sorry for the confusion! I'm brand new to this and unfamiliar with all the procedures. When I first saw a message indicating that my page had been flagged, I went back and added links to some of my concerts and awards for verification and then deleted the flag. I assumed the message kept appearing automatically since I didn't include any references in my initial page. I didn't realize that a real-life person was creating those messages each time!

Please check out the reference links I added. If I need to do more to legitimize the document please let me know. I appreciate your help - my apologies again if I stepped out of line somehow.

-M Michael Angelucci (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PAGE DELETED

Well, even after I added references to my work I'm still getting flagged. I've decided to delete the whole page and pass the details on to an administrator.

As an aside, it seems to me that more discretion is warranted before someone blithly writes up an incident report on another user, particularly when that user has been registered for less than 24 hours. Give people a chance to adapt and learn the system before you threaten to ban them from posting/editing and basically run them out of town ...

Michael Angelucci (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you also pay more attention to messages left on your talk page and if you don't understand them ask the relevant editor for assistance. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Giovanni33

Copied from User talk:Giovanni33 per request. Daniel (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you for a period of one week per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Giovanni33. Upon reviewing New antisemitism and its talk page, it appears that you have not discussed your changes to the lead since last month. Also, you have been slow edit warring on the article, as opposed to seeking a consensus for your edits by discussing them. This block will be added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's#Log of blocks and bans, and I will make a comment at WP:AE. Khoikhoi 03:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. I've discussed all my changes, many times, and each time before I make any edit to the page. You are not looking at the right section, even.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you provide a link to a comment of yours from this month discussing your reversion of the word "controversial" into the lead? Also, can you please explain your slow edit warring. It appears that you have reverted infrequently in order to evade your "1 revert per week" restriction. Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, if I abide by the restriction, I'm guilty of evading it? That makes no sense. My revert has not been 1 revert per week, either. As I explained, the last time I made that change was on the 9th, and then on the 21st, which is a whole two weeks apart!Giovanni33 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your unblock request below: both of those are comments justifying your removal of the image, not your changes to the lead. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Giovanni33. You certainly haven't addressed your last two reverts to the lead as far as I can tell. Also, your second link was to a comment made after you had already been reverted. A comment made after your change has already been reverted cannot possibly comply with the requirements of your parole. Khoikhoi 04:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The change in the lead has its own section with three comments from me - and no one else. Am I supposed to have a discussion with myself? No one opposes that change, and I've discussed it as much as possible, logically. It makes no sense otherwise; that I've discussed my change is the only requirement. If someone wants to address any point I've made, I will be sure continue to discuss it. I do not understand how you are able to make up new restrictions for me: Yes, I made a comment right before and right after my edit, true. But where does my restriction say that posting a comment right after I made the change is not valid or does not satisfy the restriction??! It says: "Giovanni33 is limited to one revert per page per week...and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." And that is exactly what I've been doing. It doesn't give a specific time period before or after. We do have the ability to use our common sense, right?Giovanni33 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If no one allegedly opposes your changes to the lead, why is it that you keep having to revert? Look at [24] and [25]. It is clear that other people do apparently object to your changes. The parole requires that you justify your reverts on the talk page every single time, and you failed to do that. You might have discussed the image, but certainly not the lead. Khoikhoi 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question for them, not me. The later reverts seem to be lazy, sloppy ones, opposing the image removal that also reverted my intro changes. I see no objections on talk by anyone regarding those changes.[[26]] And, no, no where in my restriction does it say I I should copy and past the same justification to a section that no one disputed, after I posted my justification three time, with no response. That is absurd. It would make sense if there was a new change, something different, as that would need discussion and justification. But that is not the case here: I've discussed it and refer to it, and no one has responded with any objections. Again, this is a matter of common sense, and you are making up stuff that is no where to be found in my arbcom ruling.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|False block. I'm blocked for not discussing my changes. Completely untrue. Even a cursory glance at the talk page refutes this false claim. See:[[27]] The specific edit I made on June 21st, was discussed here by me on the same day:[[28]],[[29]] The only time I made a change it to before that was about 2 weeks ago, in which I also discussed this:[[30]] The section that you refer to brings up a change that no one is disputing, or discussing, so it stands to explain my edit. Surely, I don't have to copy and paste what I already wrote? That would be irrational. Also, I'm not reverting once a week, either. Like I said the last time I did was about 2 weeks ago, plenty of time for editors to comment and voice any objections or suggestions.}}

And why, precisely, should Giovanni33 get the privilege of having his unblock requests transcluded to WP:ANI? What's wrong with the normal channels? Jtrainor (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because he's got an active RfAr. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. RfAr is wrapping up. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose block. It appears that Giovanni has been engaging in discussion and has been observing his requirement to not revert more than once per week. Everyking (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor's identity outed at Open Office XML

An editor has been outed, and his real life identity has been revealed. See the talk page Talk:Office_Open_XML#Conflict_of_interest. It began some days ago with this edit by Ghettoblaster (talk · contribs), which cross-matches external web pages to identify the editor. The particular links have been removed, but the identity of the user is still visible. Warren (talk · contribs) also added the person's real name to his post. The identified editor has not returned to Wikipedia since the outing. Here is a message I sent to user:Ghettoblaster, and a message I sent to user:Warren about the incident.

The article is a hotbed of edit waring. I'm not sure if you also want to deal with that issue, but on my subpage is a documentation of the edit waring on one of many content disputes happening simultaneously. The place is a madhouse! Looking down the article history will show more reverts. I note that HAl (talk · contribs) has already been blocked multiple times for edit waring on this and related OOXML pages. --Lester 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the discussion on my talk page, I was not aware of breaking any Wikipedia policies by adding a conflict of interest warning with proper references to the original discussion. I removed the real name of the editor in question and the weblinks from the discussion as soon as I found the Wikipedia outing guideline. My intention was to inform other faithful contributors that the editor in question in all likelihood had a confict of interest. I have already been informed that I posted my findings at the wrong place and I will add all my findings to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard later. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a google search on the user's handle is a big deal. WP:OUTING is a bit of an over reaction, mostly caused by cases of stalking and intentional harassment from the past.

Also, the irony of this situation is that these kinds of posts attract more attention than the situation normally would have. It seems this was already resolved on the article's talk page. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The links have been removed, but the guys place of work is listed on the first post, and his real name is still listed on the second post. It's still there now. I pleaded with the authoring editors to remove it, to no avail. I was hoping someone here would remove it. It's a sad way for an editor to be knocked out of Wikipedia by having his identity exposed. --Lester 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to take things into context. This guy is using the exact same handle for his public e-mail address, and probably other websites, where he lists his real name. This really isn't private information at this point. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed like an admin to take notice how several editors aided by quite a lot of anonymous edits repeatly removed information from an article even after 6 or 7 reputable sources to substantiate the information that Office Open XML is and free file format and open format file format were introduced. I would suggest an admin look into the use of sockpuppets by any of the users that were removing the words free and open from the article. I would note that already twice people with a grudge against Office Open XML have been temporarily blocked for sockpuppeting whilst editting the Office Open XML article. hAl (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

141.228.250.137 - Vandalise again.

Resolved

 – No vandalism - no action needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See talk page on 141.228.250.137 for previous "edits". My vote is to block this IP range for significant period again such that we can concentrate resources on other matters. Electron9 (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP has made three edits (1, 2 and 3) since April, none of which are classed as vandalism. An IP isn't re-blocked simply because a past block has expired. ——Ryan • (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

141.228.250.137 changed the capacity from 4 to 8 GB for standard sd-cards which is a completly untrue statement. And quite obvious such with the proof on the same page.. So this together with previous block make me think that the behaviour will be repeated. Electron9 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

More trouble at Barack Obama

Resolved

 – 2 weeks full protection (which can be shortened once communication actually takes place on the talk page. Removed full prot but watching carefully - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Scjessey has again claimed consensus without actually having it, and has again reverted, triggering another edit war with this edit: [31]

Don't protect the page. Block and topic ban the offender.

Someone skating on thin ice like yourself isn't in a position to demand blocks/bans. AN/I's not to be used as an implement in your Obama-related content disputes, Kossack4Truth. Shem^(talk) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

When threatened with a two-week topic ban, Scjessey took a voluntary two-week "Wikibreak" from the article, but returned after only four days (demonstrating his dishonesty) and immediately started causing trouble. See discussion here. Scjessey has consistently employed false accusations, snide remarks and edit warring, rather than dialogue, to advance his cause. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages. D.M.N. (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously K4T's claims are absurd. Please see this edit to refute his ridiculous claims of dishonesty. Obviously one edit doesn't count as "edit warring". Kossack4Truth is not even taking part in the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, so it isn't clear why he has made this baseless incident report in the first place. I am completely bemused by this accusation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The ANI report here is quite problematic. K4T has been tendentious here in the past and was nearly topic banned. He is not currently contributing to the talk page or main page. His only involvement is the above report, calling on an editor he has had repeated run-ins with to be blocked and banned over a single edit that ended up getting adopted within a few minutes but that he mischaracterizes as an "edit war". In so doing he rehashes a personal attack he has made before over a trivial issue he knows is resolved, that Scjessey's early return ten days ago from a self-imposed wikibreak is "lying" or "dishonest". Making a false report like this is certainly disruptive, and seems to have succeeded in disruption as evidenced by the drama and unnecessary article protection. No slight intended to administrator involved - thanks for the quick action but with all due respect I think you were hoodwinked :). Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Urgh, 2 weeks full protection (for the time being, if someone can say that a consensus is reached then I'll drop it back to semi). Petty argument won't get anyone anywhere. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a closer look. There was no edit war, and certainly nothing going on at the time the report was filed. If you look at the talk page, there is indeed a consensus for the edits. The entire sequence of edits here is as follows:

• first edit by Scjessey:[32]
• reversion (removes edit) by Noroton:[33]
• reversion (restores edit) by Clubjuggle:[34]
• reversion (removes edit) by Akron:[35]
• final reversion (restores edit after apparent consensus) by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters:[36]

All users involved reached consensus:

• Scjessey and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters agree to edit:(implied - they made it)
• Noroton agrees to edit:[37]
• Akron and Clubjugle agree to edit:[38]

All of this was more than 16 hours ago', and as you can see all parties agreed to implement the edit as an interim edit that preserves the status quo, while making a minor clean-up of language, while the consensus discussion is ongoing on a larger issue. The article has been stable for two weeks now, ever since the last edit protection was lifted. Under the circumstances I urge that edit protection be lifted so that the diligent editors who are working on the article can continue, as they have for the past weeks, to work on a stable article. One thing we could use, though, is some sage guidance on matters of civility, and also in terms of moderating to establish consensus or lack thereof. We also have a fair number of outstanding sock puppet reports that need some attention from people who have experience in that regard. I will probably comment, separately, about the filing of this ANI report, which itself seems to be disruptive. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've also requested unprotection at penwhales talk page. I really hate that my ill considered revert last night might be responsible for this. Please reconsider. Arkon (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure a consensus has been established yet (see bottom section of talk page for what I'm talking about), although I've temp. lifted it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed all are agreed that there is no long-term consensus yet as to the final state of the article. The brief series of reverts last night concerned an interim version that people agreed will stand until then. There's some lingering incivility but nobody seems to be ready to give up on the discussion. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Harassment - Someone protect my user page please?

Resolved

 – Final warning given to user by Neil. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've had to revert edits by User:Certified.Gangsta twice in recent days: edit, revert, edit, revert.

I've been in several disputes with User:Certified.Gangsta before, which is why I now avoid all contact with him. It is unfortunate that he has chosen to try to provoke me with false but provocative edit summaries like "please make your identity as a sockpuppet clear, otherwise it's deception".

I'm reverting his edits as a matter of principle: I'm leaving my user page blank at the moment because I'm not happy with the quality of writing that I had there before; but I feel I have the right to leave my user page in whatever state I wish to.

Anyhow, I've posted a warning on User talk:Certified.Gangsta, here, but he is persisting. I really don't want to get into a dispute again, but I can't stand having my user page messed around by an editor I don't particularly like. Help, someone? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Chairboy has warned Certified.Gangsta - if CG edits your userpage again, he will be blocked. Neıl 龱 13:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've done a selective deletion of the 4 most recent edits to your userpage - in case anyone is wondering why he's linking to revisions that don't exist. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! Much appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Giant-Killer

Resolved

Has Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) actually made any non-disruptive edits? In addition to all the various warnings on his talk page, he's now engaging in such flagrant editorializing at Viktor Rydberg that I'm just rolling him back. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking it over, but a cursory glance shows me it's just a content dispute. He appears to discuss his edits though. I'm still looking over it, regardless. — _Maggot^Syn 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at his edits in this content dispute? They are awful (putting it mildly). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If Jack the Giant-Killer has ever made constructive contributions, he is long past that stage now. I frankly see no reason to tolerate a single-topic pov-pushing account around just for the sake of entertainment. dab (𒁳) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC) the urgency of this appears to be petering out, thanks to Moreschi's intervention. I do not think any further action is necessary for now. dab (𒁳) 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, marking as resolved. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand POV vandalism

User:Gilabrand is repeatedly renaming the article Zionism and racism allegations to Racist allegations against Zionism and vandalizing the article so as to make it an accusation that allegations against Zionism are racist. Strongbrow (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. Strongbrow would do better to concentrate on improving the article rather than blanket reverting any attempts to make it comprehensible. This is an article that was slated for deletion and has improvement tags on it. If I am not allowed to improve it, in the way I believe it should be improved, because Mr. Strongbrow doesn't like it, then I have no reason to continue working on Wikipedia. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding statements into the introduction such as "The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is very thin, and some believe they are one and the same" is clearly an attempt to inject your bias. Strongbrow (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had a problem with that, you should have gone to talk. For your information, I was paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism." --Gilabrand (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and does not belong on ANI. Please take it to the article Talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"The 13th Apostle"

This site is getting weirder every day. I was doing some NPP last night when I stumbled across a new user's article titled The 13th Apostle. The complete text was (and is) as follows: "The 13th Apostle is a work of fiction authored by Richard F. Heller and Rachael F. Heller" without even so much as a period. Both authors were redlinked, so I tagged it as an A1, especially since the person who posted couldn't even say what it was about. It was still here this morning and I thought it might have been because of a backlog...but another legit user removed the tag, stating in the edit history that there was enough content and that I should take this to AfD. There is no way I am going to clog AfD with something like this; it's a waste of the community's time and mine as well and I'd just as soon nominate it for a feature before I did that. Would someone kindly do away with this? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently it seems to have a G2 tag on it (which makes no sense to me, it's clearly not a test page). However, I agree entirely that it's CSD:A1 material. ~ mazca ^talk 15:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I know and I'm sorry about the tag, but I didn't want to get in an edit war over it. My original tag was A1. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • A quick Google shows it's a self-published work ([39]). Speedied under A3, no substantive content. Neıl 龱 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • The amazon page has HarperCollins listed as the publisher... --Onorem♠Dil 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • HarperCollins also say that HarperCollins publish it [40]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. It's always nice knowing that you have my back. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • (SIX EDIT CONFLICTS LATER) Scratch some of my last - a Google search when my brain is working shows it exists ([41]), but no reviews in any media, no reliable sources out there. Drs Richard and Rachael Heller have co-published a lot of non-fiction books, many of which have appeared on the New York Times bestseller's list, but do not have an article. Neıl 龱 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 28,000) As does Harper Collins. A little less haste may have been in order here. Does the fact that we have a bad article on our hands equate to a speedily deletable article? I was on my way there, having read this thread to see what could be done, but it had already gone in a puff of smoke. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the removal of the A1 tag. There was clearly enough context to figure out what the article was about. The article may have been short, and there may not be any reliable sources for it, but the book's title along with the author's names provided more than enough information to identify the subject of the article. --Onorem♠Dil 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't anything there except a declarative sentence; see my original comment. You wouldn't have had much to work with.  :) I'm certainly not against its recreation with proper content. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a prod next time. Not sure this needed ANI attention. --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Exactly - the entire content was "The 13th Apostle is a work of fiction authored by Richard F. Heller and Rachael F. Heller" - by all means if you can find reliable sources and some more content, go for it. Neıl 龱 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • With multiple best-sellers, might they be worth an article themselves? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: This site is getting weirder every day.  :) I apologize for creating such a problem, but I wanted to avert an edit war. I wish the original poster had put this much effort into the thing first! :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Grey Knight; it's strange that a pair of established authors like these have no articles. I feel better about this; it seems I may have uncovered a couple of glaring red links! BTW, I dig the username. It reminds me of a medieval playset I had as a kid. It was filled with...you guessed it...tiny plastic grey knights! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

admin assistance required by email

Resolved

 – Cool, we're done here... Alex Muller 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin be willing to email me to discuss a matter of concern. I don't want to discuss it here for reasons that will become clear in my response. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if anybody's gotten in touch with you yet; if not, you may have better luck picking an admin that appears active and has e-mail enabled, and e-mailing them. I'm not sure anyone is going to jump on a request like this one, since it sounds both mysterious and tricky! :D (I'd offer to help, but me != admin) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoot Allemantando - you can email me if you want. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm available too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks - will do, don't worry it's not that tricky - need a second view on something without a lot of wikidrama. I'll fire something off to Ryan. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do I go next?

An IP (User:158.230.100.102) has repeatedly added the same uncited, and possibly POV-pushing (Space Wolves are the best-type thing) edits to Space Wolves article, despite being asked repeatedly to either give some references, or to discuss it on the articles talk page (as on his talk page). I gave the unsourced references to lvl 3warnings, and the general level 4 warning, but the editor still refuses to discuss anything, so I'm unsure of what I do next. RfCU seems to be out, because no-one else has tried to engage the user over these edits, and the editor doesn't seem to want to discuss anything and a (admittedly probably to early) AIV report was dismissed, so I'm unsure of my next step.

I also note that User:Ashleythor8sxd has also made the same edits, though I'm assuming that this is the IP above logged in. This is NOT an accusation of sockpuppetry. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 16:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I recently became aware of just how much in-universe material there is on Wikipedia about Warhammer 40,000. It was kind of fun for me to read some of it, as it reminds me of when I was in my early teens and used to play it :) But a lot of that stuff is faaar too much in-universe detail for an encyclopedia article.

Not sure if that relates to this case or not. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK delay

Hi - this may not be the right place, but there aren't any active DYK admins at the moment and the DYK update is delayed already. I've prepared the update, but an admin is needed to update it now. Vishnava _talk 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You could probably just go on #wikipedia-en ^connect and ask for an admin to update it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That usually gets no response even though it would in theory take 1 minute to cut and paste....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Insults from user MauritiusXXVII

I want to report that the user MauritiusXXVII has insult me on this talk page saying me"xenophobic and racist user". It is not the first time to do it so i would beg some administrator to block him because this behavior is not admitted on Wikipedia. Even he make a call to other users to go against me on this same edition. He has gone beyond the tolerable limits.

He does not like my edition on Chile article but you can check yourself that Chile is painted in green on third world map and it is listed on the developing countries article so he is trying to deny the reality.

He is involved on edit warrings on Coat of arms of Catalonia article. Notice that he (and other user) does not accept what prestigious sources say so he undo it all my editions to change them for his thoughts. And notice he has not supported his editions with sources but only his points of view, even when he brought a source[42] he falsified it [43].I am editing with sources and do not waste the time to reply all his offensive comments against me on my page talk, so i want protection from injury. I want to be able to edit on Wikipedia without suffering mobbing.--Sclua (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that Sclua is complaining about personal attacks, see the third warning on his talk page about making petty vengeance edits on Chile, all of them reverted by uninvolved editors [44] and my warning for using edit summaries to accuse other editors of lying [[45]].

See the previous ANI thread where Sclua is reported for personal attacks and POV and winds up doing again personal attacks against me and Maurice, questioning my neutrality, implying that it's ok to answer to "you push a catalan POV" with "you are anti-catalan", and a long etc.

Add to this: repeated attempts to remove and misquote sources with a clear POV bias, blanking of warnings on his talk page with complains of harassing against him, and jumping with accusations of fascism, nationalism, liying and POV pushing against anyone questioning any of his sources.

I guess it's time to start a RFCU. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to point the admins to my past report about Sclua, which remained unsolved. The situation has got worst and worst. I beg the Admins to seriously take action about this situation.

This user has repeatedly been breaking Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia he has been engaging edit warring:

• Erasing references brought by other editors claiming them to be Aragonese nationalist lies" --> Not assuming good faith
• Reverting edits by other users using xenophobic and racist comments calling me "Southamerican" --> Personal attack

He has also made comments such as:

• "They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens (...) It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one (...)" here.
• "I think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access" here and here

May I notice to the admins that he was already warned for using this language: "Also suggesting that 'Spanish fascists' are responsible is disruptive" by User:Prodego. He then answered that he will try to moderate his vocabulary. Something he has not.

A number of users have already warned him because of his behaviour in his talk-page (me included), but he blanked the page.

After calling me "Southamerican" in a clearly despective and disruptive way, he decided to vandalize (there is NO other way of calling it) the article of Chile, just because I have some userboxes in my talk-page related to that Country and that Sclua believed I was a citizen.

He vandalized the article a number of times (here, here, here and here). The vandalism consist in repeatedly call Chile a "Third world country".

Each and every time but the last (which was me), it has been other users who have expressed their nonconformity with these edits as you may see here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Tangerines) and here (user:Likeminas).

Even another user claims having reported him for this behavior here

It happens that I am not chilean nor southamerican, but my fiancee is... user Sclua is consistently attacking this article simply in order to personally attack me. I consider this a tremendous personnal attack and a lack of respect against other people.

As per WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL: "Some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

I asked in Chile's talk-page for other users' help to revert what is clearly vandalism and personal attacks against me (and all the people of Chile), something I believe Wikipedia (and his admins) should IN ANY WAY tolerate. But User Sclua blanked it.

I ask the admins to take a look at Sclua's talk-page and see the enormous history of warnings this user has have... All of them blanked each and every time by him.

User Sclua has just limited his contributions to erase, criticize, insult, revert good faith and referenced edits by other users in articles related to Catalonia and to vandalize the article of Chile.

User Sclua is clearly not assuming the good faith edits by other users and is privileging of the passivity of the admins to warn or block him for his disruptive behaviour.

I believe my point sufficiently explained but I am open to bring further explanations and references if the admins desire so. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are now discussing a Request for Comment - this is a good idea. Do that. In the meantime, I have warned Sclua to stop adding "Third World Country" to Chile over and over again, and have told him to stop his POV-warring on the Coat of arms of Catalonia article. Maurice, one thing you did that didn't help was revert on Sclua's talk page to reinclude your warnings after he removed them. Please don't do that again, it doesn't help things. Neıl 龱 09:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

97.92.41.0 and Fark.com

Anonymous IP has been making several WP:NPOV edits to Fark.com and appears to be currently involved in an edit war with TheRegicider ([46]). I just reverted and warned him on his talk page just now. May require a future IP ban. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Worth bringing up again if the edit warring flares up. For now, seems to have been calm for several hours. Will check back. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket block of Giano II

Bad block - Giano II unblocked for 'outing', but given a short block for continued disruption/harassment. Nothing else to see here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Giano_II#Revert. Even with the history of Rockpocket's using every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano, this indefinite block stands out. Can this be addressed swiftly without the ArbCom hassle to save on drahmaz? --Irpen 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Once again a sysop is attacked for attempting to enforce the same rules everyone else has to follow on Giano. Of course, it is the same old crowd doing it. _{1 != 2} 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Which rule is this? The one against alleging sockpuppetry? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks very much like a bad block to me, but I really don't see this as desysoppable, and certainly not as being desysoppable outside of normal channels. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to desysop anyone over one bad block - there there's a pattern, take it to RfC. Let's just get a quick concensus here to unblock Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see an unblock of giano, and some other forum to review rocketpocket's activity if folks feel the need (I don't know enought to have an opinion, and it's not an emergency). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to unblock Giano (I believe I'm relatively independent, since I've hardly ever contacted Giano, aside from an article query). This very much looks like a bad block. Rudget (logs) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Rudget, Ryan, Rocksanddirt, etc. Ill-considered block, and I would support unblock. Risker (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This happened 20 minutes ago and Rockpocket hasn't even bothered to report it for review on ANI? An indefinite block of an established editor, and it's not put up on WP:ANI, nor on WP:AE? I can't believe it, are you drunk or something, Rockpocket? You don't know to do a simple thing like that? Of course you do—but lrpen has to do it? Words fail me. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Identifying one account as a "sockpuppet" of another account is not by any stretch "outing" an editor, as the Wikipedism has it. Since User:Rockpocket is perfectly aware that "outing" an editor specifically means identifying an editor's actual real-life name, "outing" in this case is a misuse of the vocabulary, perhaps a conscious one. Surely if this was not an intentional effort to intensify a toxic atmosphere, one would expect an admission of error here on the part of an editor— even an administrator— with a sense of honesty.--Wetman (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RP has unblocked. Rudget (logs) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked per unblieveabe consensus that this block was wrong - Let's remember all that mistakes can happen, and it was easily corrected, we shouldn't get the pitch forks out for Rockpuppet. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For someone who's filing a report to minimize 'drahmaz', you've sure chosen a neutral, non-inflammatory header for this section, Irpen. Can we wait for comment from Rockpocket – and geez, guys, it's been less than half an hour! – before we get out the gibbet? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sidestepping the specifics of the case, I don't think there's a need for a more rapid/streamlined demotion process, because admins can simply be blocked if they're taking unambiguously abusive action (they can unblock themselves, but that's a sure way to get demoted). Dcoetzee 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply unblocking is not sufficient.--Wetman (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No way this is "resolved" until we find out what happened. I removed the resolved tag. Sweeping it under the rug would guarantee the reruns. --Irpen 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(For the record, this ongoing thread was tagged "Resolved" by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=221724653&oldid=221723869%7C User:Ncmvocalist, at 10:23)--Wetman (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we're playing some sort of "game" with the unblock now. [47] [48]. I suggest we do not do that. It appears to have been a bad block, there's consensus here that it was a bad block, and, if this continues to be the case, I am going to wait a short while, then undo it. We do not leave editors blocked on bad blocks, to give the blocking admin enough rope to hang themselves with. SQL^{Query me!} 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agreed with Nick because I wished to see what Rocket's interpretation of the matter would be. Thus resulting in an unblock, and perhaps a reflection opportunity for Rocket. Rudget (logs) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I misinterpreted your comment, My apologies. I hope you can see why it appeared that way to me.... SQL^{Query me!} 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I am always happy to clarify. Rudget (logs) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we see that Rockpocket does not "consider [his block] a mistake at all". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiDrNick (talk • contribs)

Relax - I am sprung! Now why has this happened, (I see 1=2 was quick to involve himself, sadly, he is yet again dissapointed)Now to the nux of the matter User: Sussexman's return - What the hell is going on? Who gave Kittybrewster permission to argue his case as a sock? Giano (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not disappointed, I expected it. Multiple sets of rules, got it. I have stopped using my admin tools some time ago because I can't keep track of which rules apply to which special editors. _{1 != 2} 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1=2, you're not on the right track here. Kittybrewster decided to make another account due to what he considered a threatening atmosphere on WP due to past history (actually, considering the amount that has gone under the bridge, I think that word should be all caps and bolded, like HISTORY). Now, that would have been fine, except the new account did all the same things that KB did, and showed a remarkable amount of prior knowledge of the people, personalities and issues of the prior history. To be quite frank, to the extent that any "outing" occured, KB/Berks did it to himself. You're allowed to call the Elephant in the Room an elephant. Endorse the unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say Kitty had it coming, especially with the smug popping the cork on the bubbly each time an Irish Republican editor was indef'd. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1=2, please vent your frustrations over the project in general elsewhere. You can make a pose regarding sysop strikes all you want but I am sure you will never give away your sysop tools voluntarily. We are discussing a specific incident and what is to be done about it. Rockpocket's "hit and run" (block and duck out) adds more bad smell to all this. I raised the issue of desysopping on the spot not because this is an emergency, he is unlikely do anything for a couple of days. But because the abuse is so blatant here that I see no need for a full arbcom case. We do not need to an arbcom to block especially bad editors when the editing abuse is so obvious and in the plain view. Here we have the admin tools abused so outrageously, that I do not see a need for a long arbcom process. But if this is required, fine. Let's have ArbCom look at this. --Irpen 20:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Can a desysop be made with less hassle than going through ArbCom? Not really. Should it be possible? Yes. Should it happen in this case? Not according to any uninvolved administrator. This thread is all over bar the shouting. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello everyone. I'd just like to note that I did not "block and run" as has been suggested above. I am just not a very quick typing and prefer to make considered responses. I spotted the ones on my talk page first, so that is where I have responded first. My position is detailed there at the moment, but I will be happy to explain myself here too, when I get a few moments. Giano has been unblocked so there is no emergency, I don't protest that considering the weight of protest here and elsewhere, but I do feel that my actions were justified and I will explain why. If any editor feels my actions requires a RfC, then feel free to make one and I will co-operate there also. It goes without saying I don't think an emergency desysopping is appropriate, and I'm sure this can be resolved without ArbCom. I'd also like not note that my block was not "Giano specific", in that I treated it differently because of who was involved. I warned twice then blocked as a preventative measure just as I would any other editor.

Also, the suggestion that I use "every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano" is interesting. I admit Giano and I didn't first meet in the best of circumstances, but in the last few months I would say we have been on excellent terms. I would urge Irpen and Bishonen to review my position the last time Giano was discussed here and also review how Giano and I worked closely together in the lead up to Vk's unblocking recently. Perhaps then they may come to a different conclusion. Rockpocket 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is silly

• This is silly. Everyone has overlooked the problem of disruptive edit-warring and focused on whether there is 'outing' or not. A user is entitled to remove comments they receive on their talk pages [49], yet Giano II seems to be a special user that gets to decide (by way of disruptive edit-warring) if his comment is removable or not [50] [51] [52] and since his unblock, [53]. And predictably, nothing has been done about it. Or am I mistaken in what I've just said? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't an indefinite block seem a bit excessive for removing comments, which weren't interpreted as 'outing' by many of those participating in this discussion? Rudget (logs) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it was a bad block on those merits, but there is problematic conduct warranting a block imo, given his history, and given that he removes comments from his own talk page at his whim (so he's not unaware). I'm thinking out aloud whether it should've just been a reduction in the block duration instead of a complete unblock - see what edits he's made since his unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The block length was indefinite, not forever. Rock said he would unblock as soon as he said he would stop posting the message on that talk page. It could have been over in two minutes. A message that the user talk page's owner removed and asked not to be returned, as he is allowed to do and Giano put back repeatedly. I see a lot of mischaracterization of events here, and I sure hope people do their own homework and don't just take the summaries presented here as gospel.

Yet Giano is allowed to return the post yet again, who dares to remove it? Not me. Giano apparently can blank stuff from his page often, but refuse to let others do the same. _{1 != 2} 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, accounts in good standing are pretty much given a very wide scope of what they can remove from their user pages, while other parties are subject to the usual WP criteria - simply, if anyone posts on anothers talkpage (and it otherwise does not contravene WP policies/guidelines) they need the permission of the page owner for its removal. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the "page owner" made it crystal clear that the edit was unwelcome, and the page shouldn't subject to an edit-war over it. Don't you think so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But that is just my point. The user did remove Giano's post, and asked him not to return it. Giano just kept putting it back in, that would get pretty much anyone blocked if they did it over and over. _{1 != 2} 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It regularly does result in blocks, for ordinary established users anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The question remains, who gave permission to one of The Troubles editors to change username, given the massive history of socking all over the place involving just about every one of them? It was an obvious alternate account, and it was doing exactly what the "master" account had done before. And, while I see the point about the reverts, when a block is made for reasons that are so egregiously wrong, and the admin had better ways of addressing the linking of the two accounts than to post about it on one of the most-read user talk pages on Wikipedia (the block button worked, but the delete one didn't?), then the block needs to be rolled back completely and without hesitation, as was done in this case. Risker (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe one needs "permission" to have a fresh start under a new account, especially when one's personal details are irrevocably attached to their previous account. That said, considering the history of misbehavior and abusive sockpuppetry among Trouble related editors, there was an understanding that editors would stick with one recognizable account. However, there has also been issues of harassment (which I would rather not go into in public). One editor made it clear to me that they no longer felt comfortable editing from an account that is linked to their identity as indicated he would like to edit from another anonymous account. Being aware of the harassment issues, I told him that was justifiable on two conditions, 1) that he make admins familiar with The Troubles aware of it, so that I could be monitored for The Troubles ArbCom rememdies. 2) That he stick to one account and one account only. The editor has since made me aware of his new account (and I believe he made at least one other admin aware also) and I have been keeping an eye on it. A few editors with an interest in the Troubles have expressed interest at who this new account may be and on those occasions I have told them (privately) that I am aware of it and asked them not to out it by publicly speculating. All other those responded in the good faith one might expect from editors: they all said "ok" and never mentioned it. All except Giano.

As for the suggestion that I am responsible for the outing: that is nonsense. Lets be honest here. The moment Giano wrote that first comment the game was up, the identity was compromised and the editor in question would create a new account. What is important, and remains important, is that Giano appreciate that he cannot go around linking accounts to real life people (even accidentally, if it was as such) for no good reason other than to irk someone he has bickered with for years. Harassment is a serious issue and it deserves our serious attention. If Giano thinks his jollies are more important than that than I think he deserved to remain blocked until he reconsidered. Rockpocket 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about the initial rollback, but are you suggesting the egregiously wrong judgement of one administrator excuses the continuing disruption of the now unblocked editor? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section in question, and brought it up with Giano why he shouldn't add it again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, OK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano reblocked for disruptive editing

Ok, Giano has ignored my request, and readded the section again to Counter-revolutionary's talk page. I'm not sure if he's beyond the electric fence of 3RR, and quite frankly, I don't think I quite care at the moment, this is WP:DE, and I have placed a short term 3 hour block for preventative purposes for disruptive editing on him. SirFozzie (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse this block. I was writing up a 24 hour block and hit the button a few seconds too late. Giano's actions are beyond unacceptable and 3 hours is a gift. - auburnpilot talk 21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clear case of 3RR. Giano is the first to point out to you that users can remove content from their talk page if they want to. The issue has gotten plenty of attention already so returning the post is just pointy. _{1 != 2} 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I unfortunately endorse this - it was a clear case of 3RR. I thought the first block would have been enough of a warning to him. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, clear 3RR violation, and, should have been obvious that this was going to happen if he persisted. SQL^{Query me!} 22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Crap. Editwarring is not the answer. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled that Giano seems to have interpreted an admonishment to stop being POINTy and disruptive to mean 'use the next three hours to draw as much attention as possible on your talk page and to attack all the people who were trying to help'. I've asked SirFozzie to have a look, as I'm not sure Giano has taken to heart the reason for his current block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Thatcher's post to that page might be of interest; although, at the end of the day, Giano can only be seen to be pointy on that page if people bother to read it. Editors get to be somewhat snippier on their own pages than elsewhere. Anyone who finds Giano to be annoying or pointy need only to remove his page from their watchlist and stop tracking his edits. Risker (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the issue here, which is that disruptive 'Troubles' editors are being allowed to start new accounts because the original account (where the disruption started) was linked to their real-life identity (apparently), so that for some reason means that they have a ready-made excuse to switch to a new account: (1) resume the old behaviour and get "outed"; (2) switch to new account because of "privacy concerns". I'm not quite sure how that sort of situation can be dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One wouldn't need to switch to a new account if one hadn't been harassed. Anyone can switch to a new account at any time, last time I checked. The caveat, with the Troubles editors, is that they can not do so to edit in a disruptive or problematic manner to avoid detection. It was preferable that all editors stick with their known account, but there is a harassment issue here. Your use of scare quotes suggests you are skeptical, but if you would like to email me, I can give you a rundown on it. Therefore, unless you wish to penalize editors for being the victims of harassment, the next best thing is to permit an anonymous account that can be overseen by trusted admins. The account in question was not editing in a problematic manner, there was no resumption of "old behaviour" in that sense, therefore there was no good reason to "out" it (not least because Giano has no way of knowing he was outing the right person, which risks someone else being harassed). If the account had in anyway been used to violate The Troubles ArbCom I would have blocked it myself immediately as abusive sockpuppetry. I believe we need to assist editors who have suffered harassment, not punish them because someone else decided to abuse them. Rockpocket 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue with Giano, and Thatcher is trying to explain things to him now. Hopefully this will be the end of things. SirFozzie (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the rules are there for a reason. Experienced editors should expect less slack, not more. Otherwise we can throw our rules through the window. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is certainly running out of rope. If his latest "new" account fails to avoid the behaviors and patterns that got him spotted twice before, I don't think there will be much support for a 4th regeneration. Thatcher 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Having the same "behaviors and patterns" is human, it does not mean you should be outed, because someone is able to spot you by your characteristics. I just don't think we should be encouraging editors to go around outing others, when there is no good reason in policy to do so. That said, I has been made clear to me that it is one thing to edit in the same subject area, another to get involved in more personal debates. I appreciate that and it is difficult to justify anonymity when one gets involved in personal disputes. Rockpocket 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been several cases in the past where a user has started with their real name and felt the need to change to an anonymous one because of varying (and sometimes extreme) degrees of threat. They have reappeared and it may have been obvious to some established editors who they were. The responsible thing was to respect the reason for the name change, not to announce it. The original "real name" editor in this case was not under any sanction, or trying to avoid such, but stated what would normally be seen as a legitimate reason for changing their user name. The old account stopped editing and there have been no overlaps. I've taken a quick look through the edits of the new account, and don't seen any egregious behaviour. The points put forward by the new account have been perfectly acceptable, even if others might not agree. Surely it is the argument that counts, not the person proposing it, the edits and not the editor. I don't see any advantage the user is trying to gain with the new name or any abuse. As pointed out, it is easily identifiable: there is not even any significant attempt to dissemble. Presumably the editor accepts that others may know who he really is: that is very different to it being announced and publicly linked. I suggest the old account is marked as defunct and when the editor returns with a new account, his wish to not have his real life identity linked to it is respected. WP:OUTING makes this clear. I have no wish to reopen the debate over what has happened, but would rather look at how to address what might happen next. Ty 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that this particular user has previously been found to have used alternate accounts abusively, and in addition was publicly advocating the unblocking of another editor who has been been community banned for violation of Arbcom ban and sockpuppeting. Other editors who have encountered his previous reincarnations may or may not be aware that he has stopped using them or that this has been authorised, although it's unclear exactly who authorised it or whether or not any conditions were attached. He was editing in a way that drew attention to himself and made it obvious who he was. In this situation, any obligation of Wikipedia, its admins, and its editors to maintain the fiction that this was an independent editor unrelated to his previous identity becomes preposterous. Editors who change their account names for "security" reasons hold primary responsibility to ensure that their accounts are not obviously linked. If this editor is going to proceed under another username, and he expects the rest of Wikipedia to go along with it, he will have to change his editing behaviour so that anyone watching his favourite articles and talk pages will not be able to identify him. Risker (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been highly aware of this situation for a very long time. Any misuse of socks in the past was considered minor, and he has not been blocked for it. Hopefully he has learnt the lesson. There is currently no abuse. Editors are allowed to advocate unblocking of another editor. I don't see the problem there: there has never been any suggestion that they are other than two separate individuals (and not always in support of each other for that matter). There are other editors whose now anon-identity is equally clearly linked to a previous identity, but we respect it. I trust you do, or would, also—or does your reasoning have wider implications? There is no onus on editors to create watertight disguises. WP:Harassment is a policy and states:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

There is a big difference between being able to identify someone and posting that identity publicly for the whole world to see. If you don't agree with that, then you should address it in the policy.

Ty 03:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ty, except none of that happened. Kittybrwster'slegal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information was not exposed by Giano, so there was no outing here. The only people really arguing that tying the two accounts together is outing is you and Rockpocket. I have sympathies for the situation that KB was in, which is why he wanted to create another account to edit WP, but are you going to tell me that he didn't give away who he was in his FIRST TWO EDITS? If anything Giano revealed what was an open secret? If you don't want to be associated with "Editor X", do not immediately step into all the articles/feuds that "Editor X" participated in, with the exact same knowledge and viewpoints as "Editor X". SirFozzie (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me me make something clear. I have been hearing lots of talk of "permission" or "authorization" been given to Kb to create sockpuppets. Giano is particularly keen to push this in the interests of his ArbCom conspiracy theories. I may be responsible for spawning it, but I would like to put that to bed once and for all. There was no "permission" or "authorization", official or otherwise. All that happened was that I (and again, I don't believe I was the only admin that was informed) was told by Kb that, due to certain other factors, he no longer felt comfortable editing from his old account and intended to edit from another account. He didn't ask for "permission" or "authorization" and I did not offer either. I did tell him that considering those other factors (which, by the way, not one editor who is so keen to criticize my reasoning has even asked me about), I could understand why he would want to do that and felt it justified. I therefore told him that I would not block his new account, but keep an eye on it. I also told him that if he edited from more than one account at the same time, or that if he used the account in any way that would have resulted in his old account being sanctioned, he would be violating the spirit of the Troubles ArbCom and would be blocked. Thats it. I then watched his account to ensure it was not used abusively and, when people began to ask about his account, I told them that I was aware of it and there was no need to be concerned that it was being used abusively.

I did this because I am aware of the effect of the harassment that Kb felt threatened by, and I did not believe there was any harm to the project so long as his edits were good and his comments were not inflammatory. On the other hand, there was a huge benefit because the chance of his good edits sparking further harassment were minimized if there was no link to his personal details (via he old account). Admins are asked to use their judgment, so I used my judgment. If that was a bad move, then I am accountable for it. But I don't think editors - even those with a less than perfect record themselves - should have to put up with harassment and I stand by that.

Do I think it was foolish that he then entered a discussion that all but outed himself to those that were familiar with him? Yes. Does that somewhat temper his "right" to remain anonymous? In retrospect, probably yes. Would en email to Kb stating "if you plan to get involved in those sorts of discussions then you face the consequences on your own" have been a good idea. You bet. Do I regret those things? Hell yeah.

But that all said, there is zero substance behind the suggestions that there was some sort of back-room deal being made involving Lauder's unblock request. I have said before and repeat here: I don't have a clue what the story is behind Lauder's block. My only involvement was to offer to help draft an appeal to the community in the same way I did for Vintagekits, and only then if ArbCom agreed. They didn't, so that was the end of it as far as I am concerned. I urge editors to stay focused on the issue here - and I am happy to accept the responsibility for my actions in regards to that - rather than get seduced by conspiracy theories being promoted here and elsewhere. Rockpocket 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to say something along the lines of told you so.... As auburnpilot says, 3 hours was a gift. Hopefully the misconduct ends here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be sorted

I have not retired. I walked away for a while to restore my normal good temper, and this subject will not be quickly archived and thrust under the already very dirty dirty wiki-carpet. I am disgusted that an admin encouraged and kept secret a troublesome editor socking in an area already know to be riven with socks causing problems. To the extent than anyone who rumbled this strange behaviour was to be blocked. I want that admin desysoped.

Kittybrewster is a known sockpuppeteer, and nothing seems to have changed. What was Rockpocket hoping for? That Vintagekits would unwittingly address Kittybrewster and then he could ban him for breach of conditions? This plan was so ill advised, and likely t cause trouble, it beggars belief. I think we need to have a whole list of Kittybrewster's socks published and made known. In the present atmosphere of mistrust there is no way an unblock of the infamous Sussexan/Lauder sock can be be considered. Can we believe a single word they add to the project is without some bias. I have been accused of "outing" Kittybrewster, someone should actually take the time to red what I wrote! Then tell me what is not true and accurate - and where the outing is? [54]

"I'm afraid the problem is with you people is that you think you can all sign in and out with different names and that the rest of us are all too stupid to see it. For instance you, Berks, are quite clearly Kittybrewster or another of the "gang" - if indeed you are all separate people rather just one adult with an identity crisis. So you see, there is not a lot of confidence placed in any of you is there? The question is not, when is Lauder returning, but who do you think you are fooling? "

I am not dropping this matter, as it strikes at the basic honesty and trust we attempt to achieve here. I have spent a great deal of time, with minimal success, trying to help calm the trouble at The Troubles, I will not sit quietly by while naive and deplorable admins allow any editors there, to start weighing in, as socks. Don't bother trying to revert me here, because I will go elsewhere and say what I have to say. This problem is going to be sorted, and sorted properly and honestly and openly.Giano (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you wish to know, Giano? How about rather than raising the temperature with references to mysterious "naive and deplorable admins" (plural), we talk specifics. You are already well aware of all the accounts Kb has used since he chose to abandon his old account. Lets not keep up the charade that this is a surprise to you, because you mentioned at least one to me in an email weeks ago. As for Lauder, what are you afraid of exactly? I have already made it very clear that ArbCom will not unblock him, so who exactly is considering an unblock? No-one. He and his supporters can complain all they want. Unless ArbCom is satisfied he will remain blocked. Rockpocket 07:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rockpocket, we are not going to have an army of socks clamouring for the return of an multi-banned editor. You were aware of the socking at The Troubles, yet you chose to condone socking. Where was Berks going to edit next? On VK's page in boxing? I can't beleive you fell for this? Giano (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As per my talk page, I am discussing this with Giano by email. Rockpocket 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, please add updates as they come. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Conrad Black

Would another admin take a look at my recent actions on this article? I think I'm reverting insufficiently-justified deletions of sourced content, but I could see how others might think I'm merely edit-warring. Thanks. Dppowell (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think that it might be viewed as edit warring by "others", then I suggest that this is a strong indication you should stop reverting and start discussing the matter with the other party(ies). This is not the place, anyway, to get support for your editing decisions, but I would advise not reverting again without opening a dialogue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My request was not intended to "get support for my editing decisions," thanks. I've little knowledge about Conrad Black, and less interest; the article made my watchlist some weeks ago when I noticed vandalism during RC patrol. Rather, I thought someone might be able to tell me whether reverting the deletion of sourced content in this instance legitimately constituted vandal-fighting. It seemed like a grey area. It's a moot point, as another editor has since moved the text in question to Wikiquote. I'll take your opinion of the appropriate use of ANI under advisement. Thanks for responding! Dppowell (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your reversions so far at this article are/were a matter for an admin, nor are/were they a matter for discussion here. They were the actions of an editor. I can't see how you think you did them with your admin's hat on. You were not, as they say, wielding the mop. Move along please, nothing to see here, people. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but I might have within a few minutes, had the situation continued to escalate. I was (and still am, really) seeking input on whether that would have been inappropriate. Per the top of this page: If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. By asking for other admins' opinions, I was trying to ascertain where the line was before I stepped over it. I suppose I'd be getting better answers if I'd done a better job asking the question: when is deletion of sourced material vandalism, and when is it an editorial issue? Compare to a situation I recently encountered at P.E.O. Sisterhood, where a group of editors was also trying to suppress sourced material. In that case, temporary semi-protection of the page was appropriate. That clearly wasn't appropriate here, but had the anonymous editor continued to blank sourced content, perhaps a block would have been. On the other hand, LHvU's opinion is that I'm an involved editor, so that would seem to rule out a block. Was it really so inappropriate for me to seek guidance here? I don't think so. I wasn't wielding the mop, but I had one hand on the handle. Dppowell (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:AN might have been better, but I'm sorry I didn't read this sooner or I would have responded (something about the title of the thread repelled me). If you are acting as an editor in an article, the same editorial assistance is available to you as to any other editor -WP:3RR, WP:RFPP, etc. Just yesterday I asked for page protection for an article where there were some messy SPA/BLP issues because I had recently edited the article - a neutral admin made the decision. I *did* remove a BLP violation after protection, but that is explicitly covered under WP:BLP. Does that help? Risker (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A little. I think the reason I'm hung up on this is that I have never edited Conrad Black for content and didn't see myself as having "a horse in the race." I thought that by reverting the removal of properly sourced content, I was undoing obvious vandalism...but I wasn't sure, which is why I came here in the first place. :-) Dppowell (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Dppowell, I don't think it's that complicated. First of all, your reverts were not controversial. They haven't inflamed the situation. Secondly, there are a number of admins and non-admins who frequent AN and AN/I who would be more than happy for a quick one-to-one conference. Ask them - they're there to help. Regarding removal of sourced material, the question must always be "Is there a very good reason to revert this under the five pillars?" But that's an editorial decision, not an admin one. I think that here the golden rule surpassing all others for admins is that "If I would do this as an experienced editor, knowing as I do the fundaments of the encyclopedia, it must be OK for an admin to do so too". Wielding the mop is not something you've done here, so no worries. You have only acted as an editor, but let's look at your case exactly from an admin's POV, to finish. Firstly, don't go over 3RR - get someone else involved. An outside opinion is what you need here. If you're right, they'll tell you, and vice versa. Secondly, no admin powers were on the table, as I read your case. You weren't talking to people as an admin. Lastly, if you want to mop up because it's turned into a brawl (which it hasn't here) put a 48 hour prot on the article, send 'em all to talk, and remember that there's always plenty of admins around to look in and back you up. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Alasdair. The more I reflect upon it, the more I realize I was overthinking it. I have an irrational fear of being hauled up on this noticeboard and being accused of mop-abuse, and sometimes that leads me to think too far ahead. This was one such occasion. Dppowell (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine how intimidating it is for the average editor who's never paid attention to this page. Noroton (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Murphy9977

This user [55] continues to try to add inflammatory and admittedly unsourced comments to Joe Torre's page, in regards to the Mitchell Report. So far he has ignored warnings. This is not exactly vandalism, it's more like edit-warring, albeit conducted over 3 weeks time instead of constantly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to give this the "quick once over" and perhaps reply on the basis of taking it to AIV when they next transgress - but I saw the editors comments to Wknight94 and enacted a 31 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put it here instead of AIV because it was a bit more than just random vandalism. 31 hours might not be enough to get his attention, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It got their attention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship by User:Cryptic; requesting recall of his adminship

I politely requested he userfy an article and he responded by calling me a "spoiled child," which if not a personal attack is at least downright incivil as a response to a polite request which is why I gave him a warning. He responded by blocking me for "trolling" without any warning, without acknowledging that maybe his reply to a polite request was a bit unfriendly, and without even explaining on my talk page. Obviously, since I am commenting here, this block has been overturned after disapproval by multiple others (see [56], [57], and [58]). Again, blocking without warning, let alone responding to a polite request in such a disrespectful fashion, is totally unacceptable for an admin. Moreover, claiming he did it to prove a "point" seems a violation of WP:POINT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the block was punitive and ill-advised. Still, no wheel warring after it's release. though I am not an administrator, I'm not sure as to what can be done about it now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe User:Cryptic is a member of the group of administrators open to recall. I would suggest a RfC/Admin Conduct, and provide further information. The block was bad, and response not much better, I agree, but you'll need more then 1 bad incident to be taken seriously if you're going to put in a request to recall/desysop him. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of trolling probably stemmed from the fact that you gave an tenured admnistrator a "welcome to Wikipedia" warning, which probably was viewed as a deliberate slight. Although, I presume it was just an oversight. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have tenure? Awesome! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not in that sense. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone is tenured, they're hard to get rid of. Some folks resort to assassination, but that gets messy and can cause legal trouble. My usual approach is to ring their doorbell and run away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really warn editors that much and so when I went to the warning template page looking for an appropriate warning, I wanted to go with the lowest level one I could find and so just went with that template. In any event, AfDs and DRVs, as far as I am aware, are supposed to be discussions, not votes, i.e. discussions in which we engage and interact with each other. How does he respond to a discussion? Well, instead of say commenting on the topic under discussion, he comments on me instead. Now, it's not just with me. Notice this edit summary, which seems to be something of an assumption of bad faith. See also: confrontional comment, losing cool, unconstructive edit summary, etc., and from a quick look, it seems with ease I can find more if necessary, i.e. a rather unhelpful and unfriendly manner of dealing with others, which is totally unbecoming of an admin. Plus, looking at his own block log, the self blocks of thinking "MSK's unblock shows the system's still broke" and "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" are also somewhat wikidramatic and seem a bit of a concern for an admin. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Arbcom already set precedent in this sort of matter? [59]--Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If we start approaching this as tenure, then really RfA is just an opportunity for a tenure-track position, with, say, quarterly or bi-annual reviews. At the end of six-twelve months the review board (bureaucrats) can decide whether you become tenured; if so, you are no longer open to recall. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This bock and subsequent discussion here seems to go along with this one. Just pointing it out. Wizardman 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that regardless of what happens here, I now have a block on my log that I should not have, which is why for preventative purposes so that he does not abuse the tools again, I suggest one or more of the following as possible solutions: 1) some kind of similar length short block of his account; 2) loss of adminship; and/or 3) an apology. Now as far as how I approach AfDs and DRVS, I set up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Insults like this are not going to convince anybody of anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(keeping this short to avoid an EC, although I'm not an admin and have little standing to comment) The last time LGRdC was creating massive drama in this forum was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive424#Months of harassment from RobJ1981, where he claimed that he was so ill (kaff … kaff) that he would have to take a wikibreak, and all he wanted before he left was for another user to be blocked. Well, the other user was blocked, and, mirabile dictu, LGRdC came back a couple of days later as well as could be. Is there no one who can see this person for the lawyering, passive-aggressive, disruptive user that he is? Deor (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You really are going to mock someone for when they were sick?! Seriously?! As far as disruptive, maybe you should re-look at your own incivil personal attacks: [60] and [61]. Which is odd, given my multiple attempts to be nice and cooperative with you: [62], [63], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Waah, an admin has reminded me that I'm being a dick; quick, kick him out!' HalfShadow 02:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

HalfShadow, retract that personal attack, please. Deor, this is rather bizarre behavior from the two of you.. what gives? SirFozzie (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but arbcom has clearly stated that blocks are not to be used in disputes, much less to "remind someone they're a 'dick'"--Cube lurker (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, but I'm not going to retract anything. Giving an admin a welcome template as a response to a failure to userfy an article is just not in the cards. Block me too, if you want; the spectacle of sysops falling all over themselves to accommodate the Pumpkin's every wish is just more than I can stand. Deor (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, I deny that either of the diffs that Pumpkin linked to above constitute "incivil personal attacks". This is my last contribution to this thread. Deor (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I gave him a warning for making a personal attack. I am not asking admins to "fall all over themselves to accomodate me", but to prevent future bad blocks. I'm not looking for revenge or something, just reassurance that such things won't happen in the future. Jumping into this discussion just like you did at the one you linked to previously does not help. And as I've said, it is really disappointing that you continue to be mean to my even though I have tried to be nice to you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, how is this being a "dick"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record: he told you 'no', then, when he expanded on that because you didn't like the terminology he used, you first templated him and now you're suggesting he be de-sysopped. Admins do all the work around here and I'm tired of seeing them be dumped on because your feelings have been hurt. HalfShadow 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

After he said, "no," I politely explained my request. Did it really justify this response? As for the allegation against me, I respectfully asked the deleting admin about the closure and he suggested I go to DVR, which I did. Trying to talk to admins politely should not receive such a harsh response. And it's not about my "feelings," but a concern of this kind of thing happening again to anyone, not just me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's to me that's why I added the single 'quotes'--Cube lurker (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of LGRdC's present and past behavior, Cryptic should not have blocked him himself simply for templating him, even if that's not exactly the friendliest thing to be doing. If LGRdC is behaving unacceptably, I'd suggest a user RFC or other steps in dispute resolution. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Morven here (shock). Y'all got into a spat and Cryptic made a bad block. It's not a blockable offense to template the regulars but it's an act of shocking tactlessness that leaves me feeling rather unsympathetic. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be the nicest thing to "template a regular" but that's one of the worst blocks I've seen in quite some time. Cryptic needs to offer a full explanation. - auburnpilot talk 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty self-evident, doesn't it? By explanation, do you actually mean apology? Because you're can't compel one of those. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't really warn people and just went with what seemed the tamest one on the warnings page after he made this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's no kind of an answer--you've been here a few years and appear to have a grasp of the language. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, with regards to warnings for comments like that would you suggest I do? Is it appropriate to give some kind of warning and if so what? Yes, I have been here for a while, but there is a good deal I haven't worked on or really think I know a lot about. Warnings are one area that I haven't really worked on; plus, I did not check his contrib history to see how long he's been around. So, I know for the future, what would be the way to go when someone calls you a "spoiled child"? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You say, "Hey, please don't engage in personal attacks." or "That was uncalled for, I'll ask a different admin." I think that is what is meant by not using templates and you having command of the language ;-) Avruch 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it ever okay to warn admins? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't really play into it - its generally considered impolite to template anyone but a newbie, there is a page about it at WP:DTTR. Avruch 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that's kind of funny. Try to ues an essay in an afd and you get berated for it because it has no weight. Violate another in user space you get blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While the block was uncalled for and definitely not appropriate, LGRdC's actions aren't exactly perfect either. I think emotions were high on both sides, and frankly, LGRdC, despite the civility he conducts his discussions with, often irritates or aggravates users with his rationales. In this light, I could see Cryptic taking a templated message (to an administrator, really? That's really tactless) as trolling. This naturally does not excuse his conduct, and he should have been cool-headed despite the situation, but this is probably the situation he felt he was getting into. That said, going back to the original intent of the thread, you're not going to get him dysopped for this. Nowadays, the requirement for revoking adminship is more or less massive OMG drama that ends up at ArbCom, which this definitely is not. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, as I said above, I saw a personal attack or incivil comment and thought the correct response was to post some kind of warning message. While I do welcome a lot of editors, I really don't warn them unless it's the anon vandal warning template when I revert first time vandalism. If you look at the discussion that brought us here, I made a really polite request and responded to his initial response in a still respecftul manner. If admins look at the contribution history of the article in question, you'll see that it was one that I was indeed in the process of make serious revisions to. As for revoking adminship, it was just one of a few ideas presented above as a possible preventitive measure. In any event, the weather sirens are going off here as we have a tornado warning. So, with that, I guess good bye for now. And again, anyone is invited to my deletion talk page indicated above to offer constructive criticisms and advice. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, your response to an uncivil comment was a templated message, which again, is really tactless, and users can take it the wrong way. If someone gives an actual response (regardless of the civility), and you respond with a template, then it's basically like a slap in the face. You're implying (not that I'm saying you were implying this, which you weren't; however, this is how it's taken most of the time) that you don't want to waste time to write an actual message and you're simply falling back to templated messages to end the conversation. Again, I'm not saying your intent was wrong or that the block was justified (quite the contrary); however, you have to admit that it was a rather tactless act, especially for a user such as yourself that has been here for so long and should be familiar with such things. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, dropping a few words as someone who's worked with Roi a long time (both antagonistically and cooperatively--check his block log). As far as I can tell, Roi rarely does the template thing and probably wasn't aware that templating an established editor is considered rude. A word to the wise is sufficient: sysop or not, when someone's been around a while the custom is to open a dialog. Would someone consider doing a one second block to notate his block log, if he's amenable? It wasn't a blockable action, and one bad block almost never leads to recall (almost--check my ops history). The bottom line here for those who don't know him is that Roi is an inclusionist; a scrupulously polite editor who didn't used to play by the rules but learned his lesson and who expects those who have different wikiphilosophies from his to play by the rules too. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• As an admin, given the community's trust, doesn't cryptic need to address this, he knows this thread is here. [64]--Cube lurker (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• [did it myself - nvm! Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]
  • It is my hope that for anyone who has any advice for me to make use of the chart I made at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and to offer constructive ideas on that pages talk page. In any event, regarding that user, please note that an admin has already said as much. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cryptic should accept an appropriate punishment and in future try not to perform privileged tasks which might be perceived as emotive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing that really had me here is that usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I didn't add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child." In other words, it really isn't that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I didn't demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic responded very rudely to a very reasonable request (and I think someone else should see to it that the deleted article gets userfied for him); templating him for that was a misstep, but a minor one. For Cryptic to then block Roi was a huge misstep, however, and calls into question his suitability for adminship. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman has userfied it for me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated rudeness and a retaliatory block is troubling, I agree. Let's hope it was just a one-off by someone who was having a bad day. If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we can condemn his action all we want, but this is really too far. We all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that. If it does it again, file an RfC on his conduct. If it continues past that, go to ArbCom. Trying stuff like that isn't constructive and really, is just plain rude. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone hectoring Cryptic like that does not help anyone, particularly Bstone. Neıl 龱 10:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be something wrong with asking someone to resign their adminship? Everyking (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not what he said, it's how he said it. Neıl 龱 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If Cryptic was open to recall, that would be reasonable. Cryptic isn't in the category, so probably doesn't consider himself open to recall. It is a poorly worded request; it starts from the invalid assumption that Bstone has a right to make the request. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "every admin gets one free" attitude so prevalent around here. I'm all for forgiveness and understand that we all make mistakes every once in awhile, but Cryptic has not yet been an acknowledged that what he did was out of line. Of course, we can never force someone to apologize, but we sure can take away his admin tools if he doesn't address this issue before when he starts blocking again. HiDrNick! 12:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Contributors are humans with lives; Cryptic has not contributed for several hours now. 2) One of the early steps in dispute resolution is disengaging; before heading off (to bed?) he acknowledged the thread, and appears to be intentionally choosing not to participate in it. This is reasonable. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really wish that Badlydrawnjeff was still active. He'd be a good advisor to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. They share a philosophy, but jeff was a lot better at communicating and working with those who disagreed with him. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up a completely separate issue involving Cryptic that I feel is quite similar to the one being presented here, but shows pattern. I've been trying to get an explanation from Cryptic for almost two months now as to why they had placed a block on my account for a couple of days without any discussion, notice, or warning. Since then, I've asked several times for them to bring clarity to the issue, but have received little to no feedback from Cryptic. I've hunted for quotes to policies and have even brought up examples of other users with the same "violation" Cryptic very briefly claimed I made, but have gotten absolutely no response. To me, this, along with the new incident, shows a solid history of poor communication and abuse of admin tools by Cryptic. I would like to see these issues with Cryptic escalated as well. What can be done? Roguegeek (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IP hitting my talk hard

Resolved

 – Thanks Antandrus _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably the same person since the re-direct is the same but this isn't pretty and being as it's almost midnight here, I'd like to not come back to a history full of that in the morning. Not sure about temporaily semi-ing my own page, but can someone have a look? IPs are, as of now.

• 189.177.40.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.128.205.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.184.82.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.11.98.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks, for whoever is awake and can handle. Appears like it would be whack-a-mole. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of process redirect being attempted (again) at Reaction to Tim Russert's death

There is a merge discussion happening at the above page, and now the users who failed to have the page deleted at AfD are attempting to redirect it during the middle of this discussion, apparently as a backdoor to getting their way. Also, there's some other guy named Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The that redirected it without even bothering to join the discussion first. Whatever side of the merge discussion one falls on, this is wildly inappropriate. S. Dean Jameson 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "out of process" redirect. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When we're in the middle of a merge discussion, that you didn't even bother to join, after a contentious AfD, that you took no part in, then yes, there ARE out-of-process redirects, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The. You did something that you had to KNOW would be contentious, in the middle of a discussion that was not even CLOSE to being finished. S. Dean Jameson 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion? If I recall correctly, you complained about the result of the AfD (which wasn't actually in your disfavor) here on ANI. When you didn't get what you wanted immediately, you "retired" from Wikipedia, saying you scrambled your password (which you clearly didn't do). Now, you come back just so you can revert a couple times and then start another ANI thread. Whatever discussion is taking place, or was taking place, on the talk page, you didn't seem interested in participating in it. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Be bold. Of course I've no intention of getting into a squabble over this, but as the Tim Russert article covers the events more than amply and more material can be copied from the history of the Reaction to Tim Russert's death if it's really necessary, and moreover the redirect can be reverted at any time, my edit was utterly harmless and merely acted as a polite nod in what I consider to be a productive direction. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)